Evaluating Hatred as Equivalent to Murder in Biblical Dispensations
Question: Evangelicals like to mash together two passages, one from the Sermon on the Mount and one from a likely audience member: Matthew 5:21--22 and 1 John 3:15. Then what they come up with is, "Don't hate people, it's the same as murdering them." Matthew 5:21 and 22 certainly is Sermon on the Mount. 1 John 3:15 is also to the Jewish people living in the 1st century. Let's put those together. "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Bring that together with 1 John 3:15, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." They put these together and come up with "Don't hate people, it's the same as murdering them." Is this God's eternal standard? Would you ever say this to someone? It would seem that Christ is offering them new information, not reiterating a trans-dispensational truth. Also, I wonder sometimes that if a perceived standard would not make sense in a human court of law, then maybe God would be okay with our questioning it. Of course, I realize that our sins are no longer being imputed, possibly making this a moot point. And also, I'm not advocating hating anyone. It requires too much energy. I prefer good old-fashioned apathy towards those I disagree with.
Matthew 5 and 1 John 3 can legitimately be read together, but only when they are both kept in their proper dispensational setting, namely, as instruction to first-century Israel under the offer of the kingdom. When they are generalized beyond that context and made into a timeless rule for all people in all ages, serious theological problems arise.
In Matthew 5, the Lord is intensifying and deepening the law within the context of Israel's national opportunity to receive the Messianic kingdom. He is not only reaffirming the prohibition of murder but extending the standard to anger and insults, showing the inward righteousness required for that kingdom. Similarly, 1 John 3:15 speaks to a Jewish audience connected to that kingdom program and states that the one who hates his brother is a murderer, with the categorical assertion that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
What is striking is that in both passages there is no presentation of grace as we know it in the Pauline dispensation. Judgment falls directly on the basis of the sin itself: hatred, anger, insulting speech, and murder receive condemnation with no accompanying offer of a gift of eternal life apart from works. These texts describe a legal, works-based standard fitting for Israel under law and under direct kingdom offer, not the present dispensation of grace.
Future Subscription: In the future a subscription may be required to read the full answer. But for now it is free!
In the current age, revealed especially through Paul, people are not condemned to hell because of a specific list of sins for which there is no remedy. Rather, all are already dead in Adam and separated from God, and yet a free gift of salvation is offered "by grace through faith" apart from works. Murderers, haters, moral and immoral alike may receive that gift. There is no hint of such an offer in Matthew 5 or 1 John 3.
Because of this, it is incorrect to call the combined teaching of Matthew 5:21--22 and 1 John 3:15 God's eternal standard and apply it straightforwardly to believers today. It was God's standard for first-century Israel under law and will again be operative when Israel is once more under direct kingdom dealings and judgment by the law. But it is not the standard governing God's relationship with humanity in the present dispensation.
Were someone today to ask whether hatred automatically places him beyond the possibility of eternal life, or whether a murderer is necessarily excluded, one should not answer with "ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" as if that were a universal, timeless rule. To do so would conflict with the clear Pauline revelation that anyone, whatever his past, may receive eternal life as a gift.
Many interpreters, because they do not distinguish dispensations, attempt to harmonize these passages with grace by adding conditions not stated in the text, such as insisting that 1 John is speaking only of unrepentant murderers. This approach effectively rewrites the verses and obscures their plain legal force. A better approach is to recognize that these passages addressed Israel under a different administration, not the body of Christ under grace.
This does not commend hatred or anger; those are contrary to godliness in any age. But the specific equation of hatred with murder, combined with the assertion that no such person has eternal life abiding in him, belongs to a particular covenantal and legal setting, not to a trans-dispensational, eternal norm.
questiontransition