66

A difficulty has been presented to the minds of many readers by passages in the Psalms of an imprecatory nature, which appear to breathe a spirit of revenge towards enemies, and of joy and exultation in the prospect of their destruction or punishment, inconsistent with that principle of forgiveness which is inculcated in many parts, not only of the New but also of the Old Testament. "A circumstance," observes Dr. Kitto, "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." (Bible Illustrations, Poetical Books, p. 309.) On this subject, Bishop Horne remarks, "The offence taken at the supposed uncharitable and vindictive spirit of the imprecations which occur in some of the Psalms ceases immediately if we change the imperative for the future, and read, not 'Let them be confounded,' &c., but They shall be confounded,' &c., of which the Hebrew is equally capable," and, indeed, to cut off all occasion from them that desire it, the original verbs should be uniformly so translated." "Such passages will then have no more difficulty in them than the other frequent predictions of divine vengeance in the writings of the prophets, or denunciations of it in the Gospels, intended to warn, to alarm; and to lead sinners to repentance, that they may fly from the wrath to come." (Preface to Commentary, and on Psalm v. 11.) The fact, however, as regards the grammatical bearings of the question is, in the above extract, greatly overstated: for although in a few instances our translation may present a more repulsive aspect than the original, and in some others the verbs may with equal or greater propriety be rendered in the future instead of the imperative form, yet this can apply only to those in the third person, in which the Hebrew form of the imperative is identical with the future indicative, whilst in the second person the distinction is as clearly defined as in our own language; and, in passages extending through a series of verses of like import, in which some verbs of the second person imperative are alternated or combined with others in the third person, the unequivocal sense of the former is sufficient to establish the character of the whole, and to justify, if not to require, that all the

verbs be rendered alike in the imperative form. But even were the alteration admissible to the full extent for which the good Bishop contends, its importance, when duly estimated, will perhaps not be found so great as may at first sight have appeared; for it is evident, from the general scope of such passages, that the mind of the Psalmist accords with the words he utters; and the whole question mainly resolves itself into the one point, whether his feelings are to be regarded as those of personal resentment, or pious recognition of the righteous judgment of God; and in the latter case it is of little moment whether that recognition be expressed in the form of a prediction that the divine purpose shall be accomplished, or a prayer that it may be so. (See Notes on Psalms xxxv. 5, 6; liv. 7; lix. 10; lv. 15; and on the latter, p. 46.) "The wish for divine judgment on ungodly wickedness," remarks Hengstenberg, "can be considered as objectionable, only if we are prepared to deny this judgment itself, in manifest contradiction to the New, no less than to the Old Testament."-Hengstenberg, on Psalm lxix. 22.

In some

In some of the passages now under consideration, where the language is of a general character, and not indicative of injury sustained by the writer himself, it is nothing more than the spontaneous utterance of that feeling implanted in the human breast, which bursts forth with indignation at the perpetration of outrage and wrong; with compassion towards the injured and oppressed, and a sense of justice to be inflicted on the evil doer, in accordance with the divine economy as developed in the inspired volume, and often manifested in God's providential dealings with mankind. other instances, in which the reference is more personal, the Psalmist simply prays that the malicious designs of his enemies may be frustrated, and that he may be delivered from their evil machi. nations, against which in any view of the case no reasonable objection can be urged. With respect to those in which he goes further and supplicates for vengeance upon his enemies, so far as any personal vindictive feeling may be involved, it should be regarded as belonging to a dispensation in which the great duty of forgiveness was not enjoined in the same decisive and emphatic manner as it is

both by example and precept under that of the Gospel. That David, however, who probably penned most of the psalms in question, practised this virtue in an eminent degree, the records of his life which have been transmitted to us afford abundant proof. On one occasion, indeed, when provoked by the brutish conduct of Nabal, his ardent feelings of resentment were likely to have betrayed him into a deed of violence and blood, had it not, as he afterwards acknowledged with gratitude to the good providence of God, been averted by the prudent and timely intervention of Abigail; but the whole course of his conduct towards his bitter and implacable enemy and persecutor Saul, and his family, as well as towards those who were concerned in the rebellion of Absalom, is characterized most remarkably by the entire opposite of a revengeful spirit, under the most trying circumstances. In Psalm vii. 4 (see note there) he deprecates in the strongest terms the indulgence of such a feeling, and "a memorial of his noble spirit," says Hengstenberg, "as abhorring anything like revenge, exists to this day in his lamentation upon Saul's death (2 Samuel i.) He who could speak so of a fallen enemy, an enemy that had for years sought his life, and inflicted wounds in his soul which were never properly healed again, could certainly not regard himself as having the privilege of revenge, and could least of all express this in songs which he sang before God, and destined for use in the sanctuary." (Psalm lxxi. 3.)

Yet strongly as David might disclaim in his personal conduct the exercise of the lex talionis, he entertained a lively and abiding sense of the retributive righteousness of God as an integral part of His moral government of the world, and firm faith in its ultimate vindication and accomplishment; and when seated on the throne by the express appointment of the Almighty, as the sovereign of a nation privileged to be the sole depository of divine truth, his enemies and those of his people, were also the enemies of God and His anointed, and of His Church on earth. These considerations, with that of the acknowledged character of the Psalms as inspired compositions, lead to the conclusion that, in such passages as have been referred to, the writer should be regarded not as utter

ing feelings of personal resentment, but rather as representing a righteous sufferer, appealing to the Deity to vindicate His sacred attributes in the punishment of impenitent transgressors; a doctrine in entire harmony with every portion of the sacred volume.

"We shall arrive still more determinately at the same result," continues the writer just quoted, "if we take into account the motives which prompted the sacred bards in their prayers for revenge, or the consequences which they expected to arise from such prayers being answered. They wished and hoped that the stumblingblock which the prosperity of the wicked occasions to faith, and the encouragement which it gives to wickedness, might be taken away; that God would vindicate His endangered honour; that He would manifest His greatness and His righteousness, and thereby awaken the apprehension of these in the minds of believers, and call the world at large to repentance. That by the overthrow of the bitter enemies of His Church, He sought to have the Church delivered from destruction, and along therewith the only party qualified to honour Him, and all the spiritual goods He had committed to her, appears from Psalm lxxix. 6: 'Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee,' &c., where, according to the connection, For they have devoured Jacob, and laid waste his dwelling-place,' by the heathen are to be understood the people who had raged against Israel, and whose destruction was the condition of Israel's salvation; not the heathen world generally, for which the Psalmists bore a tender love, and whose reception one day into the kingdom and blessing of God they wistfully anticipated."* (Psalm xxi.)

Closely connected with these considerations is that of the standingpoint of the Psalms in regard to the doctrine of a future state, for the passages in question in unison with the promises and threatenings under the legal dispensation, referring simply to the temporal punishment or destruction of those against whom they are uttered, although the principle involved is in both cases the same, are not to

* See notes on Psalms lviii. 10; lxix. 28; and Psalm cix., introductory note.

be regarded as invested, in the mind of the sacred writers, with the same awful character as they assume when viewed in the aspect under which this subject is presented to us in the pages of the New Testament. We may there find indeed on several occasions expressions analogous to some of the imprecations in the Psalms, directed against the opposers of the apostles in their gospel mission, as the words of Peter to Simon Magus (Acts viii. 20), and those of Paul respecting Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim. iv. 14), and it is equally true that the divine judgment upon the hardened and impenitent, so far from losing any of its rigour under the new covenant, acquires additional force and intensity. "He that despised Moses' law," says the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, "died without mercy under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace?" (Heb. x. 28, 29; see also xii. 25-29.) Yet with the aggravated punishment denounced against those who despise and reject the richer means of grace, the desire to reclaim is also brought more prominently into view -- thus, in the instance of Simon Magus, an exhortation to repentance in the hope of forgiveness is annexed, and instead of the death sentence of the law, "that soul shall be cut off from his people," we find the apostle enjoining the Corinthians, in the case of a grievous offender, "to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh;" or, as the words may import, to separate from church fellowship for the punishment of the flesh, or the destruction of his fleshly lusts; "that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. v. 5); and in a subsequent epistle, when the "punishment" has proved "sufficient" to produce the requisite contrition, he counsels them "to forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow" (2 Cor. ii. 6, 7.)

* I am aware that commentators differ as to the precise meaning of the terms here used, and whether any personal chastisement, beyond that of