Is the aversion of the will to any object considered by us as evil, or to any person or thing we suppose can do us harm.
See ANTITATHY. Hatred is ascribed to God, but is not to be considered as a passion in him as in man; nor can he hate any of the creatures he has made as his creatures. Yet he is said to hate the wicked, Psa 5:5; and indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, will be upon every soul of man that does evil.
See WRATH OF GOD.
(
):
By: Kaufmann Kohler
Feeling of bitter hostility and antagonism toward others. It is intrinsically wrong when the good is hated, but it is proper to hate the evil. The Decalogue speaks of those that hate God (Ex. xx. 5; Deut. v. 9); so also Num. x. 35; Deut. vii. 10, xxxii. 41; Ps. lxxxiii. 3 (A.V. 2). To hate such persons is declared by the Psalmist to be meritorious (Ps. cxxxix. 21-22); for they are the wicked ones that "hate instruction" (Ps. 1. 17), "right" (Job xxxiv. 17), "knowledge" (Prov. i. 22, 29), and "him that rebuketh in the gate" (Amos v. 10). The prophet expressly admonishes men to "hate the eviland love the good," in order to "establish judgment in the gate" (Amos v. 15). God Himself hates whatever is abominable or morally perverse (Deut. xii. 31, xvi. 22; Isa. i. 14, lxi. 8; Amos v. 21; Hos. ix. 15; Zech. viii. 17; Mal. ii. 16; Ps. v. 6 [5], xi. 5; Prov. vi. 16). Likewise men should "hate evil" (Ps. xcvii. 10; Prov. viii. 13), "covetousness" (Ex. xviii. 21), "wickedness" (Ps. xlv. 8 [7]), especially "every false way" (Ps. cxix. 104), and accordingly the congregations of "evil-doers" (Ps. xxvi. 5) and "them that regard lying vanities" (Ps. xxxi. 7 [6]).
Hatred is unbrotherly where love should prevail, and therefore the Law says, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart" (Lev. xix. 17). This prohibition is not, as is often asserted with reference to Matt. v. 43 et seq., confined to kinsmen (see Brotherly Love). Only idolaters and doers of evil are excluded from the universal law of love (Deut. vii. 2-10), whereas even an enemy's beast should be treated with kindness (Ex. xxiii. 5-6). One ought not to rejoice at the destruction of the man that hateth him (Job xxxi. 29; Prov. xxv. 21 et seq.). The hatred most frequently denounced in the Psalms is that caused by no wrong-doing on the part of the hated and persecuted one (Ps. xxxv. 19, lxix. 5 [4], cix. 5). It was this hatred without reason which caused the brothers of Joseph to do evil (Gen. xxxvii. 4).
"Hatred without cause" ("sine'at ḥinnam") is therefore the rabbinical term for the vice of hatred: and the Talmud is emphatic in denouncing it. On its account the Second Temple was destroyed (Yoma 9b). It undermines domestic peace (Shab. 32b). It is equal in wickedness to any one of the three capital sins (Yoma 9b). To leave no doubt as to the extent of the prohibition of hatred, the Rabbis use the term "sine'at ha-beriyyot" (hatred of fellow creatures; see Creature), and condemn such hatred as is detrimental to the welfare of mankind (Abot ii. 11). "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer," is Pharisaic as well as New Testament teaching (R. Eliezer in Derek Ereẓ Rabbah xiii. is prior to I John iii. 15). On the other hand, the Rabbis maintain the same sound view regarding the necessity of hatred of sin and of all things or persons of an evil character as that inculcated by the Old Testament. The impudent man who hates God should be hated (Ta'an. 7b). So should all those heretics and informers who alienate the people from their Father in heaven (Ab. R. N. xvi.; Shab. 116a), and he who is a wrong-doer in secret (Pes. 113b), for God Himself hates persons who lack modesty and purity of conduct (Nid. 16b) and indulge in lasciviousness (Sanh. 93a). Only those who deserve love are included in the command of love; those who are hated by God on account of their evil ways should be hated by men (Ab. R. N., after Ps. cxxxix. 21 et seq.).
HATRED.—Personal hatred is permitted in the OT, but forbidden in the NT (Mat 5:43-45). Love is to characterize the Christian life (Mat 22:37-40). The only hatred it can express is hatred of evil (Heb 1:9, Jud 1:23, Rev 2:6; Rev 17:15). In Luk 14:26 and Joh 12:25 the use of the verb ‘hate’ by Jesus is usually explained as Oriental hyperbole; and we are gravely assured that He did not mean hate, but only love less than some other thing. It would seem fairer to suppose that He meant what He said and said what He meant; but that the hatred He enjoined applied to the objects mentioned only so far as they became identified with the spirit of evil and so antagonistic to the cause of Christ.
D. A. Hayes.
The passion opposed to love, aversion for a thing, for a person, or for his actions or qualities. It is justifiable to hate or loathe the evil deeds or habits of another, as this can be done without hating the person. It is never permitted to hate another with hostile sentiment or action, wishing him ill, rejoicing over his sufferings, injuring him in any way no matter how abominable his deeds or qualities may be. Hatred for things appears chiefly in what is known as odium theologicum, the hatred of a religion or of those who profess it.
Hatred in general is a vehement aversion entertained by one person for another, or for something more or less identified with that other. Theologians commonly mention two distinct species of this passion. One (odium abominationis, or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself. The second sort (odium inimicitiae, or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way. This second kind of hatred, as involving a very direct and absolute violation of the precept of charity, is always sinful and may be grievously so. The first-named species of hatred, in so far as it implies the reprobation of what is actually evil, is not a sin and may even represent a virtuous temper of soul. In other words, not only may I, but I even ought to, hate what is contrary to the moral law. Furthermore one may without sin go so far in the detestation of wrongdoing as to wish that which for its perpetrator is a very well-defined evil, yet under another aspect is a much more signal good. For instance, it would be lawful to pray for the death of a perniciously active heresiarch with a view to putting a stop to his ravages among the Christian people. Of course, it is clear that this apparent zeal must not be an excuse for catering to personal spite or party rancour. Still, even when the motive of one’s aversion is not impersonal, when, namely, it arises from the damage we may have sustained at the hands of others, we are not guilty of sin unless besides feeling indignation we yield to an aversion unwarranted by the by the hurt we have suffered. This aversion may be grievously or venially sinful in proportion to its excess over that which the injury would justify.When by any conceivable stretch of human wickedness God Himself is the object of hatred the guilt is appallingly special. If it be that kind of enmity (odium inimicitiae) which prompts the sinner to loathe God in Himself, to regret the Divine perfections precisely in so far as they belong to God, then the offence committed obtains the undisputed primacy in all the miserable hierarchy of sin. In fact, such an attitude of mind is fairly and adequately described as diabolical; the human will detaches itself immediately from God; in other sins it does so only mediately and by consequence, that is, because of its inordinate use of some creature it is averted from God. To be sure, according to the teaching of St. Thomas (II-II:24:12) and the theologians, any mortal sin carries with it the loss of the habit of supernatural charity, and implies so to speak a sort of virtual and interpretive hatred of God, which, however, is not a separate specific malice to be referred to in confession, but only a circumstance predicable of every grievous sin.-----------------------------------JOSEPH F. DELANY Transcribed by Randy Heinz, sfo The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
In the time of Nero the Christians of Rome ‘were accused, net so much on the charge of burning the city, as of hating the human race’ (‘haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt’ [Tac. Ann. xv. 44]). The indictment was the opposite of the truth. Christianity is amor generis humani. Christ’s new commandment is ‘that ye love one another’ (Joh_13:34, 1Jn_2:8), and it is fulfilled when an outward categorical imperative (e.g. Lev_19:18) is changed into an inward personal impulse, the dynamic of which is His own self-sacrificing, all-embracing love. ‘We love, because he first loved us’ (1Jn_4:19), and it would be as right to insert ‘the human race’ as ‘him’ (Authorized Version ) after the first verb. By precept and example Christ constrains men to love one another as He has loved them. To be Christlike is to love impartially and immeasurably. Love is the sole and sufficient evidence that a man ‘is in the light’ (1Jn_2:10). There is a silencing finality in St. John’s judgment of that profession of Christianity which is not attested by love: ‘He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now’ (1Jn_2:9). The negative ìὴ ἀãáðᾶí is displaced by the positive ìéóåῖí, for there is no real via media, cool indifference to any man being quickly changed under stress of temptation into very decided dislike. ὁ ìéóῶí ôὀí ἀäåëöὸí áὐôïῦ is guilty of an unnatural hatred, and though ‘brother’ refers in the first instance to those who are members of the body of Christ, it is impossible to evade the wider application. ‘The brother for whom Christ died’ (1Co_8:11) is every man. In the searching language of the Apostle of love, hatred is equivalent to murder (1Jn_3:15): the one concept lacks no hideous element that is present in the other; the animating ideas and passions of the hater and the murderer are the same. The Christians of the Apostolic Age could not but love the world which ‘God so loved’ (Joh_3:18), and for whose sins Christ is the propitiation (1Jn_2:2). Their ‘world’ hated them, and, in many instances, ended by murdering them; but persecution and bloodshed only constrained them to love the more, in accordance with the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount (Mat_5:44). The early Church extorted from that pagan world the beautiful tribute, ‘See how these Christians love one another!’ The Spirit of Christ moved His followers to ‘put away all bitterness and wrath … with all malice,’ to be ‘kind one to another’ (Eph_4:31 f.), and ‘put on love as the bond of perfectness’ (Col_3:14). While they could recall the time when they were ‘hateful, hating one another’ (óôõãçôïß, ìéóïῦíôåò ἀëëÞëïõò, Tit_3:3; Vulgate ‘odibiles, odientes invicem’), the spirit of the new life was öéëáäåëößá (love of the brethren), to which was added a world-wide ἀãÜðç (2Pe_1:7).
To orthodox Judaism, as well as to cultured Hellenism and the hard pagan Roman world, it seemed natural to love only one’s friends. When the Rabbis quoted Lev_19:18, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour,’ they did not hesitate to add, on their own account, the rider, ‘Thou shalt hate thine enemy’ (Mat_5:43). To Aristotle the only conceivable objects of love were the persons and things that were good, pleasant, or useful (Nic. Eth. viii. 2). Sulla, a typical Roman, wished it to be inscribed on his monument in the Campus Martius that ‘none of his friends ever did him a kindness, and none of his enemies ever did him a wrong, without being fully repaid’ (Plut. Sulla, xxxviii.). Into a world dominated by such ideas Christianity brought that enthusiasm of humanity which is the reflexion of Christ’s own redeeming love. Associating the ideas of hatred and death, it opposed to them those of love and life. ‘We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death’ (1Jn_3:14).
Cicero defines hatred (odium) as ‘ira inveterata’ (Tusc. Disp. iv. 9), a phrase which Chaucer borrows in Persones Tale, ‘Hate is old wrathe.’ But ira is in itself a morally neutral instinct, which becomes either righteous or unrighteous according to the quality of the objects against which it is directed. The èõìὸò êáὶ ὀñãÞ which the Christian has to put away include all selfish kinds of hatred. But he soon discovers that in his new life he must still be a ‘good hater’ if he is to be a true lover. He must, with Dante, ‘hate the sin which hinders loving.’ ‘What indignation’ (ἀãáíÜêôçóéò) is wrought in him by a sorrow after a godly sort! (2Co_7:11). The love which he feels as he comes nearer God is hot with wrath against every ‘abominable thing which God hates.’ The capacity for hatred is set down by Christ to the credit of the Church of Ephesus: ‘Thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate’ (Rev_2:6). To Christ Himself the words of Psa_45:7 are applied, ‘Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity’ (Heb_1:9). The writer of Revelation does not conceal his loathing of pagan Rome, calling it ‘a hold of unclean and hateful birds’ (Rev_18:2), and Jude (Jud_1:23) bids evangelists who snatch brands from the burning ‘have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.’
If hatred not merely of evil things but of wicked persons is anywhere ascribed to God, a difficulty is at once felt. It is probably a mistake to take ἐ÷èñïß in Rom_5:10 (cf. Col_1:21, Jam_4:4) in a passive sense, though Calvin, Tholuck, Meyer, and others do so. The meaning is ‘hostile to God,’ not ‘hateful to God’ (Ritschl, Lightfoot, Sanday-Headlam). God, who hates the sin, loves the sinner, and it is only in the alienated mind of man that a êáôáëëáãÞ needs to be effected. But in Rom_9:13 the words are quoted which Malachi (1:2f.) attributes to Jahweh: ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.’ The saying may be interpreted in the light of Luk_14:26, where ‘hate’ evidently means ‘love less’; or it may be taken as an imperfect OT conception, which St. Paul uses in an argumentum ad hominem without giving it his own imprimatur.
James Strahan.
Hatred, in the sense of a deep-seated ill-feeling towards another person, is condemned as being one of the evil results of sinful human nature. It is the opposite of love and should not be found in the lives of God’s people (Lev 19:17; Mat 5:44; Gal 5:20; Col 3:8; 1Pe 2:1; 1Jn 4:20). People whose lives are under the power of sin hate what is good, hate those who are righteous, and hate God (1Ki 22:8; Psa 69:4; Mic 3:2; Joh 3:20; Joh 15:18; Joh 15:23-25; Joh 17:14).
God’s people, by contrast, are not to hate those who hate them, but do them good (Luk 6:27). But they must hate wickedness, just as God hates it (Psa 97:10; Psa 119:104; Pro 6:16-19; Isa 61:8; Heb 1:9; Jud 1:23; Rev 2:6).
Sometimes the Bible uses the word ‘hate’ in a special sense that has nothing to do with either the bitterness or the opposition outlined in the examples above. It is used in a situation where a choice has to be made between two things or two people. One is chosen, or ‘loved’, the other is rejected, or ‘hated’ (Gen 29:30-31; Mal 1:2-3; Luk 14:26-27; Joh 12:25; Rom 9:10-13).