The imprecatory psalms

We firmly believe that a just treatment of these imprecatory psalms - 35th, 69th and 109th - will not only rebut the arguments of their critics, but will cause to shine more brightly before the eyes of God's people the splendour of these particular psalms, and enhance the beauty of the whole book as the divinely given and perfect manual of praise. Further, a correct appraisal of these psalms will lead to a better understanding of the whole of the divine revelation.

Despite the oft-repeated cry that the imprecatory psalms lack the spirit of true Christianity, it can be shown clearly that their contents harmonise with the teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. We avow that the sentiments and petitions in these psalms accord with the spirit of the words of the prophets and the apostles and of the Lord Jesus Himself.

Throughout the centuries, certain statements of Scripture have been selected as objects of attack, with the purpose of discrediting the Scripture generally. We have observed that frequently those portions which were regarded as more vulnerable, have been shown ultimately to be the very truth of God, and have been used to discomfit unfriendly critics, and to reinforce the confidence of the people of God in the full reliability of the Scriptures. Not once nor twice the assailants of God's Word have had to withdraw in the face of remarkable vindications of the divine character of those passages of Scripture which they, in their folly, imagined would provide battering rams for the destruction of God's Word. In this confidence we proceed to an examination of the imprecatory psalms.

Christ and the Imprecatory Psalms
If these psalms were "unchristian", they would have been shunned by Christ and the apostles. Nevertheless the New Testament records bear witness to the fact that both Christ and His apostles made an extensive use of the Imprecatory psalms. This is sufficient of itself to nullify the charge that they are unchristian. Dr. Binnie, when referring to the number of quotations made from these psalms made the striking comment, "the nature of the quotations is even more significant than their number" (The Psalms, p. 285).

It is recorded in John 15:25 that the Lord Jesus quoted Psalm 35:19, "they hated me without a cause" and stated that these words described the attitude of His enemies to Him. In John 2:17 we read that when Christ, in zeal for His Father's glory, expelled the traffickers from the temple, His followers saw in it the fulfilment of the words of Psalm 69:9, "the zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up." When Peter addressed the Christians in Jerusalem prior to Pentecost he advised them to choose a man to take the place of Judas Iscariot as an apostle (Act 1:20), and reinforced his exhortation by quoting from two of the imprecatory psalms - the 69th and 109th - "Let his habitation be desolate and let no man dwell therein, and his bishopric (office) let another take." Delitzsch, an able commentator, designated Psalm 69 "Psalmus Ischarioticus" - the Ischariot Psalm, (see The Psalms by Dr. Binnie, p. 293). In doing this Delitzsch was following the custom of the ancient church, e.g., Augustine, applied Psalm 69 to Christ and His enemies. Undoubtedly this psalm and Psalm 109 portray the enmity of Jews and Gentiles and especially that of Judas Ischariot, to the Lord Jesus. The ample use made of them by Christ and the apostles forbids any other interpretation. The contents of these psalms are most definitely confirmatory of this.

The Apostle Paul in the following passage - Rom. 11:7-10 - quoted Psalm 69:22-23: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded, according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day. And David saith 'let their table be made a snare and a trap, and a stumbling-block and a recompence unto them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway'." Here it is pertinent to remark that if the sentiments quoted in this passage from the imprecatory psalms are "unchristian", they are not less so when embedded in the Epistle to the Romans. Dr. Handley Moule, Bishop of Durham (Eng.), a scholar renowned for his sanity and saintliness, had this to say in reference to Psalm 69, "let us remark, for one point, that this same dark psalm is, by the witness of the apostles, as taught by their Master, a psalm full of the Messiah. It was undoubtedly claimed as His own mystic utterance by the Lamb of the Passion. . .So the Lord Jesus did endorse this psalm. He more than endorsed it; He adopted it as His Own. . . In any case, do not let us talk with a loose facility about their incompatibility with 'the spirit of the New Testament'. From one side, the New Testament is an even sterner Book than the Old; as it must be, when it brings sin and holiness out into the light of the Cross of Christ . . . His eyes must have rested, often and again, upon the denunciations of the psalms. He saw in them nothing which struck discord, in the ultimate spiritual depth, with His Own blessed compassions. Let us not resent what He has countersigned." (The Epistle to the Romans, p. 292.)

It is plain that the Lord Jesus personally endorsed the denunciations found in the imprecatory psalms, and He Himself uttered words correspondingly severe. For example, we may quote Matt. 23:32-35. "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify. . . that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth." Of more awful import, if possible are the words of the gracious Redeemer recorded in Luke 19:27, "But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before Me."

The quality of O.T. teaching
There are some sincere souls who, unable to account for some of the sterner statements in the psalms, seek to meet the objections of the critics by declaring that such statements reflect the immaturity and defects of the moral teaching of the Old Testament. This procedure is unwarranted, for it is based on a false view of the moral code of the Old Testament. The law which God gave to Israel was grounded in the moral nature of God Himself, and as such reflected the divine holiness. Consequently that law is perfect, and is binding always and on all men. That law was written originally on the heart of Adam, for he was made in the moral image of God. Our failure to keep that holy law, which God gave through Moses, is our condemnation. When the Lord Jesus came to obtain redemption for us, He came under the penalty and precept of that law. In other words He obeyed perfectly and continuously the precepts of that law, and in His own holy Person suffered the penalty due to us for our transgression of that law. Hence we have it stated in Gal. 4:4, 5, "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." Also it is unthinkable that "the Holy One of Israel" should exact laws which are in any degree faulty. We must reject the argument based on the alleged inferiority of the moral code of the Old Testament.

God spoke through the psalmists to give to His church a manual of praise. David was the chief of the psalmists and the author of the imprecatory psalms, and he declared, concerning himself "the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue." (II Sam. 23:2). Surely the Holy Spirit is not to be charged with providing songs of praise which are tainted with wrong sentiments, and which betray a vindictiveness irreconcilable with the spirit of true Christianity! Further, does Old Testament teaching foster a spirit of revenge? In Exodus 23:4, 5, it is written, "if thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden and wouldest forbear to help him; thou shalt surely help with him." In Lev. 19:18 it is commended, "thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; I am the Lord." These precepts accord with the teaching of the Lord Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount His words were explanatory of the truth set forth in the Old Testament Scriptures. Dr. Binnie declared, "there is no lack in the law of Moses. . .of precepts, which for the charitable spirit they breathe, are not surpassed by anything in the Christian Scriptures" (The Psalms, p. 289). Job avowed his freedom from the spirit of revenge in these words, "if I rejoiced at the destruction of him who hated me, or lifted up myself when evil found him; neither have I suffered my mouth to sin by wishing a curse to his soul" (Job 31:29,30).

We look in vain for that vengeful and vindictive spirit which some Christians complacently declare characterises the teaching of the Old Testament. The spirit of true charity is set forth beautifully in Psalm 7, "O Lord my God, if I have done this. . . If I have rewarded evil unto him who was at peace with me; yea, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy; let the enemy persecute my soul and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth, and lay mine honour in the dust" (vv. 3-5). This is in accord with Proverbs 25:21, 22, "if thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink; for thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head, and the Lord shall reward thee." Such words are sufficient to dispel the idea that the teaching of the Old Testament favours vindictiveness.

When the Lord Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount set forth clearly the great spiritual and moral principles of the law of Moses, He, in no respect, contrasted His teaching with the truths made known by God through Moses. It is true that He said, Matt. 5:43, "ye have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy," but He did not say nor imply that the Old Testament teaching inculcated the hating of one's enemy. The Lord was referring to a rabbinical perversion of the teaching of the Old Testament. Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones writes, "the way to approach this statement is to start with the teaching of the Pharisees and scribes. They said, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.' That was actually what they taught. The question at once arises in one's mind, where did they find this in the Old Testament? Is there anywhere there a statement to that effect? And the answer is, of course, No." (Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, vol. I, p. 299). Very helpful in this connection are the words of Dr. William Binnie, "when Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, commands us to love our enemies and to pray for them who despitefully use us and persecute us, He does this, not in the way of setting forth a new commandment, as so many have strangely supposed, but rather in the way of rescuing the old commandment from the perverse glosses of the scribes, and setting it forth anew with His endorsement" (The Psalms, p. 289).

If, as Dr. Moule asserted, Christ appropriated and endorsed the sixty-ninth psalm, how can its teaching logically be characterised as unchristian? Not only the Lord Jesus, but the apostles made use of the Imprecatory psalms by quoting some of their sternest statements. This makes it abundantly clear that they did not regard their teaching as conflicting with the message of the Gospel. The Rev. Alexander Blaikie wrote concerning these psalms, "to allege that in any instance they breathe a spirit inconsistent with the Gospel, is to represent the Holy Ghost as at variance with Himself. The law of love was as truly enjoined with regard to enemies under the old as under the new dispensation". (The Philsophy of Sectarianism, p. 75.)

Dr. John Kitto has expressed so many relevant facts within the compass of a paragraph that we must quote him: "In reality, the feeling expressed in these Psalms may well be considered as virtuous anger, such as Bishop Butler explains and justifies in his sermon on 'Resentment and the Forgiveness of Injuries', and such as Paul teaches in Ephesians 4:26, 'Be ye angry and sin not'. Anger against sin and a desire that evil-doers may be punished are not opposed to the spirit of the Gospel, or that love of enemies which our Lord both enjoined and exemplified. If the emotion and its utterance were essentially sinful, how could Paul wish the enemy of Christ and the perverter of the Gospel to be accursed (anathema) 1 Cor. 16:22, Gal. 1:8, and especially, how could the spirits of the martyred saints in heaven call on God for vengeance (Rev. 6:10), and join to celebrate its final execution (Rev. 19:1-6)? Resentment against the wicked is so far from being necessarily sinful, that we find it manifested by the Holy and Just One Himself, when in the days of His flesh He looked around on His hearers with anger, 'being grieved for the hardness of their hearts' (Mark 3:5); and when 'in the great day of His wrath' (Rev. 6:17), He shall say to all workers of iniquity 'Depart from me ye cursed' (Matt. 25:41). (Encyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. vol. III, p. 613).

Unfortunately, the view has gained currency that in the Old Testament, God revealed Himself as the God of judgment, and in the New Testament as the God of love. Most who adopt this view have necessarily a shallow knowledge of the contents of the Bible. Both the divine love and judgment against sin are set forth most clearly in the Old and New Testament, for the revelation made of the character of God is harmonious from Genesis to Revelation. Also it should be borne in mind that in the New Testament is set forth the greatest act of divine judgment - the death of the Lord Jesus for the sins of all His people, when the sinless Son of God, in our nature was, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "made sin for us", and "died for our sins, according to the Scriptures."

O.T. and N.T. harmony
Those who hold the false theory that there is lack of harmony in the Bible, and that the Old Testament is essentially a book setting forth the divine wrath, must find it difficult to account for the many acts of divine judgment recorded in the New Testament, and the many words of stern denunciation, spoken by Christ and His apostles. Such theorists would find it helpful if they were able to transfer to the Old Testament the records of the judgment which overtook Ananias and Sapphira and kindred judgments. They fail to grasp that an organic unity subsists between the Old and New Testaments and that the Bible is a harmonious whole - a self consistent unity. The sentiments expressed in the imprecatory psalms are accordant with the contents of the Old and New Testaments.

Another very important question arises: are there no imprecations in the New Testament in addition to those quoted from the Book of Psalms? In other words, are imprecations a feature of the whole of divine revelation? Again we quote Dr. Handley Moule: "It is in the New Testament the souls of saints at rest are heard saying (Rev. 6:10), 'How long, O Lord, holy and true dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?' It is in the New Testament that an apostle writes (in Thess. 1:6), 'It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them who trouble you?' "

Rev. A. Blaikie commented on the contents of the imprecatory psalms, "Even in the New Testament similar sentiments and phraseology frequently occur." (Philosophy of Sectarianism, p. 76). The apostle Paul expressed an Imprecation in II Tim. 4:14, "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works." The apostle Peter in condemning Simon Magnus for hypocrisy uttered the malediction, "thy money perish with thee" (Acts 8.20). We read in Rev. 18:20 of the call to rejoice over the destruction of spiritual Babylon, "for God hath avenged you on her". In Rev. 16:5,6 it is recorded by "the apostle of love" that he heard an angel cry, "thou art righteous, O Lord. . .because Thou hast judged thus; for they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink, for they are worthy." Such utterances are reminiscent of certain statements in the Book of Psalms. The Apostle John also heard an angel "say with a loud voice, fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come". As a final example from the Book of Revelation we may cite chapter 19:1-2, "I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia. . .for true and righteous are His judgments, for He hath judged the great whore. . .and hath avenged the blood of His servants at her hand".

If it be right, and the Bible says it is, to rejoice in God's judgments, can it be wrong to imprecate or call upon God to reveal Himself, by His judgments, as the Moral Ruler of the universe? In other words, is it not right to ask God to deliver His people and to overthrow their enemies, and thus to vindicate the justice of His administration and to declare His holiness? Such is the desire of the inspired poet expressed in Psalm 58:10,11, "the righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked; so that a man shall say, verily there is a reward for the righteous, verily there is a God who judgeth in the earth". In impugning the imprecatory psalms, people perhaps unknowingly, are impugning the whole of divine revelation. We do well to lay to heart the words of a past bishop of Durham, already quoted, "let us not resent what He has countersigned."

Before proceeding further with our examination of these particular psalms, it should be added that we do not undertake to fully explain them, for in them as in the Scripture generally, there are divine depths of meaning. Professor Iverach spoke in the highest praise of the psalms generally when he declared "the psalms I never can fathom". Their fathomless depth attest their divine authorship. Some have sought to modify the force of the imprecations found in some of the psalms by describing them as predictions of the divine judgment. In reference to this Dr. William Binnie has this to say, "the commentators, such as Horne and Henry, whose sole object is the edification of their readers, have been used to say that David's words are to be understood not as expressing desire, but as predicting the doom of the enemies of God. If this explanation is offered as the strict interpretations of the words, it must be rejected. It is certain that the psalmist speaks in the imperative, not in the future merely" (The Psalms, p. 294). Dr. Kitto stated, "most of our devout commentators insist that the expressions in question are not maledictions, but mere declarations or predictions of what will come to pass. This explanation is however quite inadmissible: for in several of the most startling passages - such as 59:14; 69:25, 28; 79:6; the verbs in the original are plainly imperative and not indicative" (Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, vol. III, p. 612).

David, the author of the imprecatory psalms, always manifested a readiness to forgive even his enemies. In his public life as well as in his private life he exhibited the same spirit. In his attitude to King Saul he showed remarkable patience. Repeatedly Saul sought to kill David and repeatedly broke his promise not to do him harm, nevertheless, David refrained from taking vengeance. Similarly, David "bore with much long-suffering" the reproaches of Shimei. How can we attribute to David a vengeful spirit when we find him, in one of the "cursing" psalms, affirming in reference to his bitter enemies, "as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth; I humbled my soul with fasting, and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother; I bowed down heavily as one that mourneth for his mother." Ps. 35:13,14.

In the psalms are not found utterances of resentment for private injuries. David imprecates individuals and nations who have wronged the people of God and brought dishonour upon the God of Israel. Also when David utters imprecations against his own enemies, they are not those who have wronged him privately, but in his public capacity as "the Lord's Anointed". Such are the enemies of David in his representative capacity in the theocracy, and are thus the enemies of God and of His cause. Dr. Lloyd Jones writes, "it is exactly the same with the so-called imprecatory Psalms which trouble so many people. The psalmist, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is pronouncing judgment against not only his own enemies, but the enemies of God and those who are abusing the church and the kingdom of God as it is represented in him and in the nation." (Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, vol. I, p. 226). Dr. Moule commented "David appears in the psalm (69th) not merely as a private person crying out about his violated personal rights, but as an ally and vassal of God, one whose life and cause is identified with His." (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 291). In commenting on an imprecatory psalm, John Calvin gave this advice, "always it behoves us to bear in mind that David deals not in a private case of his own." (Commentary on the Psalms, vol. III, p. 128). Rev. A. Blaikie wisely remarked, "none of the psalms ought ever to be applied to private feuds or personal quarrels": (Philosophy of Sectarianism, p. 76). Dr. Binnie wrote "the motive of the imprecations is not to be sought in a sense of personal wrong or of wounded honour, not in personal selfish vindictiveness, but in a holy regard to the glory of God, trodden in the dust and given over to contemptuous blasphemy. . .David speaks in his public character, as the chosen servant of the Lord and anointed King of Israel; and has in view, not his own particular foes, but the enemies of the cause of which he is representative - the cause of God, and of truth and righteousness in Israel. . .To read these psalms of his as if they were the utterances of some private individual in reference to neighbours who have done him a private wrong, is to leave out of the account the principal element in the case" (The Psalms, pp. 283-4). Professor J. A. Alexander in commenting on Psalm 69:22 stated, "the imprecations in this verse and those following it are revolting only when considered as the expression of malignant selfishness. If uttered by God, they shock no reader's sensibilities nor should they when considered as the language of Him who, though He prayed for His murderers while dying, had before applied the words of this very passage to the unbelieving Jews (Mt. 23:38), as Paul did afterwards (Rom. 11:9, 10). The general doctrine of providential retribution, far from being confined to the Old Testament, is distinctly taught in many of our Saviour's parables." (Commentary on the Psalms, p. 295).

Some persons grievously misunderstand the motives of King David in giving instructions to his son Solomon to punish Joab and Shimei. Both these men had committed crimes for which they deserved to be put to death. Here we need not consider the case of the worthless Shimei. Joab was the commander-in-chief of the Israelitish army and had committed murders, and thus in the words of David had "shed the blood of war in peace". The king knew well the terrible guilt of Joab, and was aware that to allow him permanently to go unpunished might well bring down heavy divine judgment on the nation. Therefore, the aged and enfeebled king directed his wise and energetic son to put to death Joab - "the captain of the host". A judge who pronounces sentence of death is not to be charged with vindictiveness. David's counsel to Solomon regarding Joab and Shimei had nothing of the nature of one who bore a grudge. All this helps us to understand the imprecations in the book of Psalms. The following quotation is from Dr. Binnie's book on the Psalms: "It is not to be forgotten that the thing which yields him (David) so much joy is not the vengeance itself, or the fearful destruction of his enemies, but the public vindication of the divine justice, the unequivocal demonstration of the reality and power of the divine government (p. 284).

The Apostle Peter declared that "the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spoke before concerning Judas" (Acts 1:20); and it was in the imprecatory psalms that the Holy Spirit so spoke.