A Reason to Hate
I hate those who regard vain idols, but I trust in the Lord. Psalm 31:6 NASB
Hate– In a age of banal religious convictions, hate is one of those emotions that end up on the psychological chopping block. Hate expresses strong repulsion, and as such, stands in utter opposition to the decree of political tolerance foisted upon the population by progressives. To hate is to exhibit bigotry (of some kind). Even in a world ripped apart by incompatible ideologies of violence, no one wants to admit that there are reasonable grounds for hate. Except, of course, if you’re a follower of YHVH. If you are, then hate (śinʾâ) is a very important and crucial personal and corporate expression of devotion.
David declares that he hates idolaters. Read it carefully. David does not say that he hates idolatry but still has regard for the poor lost souls of those who have made such a terrible mistake. David is not an adherent of the school “hate the sin, love the sinner.” He flat out says that there is nothing worthwhile in those who (literally) “keep watch (guard) over idols.” As far as David is concerned, they are reprobate and deserve God’s wrath. The verb could hardly be stronger. TWOT notes that śānēʾ
expresses an emotional attitude toward persons and things which are opposed, detested, despised and with which one wishes to have no contact or relationship. It is therefore the opposite of love. Whereas love draws and unites, hate separates and keeps distant. The hated and hating persons are considered foes or enemies and are considered odious, utterly unappealing.[1]
In other words, David isn’t going to spend one ounce of energy or one second of his time trying the reach such cretins. This is a far cry from the evangelical obsession with recruitment. It should make us question Yeshua’s involvement with those who were outcasts in society. Do we ever see Yeshua attempt a conversation with an idolater?
Notice why David hates idolaters. He makes the reason clear in the poetic poetry of antithesis. David trusts YHVH. Idolaters do not. The reason why David asserts absolute repulsion of those who watch over idols is because that action is a repudiation of YHVH’s character. David doesn’t hate idolaters because they have been duped into false religious beliefs. That’s a Western critique. David’s entire song has been about the character of God and these people who express devotion toward other gods impugn and insult YHVH. So David wants nothing to do with them, and rightly so. This is not about cognitive mistakes. This is about a completely different orientation in life. If you want to feel this difference today, consider the murderous ill will between the Jihadist and the Jew. There simply is no common ground. Perhaps our evangelical penchant for tolerance needs adjustment.
Topical Index: śānēʾ, to hate, idolatry, evangelism, Psalm 31:6
[1]Gerard Van Groningen, śānēʾ, in R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 1999 (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (880).
When you say that “Yeshua did not attempt a conversation with an idolater” do you mean he didn’t start the conversation? Or, are you saying, he might have been positioned at the right place in time which he was able to confront an individual with truth and truth was accepted or not by that person (I.e. woman at the well, woman caught in adultery, Zaccheus, the centurion…)
I mean there aren’t any conversations recorded between Yeshua and a person who actively worships a false god. Everyone you listed still recognized YHVH, even the centurion. Right?
Ok, so if we have individuals who believe in Yeshua (Jesus), most of which from a Greek understanding, but love Jesus, but are involved in various forms of idol worship (not intentionally but out of trauma, or not having a community who valued and lived out Torah), would it be appropriate to put them in the same category as the one’s I mentioned above?
The past several days’ postings have been rich for me…thank you, Skip, for your faithful effort to articulate the Biblical communique and encourage our faith and loyalty to our God…Creator, redeemer, and rescuer!
Concerning Yeshua not having a conversation with an idolator, you may be right. Though he did have an interaction with Pilate, whom I assume was an idolator. Granted, it was not much of a conversation that we know of. However, he did possibly mean to affirm that he was king of the Jews as Pilate had asked. I’m not certain. Pilate asked if he was king and Yeshua merely replied, “As you say”. It could be he was just saying that he was leaving it up to Pilate to decide for himself what he believed. Nevertheless, he did converse a bit there and seemed to be trying to make some point to him.
Nevertheless, aren’t there examples of the apostles and/or the prophets having conversations with idolators? Consider Shaul, in speaking to those who worshiped idols and even one dedicated to an unknown god? And I wonder about Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, whether or not he was an idolator, for if he was, we know Moses conversed much with him. But certainly Jacob conversed with his father-in-law, Laban, and we know he worshiped idols, as did Jacob’s wives, along with their father and servant master, Laban.
I’m just not sure, also, and maybe more importantly, that David’s hatred of idolators is to be taken as intructive by YHVH as the way He would have us feel toward idolators, not to speak of it being the way He would have us behave. David wore his heart on his sleeve, but that does not mean that he was always representing YHVH, as was Messiah.
According to TWOT you note, “The hated and hating persons are considered foes or enemies and are considered odious, utterly unappealing.[1]” However, Yeshua is quoted as saying, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” [Mat 5:43-44]
Maybe David is not an adherent of the school “hate the sin, love the sinner.” But maybe YHVH and Yeshua are, and maybe we should be too, even if sometimes we honestly do hate idolators. Heck, we sometimes hate those who aren’t, but that doesn’t mean we should. Right? Are we to follow David in everything? God forbid!
Really enjoyed your comments and perspectives! Thanks!
Thanks for saying so, Larry. I appreciate it. Blessings!
Appreciate your comments and perspectives. With regard to Yeshua’s “Sermon on the Mount”…He says, “Love your enemies…you must therefore be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt 5:43-48). “Perfect” here appears to carry the same connotation as “blameless” in Gen 17:1, Deut.18:13 and Ps 18 [ tamim ]; that is, wholly, fully or completely God’s. I see how this fits the context of our redemption as Skip commented on in yesterday’s Today’s Word (June 28), and is consistent with the context of Matthew 5-6.
I’m thankful for this community and the insights it provides for all of us.
On perfect, see Matthew Wilson, The Simplicity of Holiness, for a better definition of the reference to the verse in the Tanakh from the Sermon on the Mount.
On “love your enemies,” Now you recognize just how radical that commandment is.
I get the impression we don’t know much about what love really is. And because we don’t, we don’t know much about hatred, either?
Love is about connection: love allows for two way transmission, but I have noticed that even though YHVH loves sinners (His “enemies”?), He is not infected with their sin, nor does He allow them to dominate Him or change His character (make that QUALIFIED – perhaps unilateral – transmission for “enemies”, then?). I have noticed that when I get the order of love confused, I end up getting slung around by the sin of others I am attempting to ‘love’ BECAUSE I have put them first before God.
Michael Stanley has pointed out that love is about exclusivity: no one and nothing comes between lovers. Hate, then, would be about something or someone in between the true lovers, maybe? All idolatry is about coming in between God and His rightful creation. Therefore, all idolators “hate God”.
We are created to revere (awe) our Lover. If we are not clear about Who that is, we can be confused (yep! I’m talking about meself, here) and end up putting someone or something else on that throne instead. We can be talked into it (or talk ourselves into it in the name of manipulation or other versions of performing for love). There is love for God (the best) and love for all other (the rest). In that context, we are supposed to “hate” all that is not God, right?
But if we are connected to the love of God – if He is supreme in our lives – then, and only then, is it possible to love others. In that context, I have to “hate” all my relatives relative to my love for God before His love, working through me, can reach those relatives. At that point, they may not like the order in which they find themselves loved (think Muslim families who find a believer in their midst), but they will be getting loved correctly in the order heaven ordains.
I find that others who enjoyed me putting them on the throne of their definition of love are feeling “hated” sometimes these days by me (that is what they tell me, anyway), but, in my heart I find myself enjoying the freedom and ability to love them correctly the way heaven wants me to love them. Perhaps “hate” is in the viewpoint of the recipient in this context? I know that I feel free and loving toward them in my heart, even though they may be feeling rather “hated”. Hmm
What I read you are saying is that we must learn what is meant by sacrifing our life for a person in need. The samarithan parable be a neighbour not seek a neighbour… Two different focus points… Giving versus receiving.
Thank you, Richard. Certainly, to be blameless cannot mean without sin. Maybe the meaning is more in keeping with being characteristically blameless, as in one who is hardly found to be with sin, whether in thought word, deed. motive, attitude, or the like. Personally, I’d settle for that even, especially toward those difficult to love, idolators and enemies, etc..
“Hate”…is it only a strong emotion? Or, like “love”, is it the activity and demonstration of living within the context of truth in our lives…actions that demonstrate and are consistent with our genuine existential conditions, particularly as it concerns our individual relationship to God? The answer is ultimately displayed in our relationships with mankind…and with the entire creation.
Hating our brother can be the silence that covers sin by not having the intestinal fortitude to reveal those inconvenient and confronting truths by hiding our discerned judgments when God needs us to reflect the truth of that person back to him for growth. As we judge so we will be judged…how can I grow if you won’t love me by judging me righteously…..now that is hate amongst brethren….. Love is interactive at the extremes of closeness and even with no room to move our weakness lets us wriggle out. We so often stop the process to make love hate-filled and stilted instead of breathing in trust that the greater hand is over us in the confrontation for truth to reign over us and in us. Be blessed. FJ
It appears David’s zeal for YHWH was so great that he considered anyone who didn’t agree with His theology and devotion to Yah as being worthy of hatred, spite and malice. Perhaps one of his own descendants would later rework his idea and state “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
Given everything Yeshua taught we don’t believe that He was telling his disciples to actively “hate” their family, but that our love toward Him must be so great that everything else pales by comparison. Perhaps Yeshua was showing He will be the greater King by showing Himself not only to be the better statesman, but on how to best interpret our strongest emotions. As our King He still requires complete submission and loyalty to Yah, but not by expending hatred to the detriment of love. Love, like hate, can be all consuming.
There will yet come a time when believers will be so persecuted (even by family) that they will be tempted, like David, to hate anyone who doesn’t love and obey YHWH, yet we have an example in Yeshua of how to “hate them” by loving Yah so greatly that we can forgive those who revile us, torment and kill us. Tough love.
“Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated”. Here “hate” refers to “not equal to”, or, “second”, right?
I loved someone who did not revere YHVH: I put this person on a par with those who were commandment keepers. I gave this person a ‘right’ to call the shots: a ‘right’ to the benefit of the doubt, just as if they were part of the Body. Disaster! All that did was to make me a tail on a donkey: a tail, and not a head. I realize now that love and hate are about the best and the rest. Anything or anyone who you put as best (or are manipulated into putting them there as a ‘test’ of your ‘love’) is then an idol, clear and simple. People do this to each other all the time – in the name of love, no less – because self worship is rampant. We demand loyalty tests of each other to ‘prove’ love, but these tests require the substitution of someone or something other than God in the place of God; in the place of love.
I think “call no man your master” is about hating (prioritizing) anything or anyone who is not themselves under the authority of heaven. We help no one when we allow them to cut in front – literally to enjoy our own place – between ourselves and our God. These days it is easier for me to say “I will check with my Yoke Buddy and get back to you on that”.
All sin says “love me, love my idol”. The world is confused about love. It is our job to disabuse the world of its notion of love. We say “I love you” to the world WITHOUT loving what it loves, and the world perceives it as hate because we were created to be the image (identity) of our G(g)od. From the sinner’s perspective, there is no discernible difference between his identity and his idols. If you say “I love you”, they will reply “prove it by loving what I love”. If you reply “I love God more than your (idol) they will hear “I hate YOU”. It is a hearing problem based on an identity disorder.
I think the world suffers from identity disorder; it identifies with its idols, for identity is what love (connection) provides. When YHVH pronounces that Moab is “joined to his idols” He says “let him alone”. That is respect for Moab’s choice, but when love lets you alone you don’t have just an identity problem; you have an existence problem! Moab disappeared. I guess (from Moab’s perspective, anyway) YHVH’s respect for Moab’s choice may, in the end, not have been experienced much like what we think of as “tolerance” (let alone)?
I somehow don’t think there is such a thing as real tolerance (world’s definition, anyway, where folks can somehow avoid getting tangled up (connected) with each other), for disconnection is about non-existence as love is about the connections of existence.
I think we can choose co-existence or no existence, but there is no choice called “yo’ existence”.
Laurita I like your view on tolerance. Letting go, permitting to living out own choice and carrying own burden associated with the choice. Tolerance is therefore putting the blaming in the right context -consequence-is your own.. If I understand correct.
Seeker, you brought up an interesting angle: real tolerance (as per the example of YHVH and Moab) is about requiring whatever to carry its own weight. Yep.
In my experience, evil (to modify the observation of another) is not just about “good men doing nothing”: evil is all about getting you to tote its bag of rocks while it makes a run for it. If, however, we just stand there while it pitches its little pity party or self-righteous posturing whatever it thinks we are going to fall for and say “that’s great: now let’s see you stand up and walk around on your own two feet” the whole thing will collapse. Because evil never did have any power or validity of it’s own: it always needs yours.
We as believers are not in a flesh and blood war..Yeshua came to expose what we really are too hate. He came to expose the bene Elohim that left their heavenly position and rebeled against Yah and captivate people. He not only defeated them he’s put them on notice your end is coming. Though it’s easy to hate people and see the evil they are capable of doing,that’s not where the true battle is . Because we have not discerned this rightly we still are making it a flesh and blood war . We have become hateful and pitiful people towards others. We were once idolators and in something’s we still are.
Looking at the verse from a different angle, it could be translated as, ” I have despised the guarding (the guardians) of the idols (the baals). Although “baal” can mean “lord” or even something worthless, it’s deeper connotation is in regards to a willing surrender of your sovereignty. (reign) The picture is simple but fascinating. Bet- inside the house and lamed-towards, what’s inside me, I hand over to you. The “baal” is “worthless” because he doesn’t exist on his own strength but rather by the stealing of others strength. A good example of this abuse in our modern times (the term is not inherently bad, it’s the twisting of it that’s a problem) is P.C. adherence. “no, you’re not free to think, you have to think whatever we think is thinkable.” But, that’s not how the Kingdom of YHWH operates and is contrary to it and therefore the true life it expresses. There are still lots of “guardians” to hate, but not because they have no value as men, but hating what they do to a society they operate in, and the mindset that’s passed to the following generations. To deny a man of the ability to think for himself, is to deny the very thing that makes him a man as in the Image of God. It kills the creativity, willpower and freedom of all men and returns them to a slavery of cruel masters. No wonder David states this so strongly. Do we practice intolerance to these people? No, but we see what the results of their intolerance for others and vain words (empty words) results in and we counter it effectively and boldly.
Robert, how do we “counter it effectively and boldly”? These “stealers of others’ strength”; these self-styled guardians of all that would require us to surrender our God-given sovereignty? When you put it like that; well, they are everywhere! If we “tolerate” them, we are, in effect, ceding to them; in other words, loving them by allowing them to exist unmolested. How do we act at cross-purposes, instead, (hate) towards all that would vilify (lessen our – or others’ – blessings) without crossing over the boundaries that sovereignty gives us all in the first place? When people don’t want to hear what you have to say they invoke their sovereignty really fast. They say “mind your own business” or they tell you that you are being judgmental or insensitive or TOO sensitive, etc.
Shame is how we try to get others to leave us alone, even though (and especially when) we are being shameless in our trespassing of the sovereignty of others in those parasitical or pharisaical attempts to leach off others. ESPECIALLY when we have decided that we want to leach off of them! (In the name of love, of course.) All sin derives its power off of the good: all sin is a parasite. All false gods are purveyors of the God-given values in creation. They deal in stolen goods taken from creation by the lies about love that only evil can make up.
I have noticed that there are huge chinks in sin. Sin does not make any sense, but the #1 thing sin tries to hide is that fact. Sin appeals to pride; lust; laziness; fear, etc: all of which bypass the reasoning centers that would alert us to the fact that (whatever it is) won’t work or is stupid or is dependent upon others propping it up with a validity it didn’t start out with. If we open our mouths to point out the obvious (my other favorite word for “truth”), however, we get attacked because sin knows perfectly well what the truth is (because that is what it is going to such great lengths to avoid) and acts preemptively to ward it off at the pass; usually by some sort of force. If you want to say the truth, expect a fight.
My question is, how do we pick those fights?
“How do we pick those fights?” We are not to cast pearls before swine. I think about the times Yeshua was silent. A person whose conscience is not seared can be reached by the well-placed phrase or the convicting action (done without condemnation). I have to be carefully observant of the other’s actions. I have to be in connection with YHVH so that He can reach me on that intuitive (inspired, “in-spirited”) level about what I am witnessing.
Laurita, I’d like your input on another perspective of shame: Shame is how we try to get (read: manipulate) others to do what we want. Like the child wanting to get his or her ‘way’ without compliance mentioned in another post, the shaming is a judgment, in essence, on the shamed-one. “Let me leach off you, or else…” is the message. Yeshua never fell victim to the shame-blame-game of the leaders of his day. He stood in Yah’s truth and they conspired to kill him. Methinks I need to read the gospels with this question in mind. How did Yeshua pick his fights?
Leslee, I lived with a shame-meister. I fell for it (in the name of righteousness, of course) I think just about every way there is, and in the process, I started to notice a few things.
I noticed that shame only works if you have been induced (read: tricked or forced or manipulated(!) into failing your own definition of righteousness in some way. The shamer is going to go for the jugular of YOUR sense of righteousness (which they may or may not share with you, at least theoretically). If you have lied in some way, or have failed to stay in connection with (especially) the shamer – avoided them, their sense of rejection is going to pick up on that double time and they are going to come swinging “I thought you said you LOVED ME!”. Yikes!
So how do you stay available (notice I did NOT say actually connected) to a sinner? In other words, some people are safe to be honorable around, which is to say, we can extend honor in anticipation that it will be returned (actions of connection). Sinners, however, are not free to return honor, necessarily. (There is your “pearls before swine”.) I think of it as a neutral gear: I retain the freedom to go forwards OR backwards depending on what the other person does, but in my experience, with a lot of folks you need to keep a good getaway distance. Now, to a godly person, that getaway is not a hedge bet: that would be how the world and the flesh handle each toxic other, but we must not do that. Neutral is different.
I think neutrality is an art. It is the art of genuine friendliness without extending your own power (choices) to another. A good person on the other end will not require you to limit your choices because of them; but we must not give anyone sovereignty (power of choice) over us. The flesh will keep a cynical foot in the door, so to speak (hedge bet). Genuine love does not do that; it is sincere when it extends the right hand of fellowship, but it does not sacrifice its honor either. Neutral is a gear that I think is manufactured only in heaven and can only be employed by the sincere in heart.
Shame says “you forfeit your ‘right’ to your own next move to me because you wronged me.” We have to learn that sin only has the right to shame us if it has been able to trick us or force us into making a preemptive move to cut our connection with another (which moves us out of neutral territory). Yeshua never excluded Himself from others: He never made an aggressive OR defensive move. He just kept the ball in the other’s court. We, too, have to learn to never fall for engagement with the enemy, for sin requires us to engage (love) on it’s terms. We must make all the bold moves of getting right up TO the other person (because, of course, they are stuck), but require them to make the decisive move that activates the promise of honor that we hold out. That keeps us the head, and not the tail.
Reporting from the front. I will get back to you with more when I can figure it out. Hope somebody else can help us here, too!
Laurita you have me thinking on Paul’ view. We are all one body but different parts and functions some have more natural glory or beauty. ÀThose less honorable (my words) we clothe more to cover their shame (or is it to hide ours).
We remind reprimand. Yeshau said three times. Modern application once alone. Second with a witness. Third time in front of the gathering. As this is tolerance but not acceptance is this what clothing is all about. Getting others to the point of self introspection and accepting the responsibility to invvest their time and effort to do what must be done to change… Clothe themselves. We cannot dress them, we can but provide the means and process.
When others fail to dress themselves we can do no more.
I once had such a dream… Trying to fit into a church lifestyle I did not agree on I always found myself naked in proximity of that specific gathering. As nudity was not permitted I could not be part of the gatherinng. Until one day an individual gave me a pair of pants from her late husband to wear. Although this was too small I was at least partially clothed and was permitted to at least join her group within the gathering…
Now we can interpret the dream as we may,and respond accordingly…
Was it not Yeshau that used the parable of being dressed for a wedding. No guests dressed appropriate so go to corners of street and find and invite those dresed appropriately.
Then John revealed this appropriate dress code. Deeds of the righteous. Nothing more nothing less.
Providing means to be righteous and not be self-righteous. Not covering up to suite the gathering but becoming the change needed or rather believing in the name Yeshau. Doing greater and sometimes more works than the one who helped us shape up to glorify YHVH…
Maybe the better question is, how do we fight those picks. I’m pretty sure that those encounters are chosen for us for a purpose. It’s interesting that Jerry and Lisa brought up the fact that Yeshua spoke to Pilate, but it’s how He spoke to him that is important. Pilate insisted that he had power over Him, Yeshua corrected him in that, whatever “power” he had, was granted to him from above. BTW, that power from above was why Yeshua was there in that place as well and while He didn’t dismiss Pilate’s sin, He also let him know that others were more responsible. (the greater sin) Think about how it would have been to be in Pilate’s shoes at that moment, but he was a product and a pawn of that environment and even in his sin, he was shown mercy. Then there’s Herod. He didn’t say a word, yet more was said to him than Pilate, but they were two different picks and He fought them accordingly. As Leslee said, it would do us well to review the gospel accounts with a view to how Yeshua handled the encounters given to Him, putting aside any preconceived notions of whether He felt one way or another towards a particular group and learn from Him. Oddly enough, the prayer of Jabez comes to mind here. …..increase my boundaries making it being manifest that your hand is with me, and guard me from evil that it may not grieve me.
Skip, in scripture are the terms “hate“ and “love” sometimes used in the context of covenant? For example, What God says about his relationship to Jacob and Esau comes to mind.
“Hate” = I am not in covenant agreement/ relationship with you.
“Love” = I am in covenant agreement/ relationship with you.
Is it possible that David is simply saying he doesn’t make covenant agreements with idolaters instead he trusts in the Lord?
It’s possible, but I don’t think the context allows this. Notice the rest of the psalm. It is about conflict in the royal court and family issues. Let’s see what develops in the next few days.