Why did Jesus say to hate your family?
Since Jesus is love, how come there is a verse in the Bible where he says to hate your family?
For example, in Luke 14: 26, it reads…
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”
This surprised me when I first read it. I thought, “What did I just read? Did Jesus really just say that?”
I think the confusion here comes from our modern translation, or perception, of the word “hate.” One of the English definitions for “hate” is actually “to be averse to,” which is similar to the greek word for hate if it’s understood in context. In this Biblical context, the symbolism for hate means “to make less important” or to “love less.” It doesn’t necessarily imply lack of love.
This is made clear by what Jesus says right afterwards in Luke 14, 27 - 32…
And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it — lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.
From this, we can easily discern that when Jesus said “hate” in the verse prior, he wasn’t talking about malice or rudeness. He was talking about getting your priorities straight. Jesus must be central to your life in every way. He must be more important than your father, mother, sister, brother, spouse, child, friends, employer, employee, etc. As sad as it is to say, I think the reality is that a lot of us choose to side with the truth taught by our family rather than the truth taught by Jesus, because we want the benefit of their favor rather than his. If we do that, that then makes us Christians by name only, simply to appear in good social standing.
The inner symbolism of the above verse then, with regards to the family members mentioned, doesn’t literally mean your family, but rather the ideas they represent within your own acceptance or rejection of the truth. The sad reality is that when you accept and stand with the truth, sometimes that may mean literal separation from friends and family members as well, because they no longer find you compatible with their interests and ideas. But the key point, here, is that if that happens, it shouldn’t be because you deliberately spoiled the relationship, treated them rudely, or turned your back on them; but rather, if you’ve been loving and kind, but they simply no longer want to be around you and aren’t responsive to you because of the changes taking place within you.
About this scripture, Swedenborg wrote:
Who cannot see that father, mother, wife, children, brethren, and sisters, also houses and fields, are not here meant, but such things as belong to man himself, and are called his own [ego]? For these things a man must leave and hate, if he wishes to worship the Lord and to be His disciple, and to "receive a hundred-fold," and "to inherit eternal life." The things that are a man's own are those that are of his love, and thus of his life into which he was born, consequently they are evils and falsities of every kind; and as these are of his love and life it is said that "he must hate his own soul." These evils and falsities are signified by "father and mother, wife, children, brethren, and sisters;" for all things that are of man's love and life, or that are of affection and thought therefrom, or of the will and the understanding therefrom, are formed and conjoined like generations descending from one father and one mother, and are also distinguished as into families and houses. The love of self and the consequent love of the world are their "father and mother," and the cupidities arising therefrom and their evils and falsities are the "children," which are "brethren and sisters." That this is the meaning can be clearly seen from this, that the Lord does not wish to have anyone hate his father and mother, or wife or children, or brethren or sisters, since this would be contrary to the spiritual love implanted in everyone from heaven, which is the love of parents for children and of children for parents, and contrary to conjugial love, which is the love of the husband for his wife and of the wife for her husband, as also contrary to mutual love, which is the love of brothers and sisters for one another.
Yea, the Lord teaches that enemies must not be hated, but loved. All this shows that the terms that define consanguinities, alliances, and relationships in the Word mean consanguinities, alliances, and relationships in a spiritual sense.
—Apocalypse Explained #724 [5]
It is self-evident that the things which are a person's own, that is, evils and falsities in their own order, should be understood by the names of those family members, since it also says that he must hate his own soul and renounce all his possessions, that is, the things which are properly his. The state of temptation or spiritual conflict is also described here, for it says, 'whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple'. 'Being the Lord's disciple' means being led by Him and not by self, thus by the forms of good and the truths which come from the Lord and not by the evils and falsities which come from the person.
The command Jesus has given us is to be willing to lose everything for him. And although it’s rare, I’ve seen people do it. Sometimes it’s so difficult that it can literally tear families apart as well. But let it not be so if you can do anything to reconcile with them. I suspect Jesus used the symbolism of family members in the Word because he knows that many of us know what this feels like, thus the feeling behind his words becomes effective in delivering his message within.
Here’s another shocking verse by Jesus (Matthew 10: 34 - 39)…
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
In a similar way, the meaning of “sword” is symbolic. This is the “sword of truth” he’s talking about. The power of ideas.
It cuts in both directions. Speaking the truth is a dangerous act, especially in the “cancel culture” of today. True ideas tend to divide people because the prideful don’t want to change, so they attack the messenger rather than reevaluate their position. At this point, the sword - that is Jesus - cuts the two apart. This isn’t his preference, but it is often the effect.
It’s a difficult decision to set yourself at odds with your family for the sake of Jesus, because you risk losing everything. Many people who were raised in a certain religious belief system who later come to disbelieve it, instead of searching for deeper truth, they live on the way they’ve always done for the sake of tradition or in order to maintain the status quo in the community. Perhaps they’re afraid of being disowned or ostracized by their friends and parents or to lose their favor, including financial support and job opportunities. Perhaps they’re afraid of offending their spouse and losing their house and children. Perhaps they’re afraid that their community will think of them as inconsistent or apostate. Or perhaps they don’t know what else they would believe in or how they’d anchor their identity going forward. It’s a difficult decision to set yourself at odds with your family for the sake of Jesus, because you risk losing everything.
For some people, this might apply to their relationship with their friends or with a boyfriend or girlfriend. If your friend wants you to do or say something that you know Jesus wouldn’t approve of, who will you side with, them or him? If you side with him, you may lose that relationship with that friend. Anybody who isn’t prepared to take a stand for what Jesus says is not his disciple, as he stated above, because they’re following a wayward path instead of his path; and since he’s the creator, only his pathway is going to lead to long term and meaningful success.
For other people, it might be an employer or a client. Perhaps they want you to do something you know is immoral or dishonest. Will you take a stand for Jesus, knowing you may lose your job? If you lose your job, how will you pay your bills? If you don’t take a stand, you aren’t Jesus’ disciple.
But the Lord has a promise for those that put him first…
“Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. (Matthew 6:31-33)
One caveat I should make sure to mention is to be careful not to look for problems where they don’t exist or to commit yourself to a social crusade like a social justice warrior (a mistake I’ve made myself in the past). Sometimes the best way to put Jesus first is just to wait. There’s wisdom and tact involved in each divisive decision, but often, I’ve found that in life, real situations do materialize where you need to make a clear stand for the truth with the risk of losing something or someone.
But in doing so, you have to check and double check your motives, and check the Bible, to make sure the decision you’re making is really Jesus’ word and isn’t just your own will. For example, in the case of a divorce, who is actually pushing for the divorce, you or your spouse? Jesus despises divorce and doesn’t allow it except for cases of sexual immorality or abuse (Matthew 19: 8-9). A mere argument, financial disagreement, or inconvenience is not enough of a reason to divorce.
One of the big mistakes I think people make, however, is using this as an excuse to stonewall others who are making an effort towards reconciliation and who don’t deserve to be stonewalled. A way to measure if you’re doing the right thing or not is to ask yourself if you are cutting the person out of your life, or if they are cutting you out of theirs. Would you reconcile with them, or at least take some step towards reconciliation, if they made the effort?
In any disagreement between two people, I believe the person stonewalling is usually in the wrong, whereas the person open to reconciliation is usually in the right. This is because Jesus is always open to reconciliation so long as there is genuine repentance and he taught to forgive seventy times seven times, or in other words, indefinitely. If someone is trying to manipulate you and you stand your ground, in my experience, they will fade away on their own behalf as long as you don’t encourage them in their manipulation. Reconciliation is only possible if something in the other person’s life actually changes. Unless they’re completely unrepentant, and you’ve attempted reconciliation, and they cut you out, you’re on the right path in allowing them to fade away, but allowing them to fade away is different than ignoring them.
As this famous quote goes…
“If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, it’s yours forever. If it doesn’t, then it was never meant to be.”
In my experience, siding with Jesus frequently does lead to distance between you and several people who you used to spend time with, even when you don’t want distance between you. It’s a difficult reality to live with sometimes. But the truth is that the closer you get to him, the more that incompatible people will fade away from you. In the end, if they don’t come back to you later, you’re better off without them because they don’t really love you.
Can a woman forget her nursing child, And not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, Yet I will not forget you. See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; Your walls are continually before Me.
Test this. Try it and give it time. In my experience, I’ve always been better off following this advice, and it’s been evidence to me that it’s true.
There’s another verse in the Bible that uses the word hate that I want explore. Hosea 9:15 also uses similarly strong language with the word “hate”…
“All their evil [is] in Gilgal, Surely there I have hated them, Because of the evil of their doings, Out of My house I do drive them, I add not to love them, all their heads [are] apostates.”
But doesn’t Jesus love everyone no matter what they do? How can he “love them no more”?
The prophet, Emanuel Swedenborg, comes to our aid again to help us understand this verse. In this passage from Secrets of Heaven 3605 he’s speaking about Esau and Jacob, but he also explains the above passage about hatred from Hosea…
Actually the internal sense (of the Word) is intended primarily for those who are in heaven, and therefore when it comes down from there and passes into the literal sense, the feeling of repugnance enters into words that denote hatred when historical narratives refer to hatred. Yet at the same time no idea of hatred is present in the minds of those in heaven.
…Here ‘the hatred’ that is attributed to Jehovah or the Lord is not in the internal sense hatred but mercy, for the Divine is mercy. But when that mercy flows down to someone who is under the influence of evil he is exposed to the punishment that goes with evil, in which case mercy looks like hatred. And because it looks like hatred it is also called such in the sense of the letter.
This idea relates to what I wrote above, that when you do what’s right and side with Jesus people who aren’t compatible with him will begin to think you are demonic, even though you’ve just become the exact opposite. For they called the Lord demonic, too (Matthew 12: 24). The psychological term is “projection.”
“….The same applies when in the Word anger, wrath, or fury are attributed to Jehovah or the Lord.
….The Jewish and Israelite people more than all others were such that as soon as they detected any enmity present even with allies they believed that they were entitled to treat them cruelly, not only killing them but also exposing their bodies to wild animals and birds. And because the Lord’s inflowing mercy was converted in this way into such hatred with them, a hatred directed, as has been stated, not only against enemies but also against allies, they inevitably believed that Jehovah too was capable of hating, being angry, wrathful, and furious. This is the reason why the Word has spoken in this way according to the appearance. For what a person is in himself determines how he sees the Lord. But the nature of hatred in the case of these in whom love and charity, that is, good, are present, is clear from the Lord’s words in Matthew,
‘You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who hurt and persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.’ Matthew 5:43-45.”
I think it’s important to note that when Jesus says to “hate” in this way, such as, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple,” as Swedenborg pointed out, this is actually mercy. The reason this is mercy is because it causes a person to cease being an enabler of destructive behavior. I think that is something we can all understand. We all know how destructive it is enable or entertain narcissists. The “repugnance” that Swedenborg talks about is not a repugnance towards people, but towards their behavior.
The Wycliff Bible has an interesting translation of Hosea 9:15…
“All the wickednesses of them be in Gilgal, for there I had them hateful; for the malice of their findings. I shall cast them out of mine house; I shall not lay to, that I love them. All the princes of them go away (from me).”
This might be a stretch, but “I had them hateful” seems to indicate “I had them in a state belonging to hate” or “I had them in a state as if I hated them,” and “I shall not lay to, that I love them,” seems to indicate “I shall not apply my love to them.” In either case, it seems that one can infer that the message is “I love them, but my love was not applicable to them at that time because of their behavior.”
I think there is the tendency to form an association in one’s mind between “hating” somebody in this way and inflicting them harm, but the two are not necessarily conjoined. There is a difference, however, between causing harm and withdrawing protection. And this could be because of the way that God “hates”, not by ceasing to want good for people who act wickedly, but by withdrawing his protection and favor from them them when they sin, and this because they’ve chosen to set up a wall between him and them.
