Skip to main content

Should We Rejoice At the Death of Christopher Hitchens?

Since the death of the renowned atheist, Christopher Hitchens, the Christian blogosphere has been a-buzz with pronouncements of hate for him and literal delight at his demise.  To justify their attitude of inner pleasure people point to Psalm 139:21-22, which declares, “Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?  I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.”

It is also being said that Jesus’ words “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44) comport with David’s words this way: when your enemy hates you, you must love him, but if he hates God, then it is permissible to hate him.

This answer only raises more questions. As a Christian how can a person hate me but not hate God? Jesus said “You will be hated by all because of My name” (Mark 13:13). According to Jesus’ view of things, people hate me for being a Christian because they first hate God. Their hatred of me is a byproduct of their hatred for God. So the possibility of somehow surgically loving others who hate me while simultaneously hating those who hate God is problematic, to say the least.

But perhaps the more important matter is the meaning of Psalm 139:21-22 and its relationship to Matthew 5:44. In ancient times, suzerainty treaties were struck between rulers and vassals. Such treaties date to the 2nd millennium B.C., and have been discovered among ancient Hittite kings.

Without going into the intricacies of such treaties, it will be sufficient here to note that the dominant entity is called a suzerain. Among other things, he provided his vassal(s) lands and limited self-rule. In return, the vassal paid a form of tribute to the suzerain. The treaties were often convenient ways overlords kept potential enemies mollified. In medieval times the practice continued, though modified greatly in form, to include feudal lords and vassals. Here the giving of lands and titles by Kings to powerful gentry was a hopeful means of keeping the peace.

Central to the covenant between the suzerain and the vassal was also a pledge of loyalty on the part of the vassal. This most often took the form of a vow to be on the right side of warfare should the suzerain be attacked. A typical pronouncement of such loyalty was “With my friend you shall be friend, and with my enemy you shall be enemy.” Another way to put this is “Your friend shall be my friend and your enemy my enemy.”  The customary pledge of fidelity did not call upon the vassal to sit around all day hating those whom hated the suzerain. It simply meant that should the King or Lord be attacked, the vassal was prepared to spring to his defense.

What does any of this have to do with whether or not we should hate Christopher Hitchens? Returning to Psalm 139:21-22, we find here the inclusion of covenantal terms that mirror the ancient and customary pledge of vassal loyalty. Now we wish to be brief so here is the point. In the New Covenant, Jesus is the vassal “servant” who fulfilled all of the stipulations of that covenant. In essence, at the cross he went to war for the King. There he overcame all haters of God, including the devil, and freed his elect by giving himself an atoning sacrifice for our sins (Hebrews 2:14-15). Indeed, “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.  For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET” (1 Corinthians 15:25-27). 

Now that God’s righteous demands have been met in His Son, we are instructed to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44). The surgical interpretation of Psalm 139:21-22 and Matthew 5:44 is simply unnecessary and confusing.

The loyalty pledge of the Psalmist is a prophetic indicator of Jesus’ Messianic mission. Its completion in history means that by his obedience we are free to love our enemies. By way of analogy, it also means that should our God and his gospel be attacked we are not to stew in hatred of God’s enemies but are always to be ready to spring in defense. We are to “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15).

John Barber, PhD


  1. It is also written:

    "When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy."

    Proverbs 11:10

    To say there is no God and to mock those who believe him is wickedness indeed.

    Yes we are to love our enemies but to love does not mean to overlook sin or evil.

  2. PS Also I did not forget the unkind things he said about various Christians including Mother Teresa

    Jack Spurgeon

  3. Did you perhaps forget the facts that he used to support the unkind things that he said? Read them again, without the filter of your pious disgust, and PROVE him wrong.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.

Pat Robertson is Warned!

Pat Robertson is taking it on the chin again. Seems each time he opines on why bad things happen to us, there is someone to call him on it.
Most recently, Dr. Richard Mouw has taken up the challenge in response to Robertson's recent statement on the Las Vegas shooting, in which at least 59 people were killed and more than 500 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
In a piece, titled, "You've Been Warned, PatRobertson!" Mouw, for whom I have deep respect, pens,

"It didn’t take long for some preachers to start telling us why God caused the horrible mass murder in Las Vegas to happen. Pat Robertson led the way, declaring that it was divine retribution for the widespread 'disrespect' for Donald Trump in America."
If Robertson had limited his rationale for the Vegas shooting to God punishing us for people dissing the President, I'd be smacking him on the chin myself. But he didn't.
Robertson's brief remarks f…

Is Our Knowledge of God Analogical of Univocal?

As a matter of first principles in apologetics, we can ask, “What does the unbeliever know about God?” However, the biblical apologetic is shaped not only by what Scripture says the unbeliever knows, but also by what it reveals he can know; is capable of knowing, as a believer. So we might also ask, “Is it our hope that the unbeliever can know God as God knows himself or that he can know God reflectively, in a creaturely way?” This is the univocal/analogical problem in Christian epistemology. 

The question arises in the context of the structure of human thought. It bears its own unique dilemma. If we stress too excessively that knowledge of God is univocal we run the risk of lowering the incomprehensible God to the level of the finite and make God as one of us. But if we stress too emphatically knowledge of God per analogiam we may very well deprive God of all likeness to the humanity he has created with the result that all we are left with is a barren, abstraction.

To a considerable…