John Kitto Evening Bible Devotions: March 6

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

John Kitto Evening Bible Devotions: March 6


Today is: Friday, October 11th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)

Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of March: (Show All Months)

The Imprecatory Psalms

Statement

There are many awful things in the Psalms. Among these, are the very strong expressions of wrath and imprecation against the enemies of God and his people which some of them contain. The most remarkable instances are Psalms 59; Psalms 69; Psalms 79. The objection taken, on this ground, to the inspiration of Scripture, are, to some minds, more formidable than any other, or are at least attended with some peculiar difficulties. They are felt alike by all classes of readers; and if they do not absolutely unsettle the faith of any believer in the Bible, they occasion misgivings and painful doubts, and create a pain in reading aloud, or even privately, and a disposition to pass over the portions of Scripture in question. A circumstance which increases the perplexity, is that the imprecation is often found in close connection with language which indicates the firmest trust in God, or a high state of devotional feeling. It cannot easily be detached from things which seem to have no possible affinity with it. How can feelings so opposite co-exist?

The imprecation of calamity upon another, is, again, apparently at war with some of the better feelings of our nature, and runs counter to some of the common sentiments of compassion within us. It would seem to be opposed to the dictates of even natural religion, for we see that God sends his rain upon the just and the unjust, and that He is continually doing good to those who deny his authority, or blaspheme his name. But, above all, it would seem to be wholly adverse to the spirit of the New Testament, which teaches the most comprehensive charity—love to enemies, forgiveness of injuries, and blessing in return for cursing. How are we to reconcile this loving spirit of the New Testament with the fearful imprecations of the Old? When there is such a want of harmony in the different parts of the Scripture, how can the whole be from that perfect Being, whose precepts must be always self-consistent?

The perception of these difficulties has given occasion to much discussion respecting the “Imprecatory Psalms,” and has induced various attempts to soften or to explain away their literal significance. It cannot be said that any of these well-meant but mistaken endeavors has been successful.

The most plausible is that which suggests that many of the passages which appear in the English version as imprecatory, or as expressing a wish for the infliction of evil, should be regarded merely as declaratory of what will certainly take place in regard to the wicked. This proceeds chiefly on the ground that, in the original, the verbs are in the future tense, whereas our translation has given an optative or imprecatory signification—the Hebrew language having, it is urged, no peculiar form to express the various senses of the optative. But what, then, shall be said of the numerous passages where the verb is in the imperative? For example—“Pour out thy fury upon them; let thy wrathful anger take hold upon them.” Psa_69:24-25; also 55:9. What shall be affirmed in relation to those texts where those are pronounced blessed who take vengeance upon an enemy? “Happy shall he be who rewardeth thee as thou hast served us! Happy shall he be who taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones!” Again, in what manner shall we explain or vindicate those passages where the righteous are described as looking with complacency, feasting their eyes, as it were, upon the calamities of their oppressors. “The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.”

From such instances, we see that the difficulty would remain elsewhere in its full extent, even if we were permitted to render certain passages in a declaratory or prophetic sense, which are now rendered as expressing a wish or desire. But the affirmative itself, in regard to the Hebrew language, on which this explanation is founded, is untenable; for there are forms of the verb in Hebrew, and there are connected particles, which oblige us to translate by the terms let, may, and others, expressive of wish or desire; and it is often, indeed, the case, that the context will admit of no other rendering.

Another mode in which it has been attempted to remove the difficulty, is to consider this as a peculiarity of the old dispensation—as one of the things engrafted upon the Mosaic economy, which the Christian dispensation does not recognize; as being, indeed, consonant with the general spirit of the Hebrew theocracy, but which a clearer revelation would annul.

We must confess that we long satisfied ourselves with this argument, and retain a lingering inclination towards it. But we must admit that the difficulty is more efficiently and boldly grappled with by a living American divine, Note: Professor B.B. Edwards, in the Bibliotheca Sacra for February 1844. See also Hengstenberg on the subject, in the Appendix to his Commentary on the Psalms. whom we shall mainly follow in this investigation. He argues that God is the author of both dispensations, and the general spirit of the two must be the same. We ought not to vindicate one Testament at the expense of another. What is essentially bad at one period must be so at all times. It is not less wrong for Joshua to indulge in malice towards the Canaanites, than it is for the Apostle Paul towards Nero. Cruelty is no more tolerated in the Pentateuch, than it is in the Epistle. He has not been a careful reader of the Book of Deuteronomy, who has failed to observe the special pains which God took to impress upon the hearts of the Israelites, the importance of treating kindly, not only the widow and the orphan, but the stranger, the Egyptian, the hired servant, who was not of their own nation. No small part of the Levitical law is taken up with commands and appeals, designed to counteract the narrow and selfish spirit of the Hebrews.

Besides, the principle questioned runs through the entire Scriptures, the New Testament as well as the Old. “Alexander, the coppersmith, did me much evil. May the Lord reward him according to his works.” It is not easy to see how this differs materially from the imprecations in the Book of Psalms.

It has, however, been supposed by some that the passages in question are to be understood in a spiritual sense—that the reference to individuals is not real, but imaginary, or assumed for the time being, and for an ultimate purpose wholly different from what lies on the face of them—that is, that we are to apply these various maledictions to our spiritual foes, imprecating on them the terrible calamities which were apparently, but only apparently, intended for the personal enemies of the sacred writers. This theory can scarcely be deemed to need refutation. Whither would such a principle of interpretation carry us? And if Doeg, Ahithophel, and Alexander the coppersmith, were not real persons, what were they?

Others are content to take the imprecations as they stand, but they are reluctant to allow that any other than temporal calamities are contemplated, or that there is any allusion to such as may affect the soul in a future state. We would willingly go with those persons—willingly stop where they do. But we are unable to perceive how the principle in the one case differs from that of the other. If we pray that a particular person may “go down alive and instantly into the grave,” and that the direst plagues may fall upon his family, until his very name and memory be blotted out, do we not necessarily include those heavier evils to which the soul is exposed hereafter? It seems to be a distinction without a difference. Many passages, too, are general in their character, and do not appear to be limited to punishments which are specific in their nature, or temporary in their duration.

This seems a plain statement of the case; tomorrow we may look for the justification.