# Imprecatory Psalms



## py3ak (Oct 4, 2006)

Here is an interesting blog post claiming that because of Christ's coming we cannot sing the imprecatory Psalms, simpliciter. Any thoughts?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 4, 2006)

The argument that Christians cannot sing or pray the imprecatory psalms is an old one, and was a powerful point in Isaac Watts' justification for paraphrasing the Psalter to make David sound more like a Christian. 

Some helpful resources are provided in this earlier thread and some good discussion can be found in this thread.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Here is an interesting blog post claiming that because of Christ's coming we cannot sing the imprecatory Psalms, simpliciter. Any thoughts?


As David Chilton would say, "Effeminate and Emasculated" :bigsmile: from Days of Vengeance.

But on a serious tip, with sickos like Kim Jong Il, House of Saud, Al Qaeda, radical feminists and gays, statists liberals etc around. Only ignorant and foolish Christians don't pray imprecatory psalms.


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Here is an interesting blog post claiming that because of Christ's coming we cannot sing the imprecatory Psalms, simpliciter. Any thoughts?



Yes, read Christ's imprecations on the ungodly and hypocrites in the Scriptures of the NT.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Oct 12, 2006)

*Psalm 137*



> This psalm was probably composed in Chaldea, during the captivity, and contains, (1.) The Jews' grievous bewailing of their distress, contempt, and reproach, ver. 1, 4. (2.) Their tender and affectionate remembrance of, and concern for Jerusalem ­ the church and ordinances of God, ver. 5-6. (3.) Denunciations of destruction to the Edomites, who had promoted, and the Chaldeans, who had affected their distress and captivity, ver. 7-9.
> 
> While I sing, let me bless the Lord for what mercy is my lot, above that of many others. Let the welfare of God's church lie near my heart. Let me earnestly desire, and firmly expect the ruin of all her and my spiritual foes.
> [align=center]John Brown of Haddington[/align]






Psalm 137

Tune: St. Mary - attached


1 By Babel's streams we sat and wept,
when Sion we thought on.
2 In midst thereof we hang'd our harps
the willow-trees upon.

3 For there a song required they,
who did us captive bring:
Our spoilers call'd for mirth, and said,
A song of Sion sing.

4 O how the Lord's song shall we sing
within a foreign land?
5 If thee, Jerus'lem, I forget,
skill part from my right hand.

6 My tongue to my mouth's roof let cleave,
if I do thee forget,

Jerusalem, and thee above
my chief joy do not set.

7 Remember Edom's children, Lord,
who in Jerus'lems day,
Ev'n unto its foundation,
Raze, raze it quite, did say.

8 O daughter thou of Babylon,
near to destruction;
Bless'd shall he be that thee rewards,
as thou to us hast done.

9 Yea, happy surely shall he be
thy tender little ones
Who shall lay hold upon, and them
shall dash against the stones.


-- _Scottish Metrical Psalter_


----------



## jaybird0827 (Oct 12, 2006)

*Sing in Union with Christ*

A former pastor once reminded me that we sing the Psalms we sing Christ's words in union with him.

Ever since hearing that, I cannot possibly imagine myself singing Fanny Crosby "hymns", or Isaac Watts' "imitations" in union with Christ. Those aren't his words.


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> A former pastor once reminded me that we sing the Psalms we sing Christ's words in union with him.
> 
> Ever since hearing that, I cannot possibly imagine myself singing Fanny Crosby "hymns", or Isaac Watts' "imitations" in union with Christ. Those aren't his words.



 Heb. 2:12 was the decisive verse in helping me see the claims of exclusive psalmody.

Half the problem is that man made hymn singers are accustomed to see themselves singing some sentimental notion to God as if no other person existed. Psalmody is a proclamation of Christ's Gospel as a corporate body. The imprecations are the judgements of Christ on those who do not believe in Him and are not a part of the body of His church. We pray these very judgements will be the means of awakening sinners so that they subject themselves to Christ and take up His cause as proclaimed by the church.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 12, 2006)




----------



## Scott (Oct 13, 2006)

"Psalmody is a proclamation of Christ's Gospel as a corporate body."

That does not seem true for many psalms. The person shifts from first to second to third in many psalms, and some even appear more responsive, as a dialogue between parties.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 13, 2006)

He's not arguing that we cannot sing or pray them. Quite to the contrary. He's making a case for _ how _ we sing and pray them today.

The object of imprecation now is not the pagan across the street, but sin, the flesh, and the devil (and the reprobates - but only as a class since we don't know who they might be in any particular case). 

His point that the theocracy has passed and that, in Christ, our relation to the imprecations has changed is a very good one.

He's not taking C S Lewis' rather high-handed approach (as much as I enjoyed that book) to the impreccatory Psalms as "beneath" the Christian.

rsc



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The argument that Christians cannot sing or pray the imprecatory psalms is an old one, and was a powerful point in Isaac Watts' justification for paraphrasing the Psalter to make David sound more like a Christian.
> 
> Some helpful resources are provided in this earlier thread and some good discussion can be found in this thread.



[Edited on 10-13-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## py3ak (Oct 13, 2006)

Thank you for underlining the


> simpliciter


 part of my post, Dr. Clark.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 13, 2006)

Point taken!  I missed that aspect of Reuben's statement and have not read the actual blog in question. 

I agree that the imprecatory psalms in the Christian era have reference to God's spiritual enemies. This was true in the Old Testament era as well. Clearly, though, specific individuals and nations who opposed God's people were the subjects of the Psalmists' imprecations then, and I think it is proper to maintain that principle in our own age. The theocracy of political Israel has been done away with, but the Christocracy of King Jesus has rather been established. God's people still do battle with God's enemies, not as private individuals but as those who like David hated the wicked with a perfect hatred because opposed themselves against God (Ps. 139.21-22). We do indeed wrestle against spiritual wickedness, and we do not claim to know the secret counsel of God as to who are definitely among the reprobate; but nevertheless, there is good reason even in our age to sing imprecatory psalms with the ungodly in mind, and not just as a generic class but as specific individuals when they are for all the world to see conspiring against the Lord and his kingdom. 

"The Imprecatory Psalms," J. H. Webster, in _The Psalms in Worship_, J. McNaugher, pp. 308-309:



> The principle advocated is that these "vindictive" Psalms voice the feelings and sentiments that animate Christ in His struggle with the incorrigible enemies of His Kingdom and His determination to punish them. Working on this principle, we feel sure that Psalm-singers will have no reason to complain that there is anything in this great autobiography of Him Who is "the way, the truth, and the life" [John 14:6] unsuited either to their sermons or experience.
> 
> Occasions abundantly justifying their proper use are to be found in the history of the Church. There have been times when the children of God have been compelled to fight for their own lives and the cause of truth with carnal weapons. Their bravery on many a hard-fought field is enshrined in the memory of the Church. When the Spanish Armada swept down on the shores of England, pious and patriotic hearts united in that mighty war-song, "Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered, let them also that hate Him flee before Him." [Ps 68:1] They nerved the heart of an English David and his stern Ironsides to accomplish a work for God and humanity that required men of iron to do. They swept to victory with their spirits strengthened for the shock of battle by these songs. These "Justice" Psalms were needed and used, and used aright, by the persecuted Waldenses, the hunted Camisards, the oppressed Covenanters. Men of every shade of religious belief (the fact is notorious) turned to them in the days of our Civil War. When the awful story of the Armenian atrocities filled the civilized world with horror, righteous indignation sought as its fittest vehicle of expression these Psalms. And can we not find in them passages that we can use with perfect propriety and a spirit of genuine piety to describe the lawless raids of the municipal freebooters of the twentieth century?
> ...
> When all is quiet and peaceful the Church may not feel very often or keenly the need of these so-called imprecatory songs, and may study them in a merely academic way; but when the shock of a great battle for the truth and with implacable enemies is upon her, when the storms of persecution rage, when her foes beset her round on every side, when earthly hope vanishes and her faith is tried as by fire, then she turns to these Psalms. They may have been stumbling blocks to her faith in her prosperity, but they prove steppingstones heavenward in her adversity, because in them the Judge of all the earth assures her of the ultimate destruction of her enemies and the complete and everlasting triumph of her cause.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 13, 2006)

Keon,

When was the United States of America constituted the theocratic national people of God and charged with the duty of obliterating national enemies? Where exactly, in this scheme, is the promised land? Canada? Mexico? 

It seems to me that the earlier Reformed writers, even though they wrote from a broadly theocratic point of view, did not think in the categories your post seems to assume. E.g., Heinrich Bullinger, in the Second Helvetic Confession, Art. 11 wrote:



> We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.



rsc



> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by py3ak_
> ...


----------



## crhoades (Oct 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> When was the United States of America constituted the theocratic national people of God and charged with the duty of obliterating national enemies?



January 20, 2001?

Sorry...couldn't resist. Carry on!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...


----------



## py3ak (Oct 13, 2006)

Andrew, what would you consider to be a decent list of people to have in mind when using the imprecatory Psalms?
The persecutors of my brethren in North Korea, China and the Islamic nations are the ones most frequently in my mind.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...


----------



## MW (Oct 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Psalmody is a proclamation of Christ's Gospel as a corporate body."
> 
> That does not seem true for many psalms. The person shifts from first to second to third in many psalms, and some even appear more responsive, as a dialogue between parties.



The interchange of "I" and "we" reinforces the corporate nature of the Psalter. As also does the constant fluctuation between prayer, praise and benediction/malediction. David speaks as head of the people, and always in the specific relation which had been appointed to him in the covenant. As such, the NT sees his words as the words of the Seed whom the covenant specifically had respect to; and David's kingdom pronouncements pertain to the kingdom of Christ, the church.

[Edited on 10-13-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## MW (Oct 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> The object of imprecation now is not the pagan across the street, but sin, the flesh, and the devil (and the reprobates - but only as a class since we don't know who they might be in any particular case).



Does this mean the minister cannot tell the pagan across the street that the wrath of God abides on him so long as he is outside of Christ? The apostle says this is to be without God and without hope in the world.

Yes, the imprecations should not be understood according to a nationalistic theocracy. We are Christians, not Jews. We understand the OT with the veil removed from our eyes, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord. On that basis, all that the Psalms speak in malediction is true of those outside of Christ, as it was true for those outside of the theocratic kingdom of the time. They should not be spiritualised away.

[Edited on 10-13-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 14, 2006)

No, not at all. We should preach the law to everyone who doesn't confess faith in Christ in the hopes that God the Spirit will use it to drive him to Christ. 

The imprecations as expressed in the Psalms are often about literal, physical, destruction through martial force. The use of them in the way you suggest, however, is a sort of spiritualizing, but it's entirely appropriate as it is exactly what the NT does with this sort of text. 

rsc





> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...


----------



## crhoades (Oct 19, 2006)

Van Til: taken from his Christian Theistic Ethics

*C. S. Lewis On The Imprecatory Psalms*

A view quite different from the view set forth in this syllabus is that found in the book of C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms. Lewis has no eye for the fact that the Old and the New Testaments together present a unified view of the relation of God to man, and for the fact that this view is squarely opposed to that of every form of ethics based upon human experience as metaphysically autonomous and ethically normal. Lewis says: “There were in the eighteenth century terrible theologians who held that ‘God did not command certain things because they are right, but certain things are right because God commanded them.’ To make the position perfectly clear, one of them even said that though God has, as it happens, commanded us to love Him and one another, He might equally well have commanded us to hate Him and one another, and hatred would then have been right. It was apparently a mere toss-up which He decided on. Such a view of course makes God a mere arbitrary tyrant. It would be better and less irreligious to believe in no God and to have no ethics than to have such an ethics and such a theology as this.” 4 

In putting the matter this way Lewis makes a caricature of the Christian view and confuses the issue. Whatever some of the “terrible theologians” may have said, simple orthodox theology has always stood by the teaching that truth is true because God says it is true, and right is right because God says it is right. But in asserting this, orthodox, theology assumes or asserts that what God says about truth and righteousness is based upon his absolute holiness and righteousness.

On the other hand, when orthodox thinking rejects the notion that the truth is truth in itself and the right is right in itself independent of God’s assertion with respect to them, it merely rejects the idea of human autonomy.

It was Socrates the pagan philosopher who insisted that he wanted himself to be the ultimate judge of the nature of piety, and that he did not care what God said about it.
Lewis is quite right in stating the issue between Christianity and non-Christianity in the terms he uses. He is, however, quite mistaken when, as an evangelical Christian, he chooses the side of paganism against Christianity.

To be sure, it is because he is committed to an Arminian view of free will that Lewis chooses for the idea of the autonomy of the human moral consciousness as the source and standard of ethical behavior. He thinks that “the doctrine of Total Depravity—when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing—may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.” 5 In doing so Lewis appears not to realize in taking the side of Socrates, the idea of the self-sufficient moral consciousness, he has virtually renounced the right to appeal to either the God or the Christ of Scripture for either help or light. He must, after this “when the consequence is drawn” hold with Kant that the goal, the standard and the ultimate motive power for ethics are to be found in man as self-sufficient. He may after that, following Kant and such men as Sören Kierkegaard and Barth, project a God who comes down to man, and thus speak of incarnation, but this is of no help. Lewis finds “second meanings” in the psalms, even in what he thinks of as their morally reprehensible features. But the one thing he cannot see is that the psalms, including those that contain awful predications, derive their significance and light from the substitutionary death of Christ. What the psalmists do is to think of themselves as those who are “in Christ.” Christ would come to destroy all the works of darkness. As those who are redeemed by Christ they must have the mind of Christ. They must love what Christ loves and hate what Christ hates. In the book of Revelation the souls of the saints cry out for the vengeance of the Lord upon all those who seek to work havoc with the work of Christ as he purifies the spirits of men from all love of evil.

As noted above, this is not to justify personal vengeance. It is the only cure against the idea of personal vengeance. Throughout the Psalms, including those containing imprecations, the believer has learned to make his thought subservient to the thought of Christ.

One would think he reads a modern humanist rather than an evangelical Christian when he hears Lewis speak of the “devilish” character of the psalmist’s sentiments as, e.g., expressed in Psalm 109. 6 How shall we deal with these “contemptible Psalms?” Shall we leave them alone? We can scarcely do that. The “bad parts will not ‘come away clean.’ ” Somehow they must have been written for our learning. Throughout its history the church seems to have thought so. Moreover, “Our Lord’s mind and language were clearly steeped in the Psalter.” 7 

What then must we do? “The hatred is there, festering, gloating, undisguised—and also we should be wicked if we in any way condoned it … ” We cannot “yield for one moment to the idea that, because it comes in the Bible, all this vindictive hatred must somehow be good and pious.” 8 
In the rest of the book Lewis reinterprets the Psalms to make them acceptable for one who believes that the evolving ethical consciousness of man is, after the fashion of Kant, sufficient to itself, and at the same time to keep his evangelical convictions about salvation by grace from disappearing in the process. The result is confusing indeed. Certainly his approach to the Psalms does not challenge the unbeliever to forsake his sin of human pride and to be saved from the wrath of God to come. With the best of intentions to interest men in the gospel of Christ, he tones down the gospel so drastically that one dreads to think of what would happen if the consequences were drawn.

We must also note that just as certain as it is that the Old Testament requires of the people of God that they shall destroy evil, so certain is it also that they should begin that program of the destruction of evil within themselves. It was within the theocracy itself that God’s holiness was to be manifested. The least bit of infringement of the holiness of God was punished quickly and severely. The least bit of impurity in the theocracy was intolerable in the sight of God. The Jewish lepers had to be driven out of the camp of the Israelites and had to dwell in awful separation, symbolizing the great loathing of God for the impurity of sin. It was not till the Israelites were pure in the sight of God that he could really use them as a scourge for the nations. God was willing even to use the heathen, who were not his people, and to whom he had not given his covenant, to scourge Israel, in order that his own people might become pure. It was not till Habakkuk, the prophet, saw this great truth that he could really understand how it was possible that God should allow his own people to suffer so grievously at the hands of the enemies of the Lord.

Further, what is true of Israel as a nation is true in the New Testament of individuals. And what is true of the Old Testament in an externalistic sense is true of the New Testament in an internalistic sense.

The individual believer has a comprehensive task. His is the task of exterminating evil from the whole universe. He must begin this program in himself. As a king reinstated it is his first battle to fight sin within his own heart. This will remain his first battle till his dying day. This does not mean, however, that he must not also seek to destroy evil in his fellow Christians and in his fellow men while he is engaged in destroying evil within himself. If he had to wait till he was perfect himself to seek to destroy evil within the hearts and lives of others, he would have to wait till after this life, when there will be no more evil to be destroyed. It is true that we all live in glass houses and therefore should never assume a proud attitude. It is true that we all sin again and again and that it will be necessary for us to warn our brother of his sin at one time while it will be necessary for the brother to warn us of our sin at another time. But all this does not absolve us from the sacred duty as Christians to warn one another of our sins.

We must go one step further. It is our duty not only to seek to destroy evil in ourselves and in our fellow Christians, but it is our further duty to seek to destroy evil in all our fellow men. It may be, humanly speaking, hopeless in some instances that we should succeed in bringing them to Christ. This does not absolve us, however, from seeking to restrain their sins to some extent for this life. We must be active first of all in the field of special grace, but we also have a task to perform with respect to the destruction of evil in the field of common grace.

Still further we must note that our task with respect to the destruction of evil is not done if we have sought to fight sin itself everywhere we see it. We have the further obligation to destroy the consequences of sin in this world as far as we can. We must do good to all men, especially to those of the household of faith. To help relieve something of the sufferings of the creatures of God is our privilege and our task.

A particular point is that of the Christian’s attitude toward the abolition of war. Some would hold that since the Bible tells us that there will be wars till the end of time, it would be flying in the face of providence if we should try to outlaw war. But there is a difference between a commandment of God and a statement of what will come to pass. God commands us to be perfect but tells us that none of us will ever be perfect in this life. So it is our plain task to do what we can, in legitimate ways, to lessen the number of wars and to make them less gruesome.

A word needs to be said also about seeking in other ways to ameliorate the results of sin. It is not as common as it used to be to find Christians who think it wrong to call a doctor when they are afflicted with disease. Yet one does not always know whether this change of attitude is due to a deeper spiritual insight or to a more careless attitude. It may be either, in any given instance. It may be that we hold that Christianity really forbids us to seek a doctor in times of sickness, but that we do not take our Christianity seriously enough to live up to it in this respect. On the other hand it may also be that we have learned to see more deeply into the nature of Christianity and have come to see that it does not forbid us to call a doctor but rather requires us to do so in case of disease. Disease is, in general, the result of sin. God has graciously mitigated the results of sin by placing in creation itself the healing powers that reduce the pains of man and prolong his life. It would be disobedience to God and failure to make proper use of his gifts if we neglected to call a doctor in time of need.

Such then is the third aspect of the summum bonum. We have an absolute ethical ideal to offer man. This absolute ideal is a gift of God. And this gives us assurance that our labors shall not be in vain. This gives us courage to start with the program of the eradication of evil from God’s universe. We cannot carry on from the place where God first placed men. A great deal of our time will have to be taken up with the destruction of evil. We may not even seem to see much progress in ourselves or round about us, during our lifetime. We shall have to build with the trowel in one hand and the sword in the other. It may seem to us to be a hopeless task of sweeping the ocean dry. Yet we know that this is exactly what our ethical ideal would be if we were not Christians. We know that for non-Christians their ethical ideal can never be realized either for themselves or for society. They do not even know the true ethical ideal. And as to our own efforts, we know that though much of our time may have to be taken up with pumping out the water of sin, we are nevertheless laying the foundation of our bridge on solid rock, and we are making progress toward our goal. Our victory is certain. The devil and all his servants will be put out of the habitable universe of God. There will be a new heaven and a new earth on which righteousness will dwell.

Van Til, C., & Sigward, E. H. (1997). The works of Cornelius Van Til, 1895-1987 (electronic ed.). New York: Labels Army Co.

[Edited on 10-19-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## rmdmphilosopher (Oct 22, 2006)

*?*

Has anyone here read War Psalms of the Prince of Peace by James Adams? It really helped me to understand the nature, purpose, and proper use of the imprecatory psalms, and he addresses a lot of the issues mentioned in this thread. Just thought I'd mention it.


----------

