Holy Cursing - An Analysis of the Imprecatory Psalms in the Christian Life

INTRODUCTION

     The Christian Bible has served as a source of inspiration, instruction, and revelation for nearly two millennia.  The Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament, which comprise nearly eighty percent of the Bible, have done the same for much longer.  The contents of its pages have been used as material for hymns, consolation for the suffering, and criteria for attaining and maintaining a right relationship with God.  The centerpiece of the Old Testament is the book of Psalms.  The Psalms contain a variety of literature that has been placed into categories such as hymns, complaints of the people, complaints of the individual, thanksgiving songs of the individual, royal psalms, and wisdom psalms.[1]  Narrowing the field a bit further, there are, within these hundred and fifty Psalms, more than thirty that are recognized as curses, or imprecatory Psalms.  These Psalms have been categorized in several ways.  The list offered by Reed Lessing is typical.  He lists “imprecations against societal enemies (58, 94), imprecations against national enemies (68, 74, 79, 83, 129, 137), and imprecations against personal enemies (5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, 28, 31, 35, 40, 52, 54, 55, 56, 59, 69, 70, 71, 104, 109, 139, 140, 141, 143).”[2]

     The genre of cursing is not unique to the Bible.  Literature throughout the ages has contained curses upon enemies, curses against the gods, curses from the gods, curses upon rebellious sons, and curses upon nature itself.  In a modern context, cursing can be seen in everything from the offhand damnations that people pronounce on people, objects, and the weather.  The word “damn,” followed by the subject of the curse has become so prevalent in modern American culture that it is generally intended and interpreted as an innocuous venting of frustration rather than an actual wish for the person or thing being cursed to be subjected to hellfire.  More serious imprecations can be heard during times of war, attack, or other national disaster.  Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 one would likely have expected to hear prayers for the punishment of the perpetrators of those wicked deeds.  Jace Broadhurst, writing for the African Journal of Theology, expressed his surprise at the tameness of American prayer following that tragedy:

We prayed for the survivors trapped under tons of rubble.  We prayed for the families of those lost in the tragedy.  We prayed for the government officials who were responsible for repairing so much lost real estate.  We prayed for the church community who was needed now more than ever to mend people’s lives and preach an undiluted gospel.  We prayed intensely.  We prayed with passion.  When we finished praying, I realized what we had not done.  We had prayed for people, but we never prayed against people.  Never did we openly express our desire that the people in charge of this atrocity pay for their deeds.[3]

      Should this aversion to imprecatory payer surprise us?  After all, Christianity is a religion of love, right?  Doesn’t the Bible, particularly the New Testament, present a God of love, hands outstretched, to the world?  Christ taught that we are to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us.  Given this, how does a Christian reconcile the presence of such “un-loving” prayers as those in the Psalms?  The problem would be less difficult if it were possible to see these Psalms simply as a historical record of historical prayers.  However, the history of the Scriptures themselves shows that the book of Psalms was Israel’s hymnbook.  The Psalter was compiled for the purpose of being used in worship!  Lessing asks, somewhat sarcastically, “Who appointed this Commission on Worship? Or were the doctrinal reviewers taking a nap?”[4]  .  In his commentary on Psalm 109, Charles Spurgeon calls it “one of the hard places of Scripture,” recognizing that it contains “strong language . . . which the soul trembles to read; yet . . . a Psalm unto God, and given by inspiration.”[5]  The question then becomes how one inspired of God could pray such curses.  What is one to make of their place in Scripture?  If the first question is answered satisfactorily, a second is bound to follow on its heels.  That is, “What place, if any, do these Psalms have in Christian worship?”  This paper will address these imprecatory Psalms, their origins and motivations, their theological soundness, and what place, if any, they have in the Christian life today.

INTERPRETIVE ISSUES

     The interpretation of these Psalms has generated controversy down through the ages.  At least five unsatisfactory explanations have been proposed.  The first of these is that the imprecatory Psalms are not, in fact, inspired.  This interpretation relegates these portions of the Psalter to writings one might find in a personal journal.  It imagines that David recorded his own personal outrage at the enemies of God, and that these were later compiled alongside other, more spiritual writings.  This view paints David as a deeply flawed man who, if he “had been a better man . . . would not have uttered such perverse thoughts.”[6]  This personal vindictiveness of David and other psalmists is said to account for the departure from sound theology.  This point of view unravels the problem easily according to the following logic: “to pray for the doom of another is sinful; David prayed for the doom of others; therefore David sinned.”[7] There are two distinct factors that make this theory unacceptable.  The first is the character of David.  David’s character as revealed in Scripture is far from untarnished.  One only has to think of his adultery with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of Uriah to see this.  However, in relation to his enemies, David’s character is not as the proponents of this view would have us believe.  David’s actions when he was being hunted by Saul, including sparing Saul’s life on at least two occasions, do not reveal a man with this supposed vindictive nature.[8]  His refusal to allow Abishai to attack Shimei[9], and kindness to Mephibosheth further show that David was not vengeful toward his enemies.[10] Spurgeon attacked this premise head-on when he wrote that Psalm 109 was:

Not therefore the ravings of a vicious misanthrope, or he execrations of a hot, revengeful spirit.  David would not smite the man who sought his blood, he freely forgave those who treated him shamefully; and therefore . . . would be foreign to the character of the son of Jesse.[11]

The second problem with this explanation is that, as soon as one starts dividing Scripture into inspired and uninspired portions in order to solve theological problems, a dangerous precedent has been set.  The New Testament makes it clear that, as part of Scripture, the Psalms are inspired, and the Old Testament specifically declares the inspiration of the Davidic psalms.[12]  The claim, then, that the imprecatory Psalms are the vengeful ravings of their authors, and not inspired of the Holy Spirit, is unacceptable.

     A second explanation is that the Old Testament belongs to a different dispensation than the New Testament.  That is, the moral standards and religious understanding of the day makes it understandable that godly men could utter such words.  According to this line of reasoning, David, living in an inferior dispensation, could not be expected to understand certain concepts, such as loving one’s enemies.  Didn’t Jesus say that his listeners had been taught to love their friends and hate their enemies?[13]  Alexander MacLaren, summarized this point of view well:

Our Lord has signalized the difference between his teaching and that addressed to “them of old time” and we are but following His when we recognize that the psalmist’s mood is distinctly inferior to that which has now become the law for devout men . . . The form of these maledictions belongs to a lower stage of revelation, the substance of them considered as a passionate desire for the destruction of evil, burning zeal for the triumph of the truth, which is God’s cause and unquenchable faith that he is just, is a part of Christian perfection.[14]

Leslie Allen, an additional supporter of this view writes of Psalm 109 that:

The Christian reader of this psalm is acutely aware of the conspicuous absence of NT ideals of loving one’s enemies and blessing persecutors . . . It is worth remembering also the OT concentration on the temporal.  The Christian is influenced by the eternal dimension of his religion and can wait for an eschatological Day of Judgment.  But for the Israelite believer God’s justice had virtually to be condensed into this short life if it was to be meaningful.[15] 

This dispensational interpretation is very popular today, particularly in America and, “[a]ccording to this scheme of interpretation, the Psalter belongs primarily to the dispensation of law, not to the dispensation of grace. Any connection which it may have with the dispensation of grace or the so-called ‘Church age’ is therefore purely prophetic”[16]  The chief difficulty with this solution is that the Bible nowhere supports these two dispositions of morality.  There is a definite flow of revelation from the Old Testament to the New, but it is a flow from obscurity to clarity, from partial to full revelation.  It is not a flow from inferior morality to superior morality.  Those under the old covenant had commands to love their enemies and prohibitions against seeking vengeance.[17]  Christ, in this case, clarified religious misconceptions, rather than introducing a brand new level of morality.

     A third suggestion that seeks to explain some of these Psalms is that the words of cursing are not the words of David at all.  Rather, they are the words of David’s enemies.  Psalm 109 provides a good example of this.  In the first five verses, the speaker pleads with God,

Be silent not, O God of my praise!  
For wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me,
  speaking against me with lying tongues. 
They encircle me with words of hate,
  and attack me without cause. 
In return for my love they accuse me,
  but I give myself to prayer.
So they reward me evil for good,
  and hatred for my love.[18]

In the verses that follow, the supporters of this view argue that the speaker recounts the curses of his enemy against him.  Allen writes of this Psalm that:

The psalmist evidently stands on trial at a religious court.  Before the priestly judges representing Yahweh he testifies that the accusations laid against him are unwarranted and false.  He appeals to the God who hitherto has given him praise for coming to his aid.  How shabbily his love intercession and concern for those who now accuse him have been rewarded, with malevolence and pure lies![19]

Then, turning to verses 6-11, Allen continues, “The accused proceeds to quote their evil scheming and hostile attitude” citing “a string of imprecations against his life, family and property.”[20]  While linguistic maneuvering could potentially work to place the words of verses 6-20, it would take specific (re)insertions into the Hebrew text, and still would not work for many other imprecatory passages.[21]

      Yet another proposal has been introduced that takes the desire out of the heart of the psalmist and relegates these imprecations to the category of prophecy.  In this argument, it is not that the Psalmist is relating his own desires for the suffering of his enemies, but predicting a future downfall through inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  “They do not seek the destruction or condemnation of any man, it is said, but merely predict, in graphic terms, the ruin which is sure to overtake the impenitent sinner, according to the principle that ‘whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap’.”[22]  The psalmist, then, would be acting as the other prophets of the Old Testament who, though they predicted ruin, did not desire such ruination.  This is not always true, as some prophets clearly wanted God to bring His vengeance on the rebellious people to whom they were preaching.  Apparently, Augustine, Calvin, and Spurgeon gave some credence to this way of thinking.[23]  This idea is supported by the fact that several of the imprecations are quoted in the New Testament.  For example, the apostle Peter uses Psalm 69:25 and 109.8 to refer to Judas Iscariot.[24]  While this interpretation may be feasible for some Psalms, there are clearly others where this solution will not work.  Laney and Broadhurst agree regarding Psalm 69:24-25 that the imperative verb, followed by three imperfect verbs usually results in a translation that connotes a want or desire of the speaker.  These two verses each begin with this structure making “this particular solution improbable.”[25]  Even a cursory reading of the English translations makes it clear that the speaker is wishing the events rather than predicting them, and this appears to be well supported in the original language.  Again, in Psalm 137, the Psalmist clearly anticipates the vengeance of the Lord on the “daughter of Babylon,” declaring “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them against the rock!”[26]  These are far from prophetic utterances, and must be interpreted as the sincere desire of the psalmist.  Therefore, this proposal, while potentially applicable in some cases, fails to provide a ubiquitously satisfactory solution.

      Still others have suggested that the enemies in these Psalms are not physical enemies at all.  Rather, they suppose, they are spiritual or figurative enemies.  This shifting of emphasis allows its supporters to avoid the problem altogether by saying, “No, no! David wasn’t wishing destruction upon people, but upon spiritual forces and tendencies of human nature.”  This interpretive side step may be appropriate on occasion, but cannot apply across the board.  Vos reminds us that, while Psalms

cannot be limited to the particular persons concerning whom these prayers were first offered to God, still the fact remains that these Psalms do, as is clearly indicated by the way in which the New Testament interprets Psalm 109 of Judas Iscariot, refer to particular human persons, known or unknown to us, and that therefore their meaning cannot be spiritualized to make them refer to purely spiritual or non-human powers or persons.[27]

Though Broadhurst rebukes him for his “far from fair and certainly not scholarly”[28] argument, Laney asks “How is one to determine when to make the transition from a literal to a spiritual interpretation of a particular passage?”[29]  Whether or not Laney goes too far, it is a dangerous precedent to apply clearly concrete statements to spiritual enemies without contextual or linguistic support for doing so.

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

      Given the proposed solutions, each with its own inadequacies, it is reasonable to assert that (1) the imprecatory Psalms were indeed written by David and the other psalmists, (2) they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, (3) they were not indicative of a morally deficient theology, (4) though sometimes prophetic, they were petitions to God for the punishment of the wicked, and (5) the enemies were real, physical ones.  This assertion, while reasonable, does not answer the question that many ask.  That is, “How could the Holy Spirit inspire David and others to pray for such atrocious punishments?”  This question, as Vos points out, seems valid on the surface, but is laid on a foundation of faulty suppositions.  These are that “the welfare of man is the chief end of man” and that “man has rights which even God is bound to respect.”[30]  This humanistic perspective has seeped into much biblical criticism and is an insidious lie that infects all areas of theology.  The scriptural reality is that the chief end of man to glorify God.    Vos reminds his readers that:

the glory of God includes the welfare of man in general, but Scripture teaches that particular cases may, and do, exist where the two conflict, and in such cases the believer must seek the glory of God and not the welfare of man which is in conflict with the glory of God.[31]

It is true that man is special among God’s creation.  It is true that man is so valuable to God that Christ came to die for man’s redemption.  It is also true that Christian man has a responsibility to love both his neighbor and his enemy.  However, the welfare of man cannot eclipse the glory of God.  As the supreme creator and ruler of the universe, God is due man’s allegiance in all things.  When man rejects his mandate to glorify God, not only does he relegate himself to a less-than-ideal life, he forfeits any claim to the covenant of life.  Morality is not an abstract concept that exists apart from God.  Morality is an expression God’s very nature.  Therefore, “many things which would be wrong for man to do, are right when done by God.”[32]  This includes punishing sin.  The palmists understood these truths.  With these truths squarely in perspective, the purposes of the imprecatory Psalms become clearer.  These purposes are important to understand before deciding whether imprecatory prayer has any place in the Christian life today.

      The first purpose of the imprecations is to establish the righteous.  God has promised repeatedly to reward the righteous man for his obedience to God.  A plea for the vindication of the righteous, as depicted well in Psalm 7:6-11 has always been on the lips of God’s people.  Secondly, these prayers were prayed in anticipation of God’s deliverance, so that He might be given all the glory when the promised vindication was realized (7:17, 58:10).  Third, was a concern that God’s righteous justice be recognized by all men (59:13). Fourth, the Psalms call for recognition of God’s absolute sovereignty by those who opposed Him (59:13).  Next, the judgments were intended to ensure that the blessings of the righteous were not shared by the wicked (69:28).  Finally, the imprecatory Psalms were prayed that the wicked, by way of their punishment, might be led to seek the Lord.[33]  An analysis of these Psalms in their historical setting makes clear not only their purposes, but their appropriateness as well.  When David, the author of many of the most scathing imprecations, prayed them, he did so by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  The monarchy of Israel was a theocratic one.  That is, the king was God’s representative to the people.  He was anointed by God, and any attack on the king was as an attack on God himself.  Imprecations like those we see in the Psalms were, then, a natural outpouring of zeal for the kingdom of God.[34]  Secondly, God had vowed to judge the enemies of Abraham, so it was not only natural, but appropriate, for the psalmists to call upon God to fulfill His word.[35]  Vos casts his vote in favor of the psalmist’s actions, saying that “If it is right for God to plan and effect destruction, then it is also right for the saints to pray for the same.”[36] 

CONCLUSION

      This brings us to the ultimate question – whether or not the imprecatory Psalms, and imprecatory prayer in general, have a place in the Christian life.  Some have concluded that, in the Church age, there is no appropriate place for imprecatory prayer, calling it appropriate under the Abrahamic covenant but inappropriate for Christians.[37]  Others caution against haphazard imprecations, because       it is not known by the individual believer whether their “enemy” may someday come to Christ:

The Christian can, indeed, pray for severe temporal judgments upon the enemies of God, but in doing so must leave to God the application of such petitions to particular persons because only God can discern between wicked persons who are the objects of reprobation and wicked persons who are included in the election of grace.[38]

Others contend that imprecations are a necessary part of the Christian life as we express our “desire for the vindication of God’s name.”[39] 

      It may be concluded that the imprecatory Psalms have not only deep historical relevance in the Christian landscape, but also a solid place in the lives of modern day believers.  Prayer for temporal judgment on the wicked in order to lead them to repentance is an appropriate, even loving, Christian activity.  Praying for the eternal doom of the wicked, in general, is merely echoing the promises of Scripture and is, therefore, also appropriate.  This prayer must stop short, however, of praying for the eternal damnation of specific individuals.  It is the right of God alone to decide when the fullness of time has come in an individual’s rebellion.  Finally, praying for the overthrow of evil and establishment of God’s kingdom is a natural product of the indwelling Spirit of God.  The closer one is to God, the more he loves the things God loves, and hates the things God hates.  This is most aptly evidenced in the Lord’s Prayer.  In that prayer, Christians are instructed to pray “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.”  God’s will cannot be done on earth unless evil is eradicated.   God’s kingdom cannot come without Satan’s kingdom being destroyed.  Finally, in the words of Charles Spurgeon, “viewing the adversaries of the Lord, and doers of iniquity, as such, and incorrigible, we cannot wish them well; on the contrary, we desire their overthrow, and destruction.”[40]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Leslie C. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 21, Psalms 101-150. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983.

Broadhurst, Jace R. "Should Cursing Continue? An Argument for Imprecatory Psalms in Biblical Theology." Africa Journal Of Evangelical Theology 23, no. 1 (January 1, 2004): 61-89. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012).

Craigie, Peter. Word Biblical Commentary Vol 19, Psalms 1-50. Waco, TX.: Word Books, 1983.

Hankle, Dominick D. "The Therapeutic Implications of the Imprecatory Psalms in the Christian Counseling Aetting." Journal Of Psychology & Theology 38, no. 4 (December 1, 2010): 275-280. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012).

Laney, J Carl. "A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms." Bibliotheca Sacra 138, no. 549 (January 1, 1981): 35-45. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012).

La Sor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, Frederic William Bush, and Leslie C. Allen. Old Testament survey: the message, form, and background of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1996.

Lessing, Reed. "Broken Teeth, Bloody Baths, and Baby Bashing: Is There Any Place in the Church for Imprecatory Psalms?." Concordia Journal 32, no. 4 (October 1, 2006): 368-370. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012).

Spurgeon, C. H. The Treasury of David: an Expository and Devotional Commentary On the Psalms Volume (I-VII). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

Surburg, Raymond F. "Interpretation of the Imprecatory Psalms." Springfielder 39, no. 3 (December 1, 1975): 88-102. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012).

Tate, Marvin E. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 20, Psalms 51-100. Waco, TX.: Word Books, 1990.

Thomas, Robert L. "Imprecatory Prayers of the Apocalypse." Bibliotheca Sacra 126, no. 502 (April 1, 1969): 123-131. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012).

Vos, Johannes Geerhardus. "The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms." Westminster Theological Journal 4, no. 2 (May 1, 1942): 123-138. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012).

---

[1] William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey: the Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 433-440.

[2] Reed Lessing, "Broken teeth, bloody baths, and baby bashing: is there any place in the church for imprecatory Psalms?." Concordia Journal 32, no. 4 (October 1, 2006): 368-370.  ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012), 368.

[3] Jace R. Broadhurst, “Should cursing continue? An argument for imprecatory psalms in biblical theology." Africa Journal Of Evangelical Theology 23, no. 1 (2004): 61-89. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012), 62.

[4] Lessing, Broken Teeth, 368.

[5] C. H Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: an Expository and Devotional Commentary On the Psalms Volume V (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), 157.

[6] Carl J. Laney, "A fresh look at the imprecatory Psalms." Bibliotheca Sacra 138, no. 549 (January 1, 1981): 35-45. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012), 38.

[7] Johannes Geerhardus Vos,. "The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms." Westminster Theological Journal 4, no. 2 (May 1, 1942): 123-138. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2012), 127.

[8] I Samuel 24:1-15, I Samuel 26:1-25.          

[9] II Samuel 16:10-11.

[10] II Samuel 9.

[11] Spurgeon, Treasury of David Vol V, 157.

[12] II Timothy 3:16, II Samuel 23:1-2.

[13] Matthew 5:43.

[14] Broadhurst, Should Cursing Continue, 71-72, citing Alexander MacLaren, The Psalms, Vol 3 (New York: A.C. Armstrongand Sons, 1901), 174.

[15] Leslie C. Allen, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 21, Psalms 101-150, (Peabody, MA: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 77.

[16] Vos, Ethical Problem, 124.

[17] Deuteronomy 32:25, Leviticus 19:17-18.

[18] Psalm 109:1-5.

[19] Allen, Psalms 100-150, 76.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Laney, Fresh Look, 38.

[22] Vos, Ethical Problem, 125-126 citing Galatians 6:7.

[23] Broadhurst, Should Cursing Continue, 72. and Laney, Fresh Look, 39.

[24] Acts 1:20.

[25] Laney, Fresh Look, 40 and Broadhurst, Should Cursing Continue, 73.

[26] Psalm 137:8-9.

[27] Vos, Ethical Problem, 127.

[28] Broadhurst, Should Cursing Continue, 73-74.

[29] Laney, Fresh Look, 39.

[30] Vos, Ethical Problem, 131-133.

[31] Ibid., 132.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Laney, Fresh Look, 41.

[34] Ibid., 43.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Vos, Ethical Problem, 136.

[37] Laney, Fresh Look, 44.

[38] Vos, Ethical Problem, 138.

[39] Broadhurst, Should Cursing Continue, 86. 

[40] Spurgeon, Treasury of David Vol V, 157.