# Psalms vs the Gospel



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 10, 2005)

Ok I haven't been able to nail this one down quite as yet. How do I reconcile the passages in the Pslams where David says that He hates his enemies versus the command given to us in the New Testament that we should love our enemies?

I know that David didn't hateful hate Saul, because he would have killed him in the cave, but what is the level of hate that the Pslams portrays and how can it line up with NT teaching. Or is the term "Hate" as used in the Pslams indicative of something else.


----------



## gwine (Feb 10, 2005)

Someone once said that the hate in "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" refers to Jacob being chosen and Esau not. I don't know if it is the same Hebrew word used in the Psalms, though.

Just a thought. Not really even 2 cents.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 10, 2005)

a thought-- I think that David's hating of "his" enemies is not so much for his own sake, as for the sake of their being God's enemies. We can hold these seemingly contrasting elements in our character-- such as hating God's (and our) enemies, and loving God's (and our) enemies, because we have the Spirit of God dwelling in us, and God both hates the evildoer, and loves the sinner. But it is with a zeal for His glory, and not for our own, that we do both-- the ultimate fact is not their relation to us, but their relation to God.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 10, 2005)

These previous threads discuss how to understand the imprecatory psalms in light of NT teaching: 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8518

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8519


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 10, 2005)

thanks for that insight, Housewife. It puts things into perspectives.

Thanks VirginiaHugenot, I will tackle those links right away.


----------



## Robin (Feb 10, 2005)

David is a "type" of Christ - Christ is in the Psalms. The Psalms are not arranged in an arbitrary fashion - but have a deliberate order in their arrangement.

The Psalms are eschatalogical.

In Romans, we are taught to "hate what is evil" "overcome evil with good" etc. Righteous indignation is appropriate - vengence is not.

"Love" has nothing to do with feelings per se' - it has to do with caring for the highest good of the other. The highest good of an enemy can include fighting against their evil and vanquishing them.

Dr. Mark Futato is a Reformed scholar specializing on the Psalms. (Find his books on Amazon.)

Robin


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 10, 2005)

"The highest good of an enemy can include fighting against their evil and vanquishing them."

That is certainly something to think about... Thanks, Robin.


----------



## Scott (Feb 10, 2005)

It is difficult and has perplexed people through the ages. I think it is helpful to keep a couple of things in mind. There is a sense in which both David and God hate these enemies. All of the wicked will be destroyed. They will be destroyed in one of two ways. They can be destroyed in a conventional way and sent to hell forever. Or the wicked man can be destroyed by being dashed upon the Rock of Christ and being made into a new creation. This is conversion. The old wicked man is put away and the new creation (the converted soul) reigns. Either way, the wicked are destroyed. 

In terms of our relation to the wicked, or enemies, we need to keep a couple of things in perspective. As Christ commanded, when acting in a private capacity we are to love our enemies. We show them kindness, etc. David was a public figure, a king charged with enforcing God's laws. In the same way that a policeman or a judge in our country while acting in his official capacity does not show love to a criminal (he sentences him to some punishment), so was David acting. David was charged with punishing evildoers (both domestic and foreign) and this is reflected in his actions and his psalms. 

So, think of it this way. As private individuals, our attitudes and responses to criminals differs from the response of a police officer or judge. This public function is one basis for David's attitudes in the psalms.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by a mere housewife_
> a thought-- I think that David's hating of "his" enemies is not so much for his own sake, as for the sake of their being God's enemies. We can hold these seemingly contrasting elements in our character-- such as hating God's (and our) enemies, and loving God's (and our) enemies, because we have the Spirit of God dwelling in us, and God both hates the evildoer, and loves the sinner. But it is with a zeal for His glory, and not for our own, that we do both-- the ultimate fact is not their relation to us, but their relation to God.




Beautifully said, Heidi! Definitely something we should keep in mind. Its so easy to fall into a "self-righteous" hatred.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 10, 2005)

Yes, it is very easy to think, like the disciplies, let us call down fire on these people. That is not zeal for God's glory, really, but our own personal brand of hatred.

Scott, I hadn't thought of that, about David being in the position of authority.

"Or the wicked man can be destroyed by being dashed upon the Rock of Christ and being made into a new creation."

Wow-- that is another thing to think about. I've always loved that verse.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by a mere housewife_
> ...



I agree. To reiterate something I said in a previous thread, I think Psalm 139 captures the essence here of a righteous hatred toward enemies because they are God's as opposed to our own personal enemies. 



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...


----------



## VanVos (Feb 10, 2005)

This is what Kline called ethical intrusions:



> Intrusion: into the midst of the common grace field, God sometimes intrudes the principle of final judgment ahead of time (e.g., the flood; the conquest of Canaan). Normally, intrusions are associated with the setting up of a theocracy (e.g., Noah's ark; the Israelite theocracy). When heaven comes to earth, judgment ensues! The cross and resurrection of Christ was also an intrusion, and it was the prelude to the setting up of the spiritual, heavenly theocracy of the reign of Christ in the church. Intrusions are not normative and can only be instituted by divine special command (i.e., the Lord's commanding Joshua, Saul, David to exterminate the Canaanites). Under normal, common grace conditions, we must love our enemies just like God does (Mat 5:44-45). Only at the final day, when heaven comes to earth permanently, will we be asked to hate our enemies.



Hope this helps

VanVos

P.S. I do not fully agree with his comments on common grace and God loving his enemies


[Edited on 10-2-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## Scott (Feb 10, 2005)

"Wow-- that is another thing to think about. I've always loved that verse."

Yeah, it is an important concept. People are by nature dark, disorderly and in need of change. For His chosen people, God does destroy these old selves and replace them with new creations. 
• 2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
• Gal. 6:15. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
• Eph. 4:22-24. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

See also Rom. 6:6-7; Col. 3:9-10. We see here a contrast – the old creation versus the new creation. The old self versus the new self. Paul even tells us that the old self has been crucified in a spiritual sense: "For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with. . ." Rom. 6:6-7.

This is a pretty graphic way to describe the destruction of the old self - through crucifixion. He is speaking spritiually, of course. We can apply the that kind of reasoning to enemies, hoping that they will be (spiritually) crucified, dashed up against the rock (the Rock of Christ, that is), etc. - all the while understanding it to mean authentic conversion and the destruction of the old self.

Now, I do believe that at a literal level, in the psalms David is talking about physical enemies and we can understand his statements in terms of his authority to root out God's enemies and breakers of God's laws. However, I will admit that even those can at times seem hard to reconcile with other scriptural duties. An example is Psalm 109's prayer that the evil man's children become beggers. Some ancient commentators have seen that implied in that is his children's complicitly in the man's wicked actions. It is not stated in the psalm, but is assumed by interpreting scripture in light of scripture. Also the "children" don't necessarily mean minors, but his descendants of any age.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Feb 10, 2005)

"Scott, I hadn't thought of that, about David being in the position of authority."

Another way to look at them would be to think of a military commander's desires and objectives for destroying his enemies. Or a police officer's desires and hopes for catching and executing criminals who committed capital crimes. Even the statements about David's enemies attacking him personally can rightly be understood in light of treason, which the Mosaic Law made a capital crime. 

It is, of course, right for a the police to hope for and pray for the ability to catch criminals and bring them to justice. It is because they are acting in a duly authorized capacity. The same is true for armies on the right side of a war (say the hopes and prayers of the French against invading Nazis).

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Scott]


----------

