Violence Worthy of Worship: How Divine Wrath

Prevents Personal Vengeance

Tyler Vela

0OT512: Poets

October 7, 2015

Reformed Theological Seminary

1

Introduction

In his book Exclusion and Embrace, Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf speaks of his

experiences of violence and vengeance in the Balkans and how they relate to the Christian world

and life view. Volf states something that likely will sound foreign to most of his Western readers

when he writes, My thesis is that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine

vengeance... the only means of prohibiting violence by us is to insist that violence is only

legitimate when it comes from God.1 He then goes on to say that this sentiment, that violence is

only permissible when it is carried out or commanded by God and that we must believe it to be

the case for real human non-violence to take hold of a society, does not play well with our

pedestrian liberal Western sentimentality. And yet, declares Volf, it is this belief that is at the

very core of the Christian hope for a final reconciliation. This tension between the Christian ethic

of love and self-sacrificial forgiveness on the one hand and the all too conspicuous cry for brutal

vengeance and bloody retribution on the other has been a perennial predicament for the church in

dealing with certain passages of the Bible. This problem is nowhere more poignant than in the

maledictions found in the 137th

Psalm and the other so called Imprecatory Psalms. In this paper,

the theme of divine violence and its legitimacy for the church will be addressed as we explore

the setting and theology of Psalm 137 to discover why this psalm still has a place within he

Christian canon.

Psalm 137 is clearly related to the exile of the children of Israel after the Babylonian

conquest of Israel. There is little doubt that its composition falls sometime after Jerusalem fell

and the Israelites were carried off into captivity. The question is how long after the captivity until

its composition. Was the author in the first generation that was dispossessed of their homeland,

writing while in a foreign land? Or was he writing after returning home to find the land of his

father in shambles? And what does the text tell us about the historical context and cultural milieu

within which it was composed?

Violence of Warfare

One of the many horrors that resulted from ANE siege warfare was the destitution and

starvation of the besieged people that would often result in the cannibalism of ones own family

members or neighbors. In the Vassel treaties of Esarhaddon, we read:

1 Mirosalv Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness and Reconciliation. (Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 1996) 303-304.

2

Just as the ewe is cut open and the flesh of its young placed in its mouth, so may he

[Shamash?] make you eat in your hunger the flesh of your brothers, your sons,

and your daughters.

-------------------------------------------

Just as honey is sweet, so may the blood of your women, your sons and daughters taste

sweet in your mouths.

-------------------------------------------

Just as honeycomb is pierced through and through with holes, so may holes be pierced

through and through in your flesh, the flesh of your women, your brothers, your

sons and daughters while you are alive.2

Yet there is more to the barbarism of ancient warfare than is often imagined. The practice

of using infants as a tool to devastate an opposing nation or tribe was seemingly ubiquitous in the

ANE. The slaughter of the innocents was a means to effect total destruction on a people such

that they would not even have descendents to follow after them. This practice can be observed to

some extent in Pharaohs killing of the first born of Israel prior to the Exodus (Ex. 1:16, 27).

This however was not to effect total annihilation but was a means of large scale population

control and was directed at only males. However it does shed light on the established tactic of

terminating the next generation to exert power over the current one. This practice was like an

herbicide meant to direct and act of warfare against the root.

Other examples from Israelite warfare can be seen in passages such as Hos. 13:16:

Samaria will be held guilty,

For she has rebelled against her God.

They will fall by the sword,

Their little ones will be dashed in pieces,

And their pregnant women will be ripped open.

Hosea here foretells the destruction that will befall Samaria and is not just speaking allegorically.

Hosea was aware that in the combat tactics of the day, the killing of infants within the womb or

without was something to be expected.3

2 Day, Crying for Justice, p 65 3 For more examples of the dashing of infants as a military tactic, see 2 Kgs. 8:12, Isa. 13:16, Nah. 3:10 and Luke 19:44.

3

Setting of Composition

Allen, following the lead of numerous scholars, places the composition of the psalm not

merely after the start of the Babylonian captivity but well after it, likely after some of the Jews

had already been permitted by Cyrus to repopulate Israel.4 This position is partially based on the

usage of the term (there) to describe his time in Babylon.5 For Allen and others, referring to

the time in Babylon as sets a measure of distance best understood as the psalmist not being

anymore.6 Allen also sees the fact that the psalmist can address Zion/Jerusalem directly as

evidence that the city was a present reality for him and thus he had to dwell in or around

Jerusalem at the time that the rebuilding had begun or would soon begin under Nehemiah.

VanGemeren also seems to agree and places its composition between the return to the land and

the rebuilding of the temple, sometime between 520 and 445 BCE.7 This view may also be

supported by the use of perfect verbs in 1-3 (we sat, wept, remembered, hung; they

required).

This position seems unconvincing however as the evidence used to support it is

ambiguous at best. The use of will be explored shortly as a literary device to show an

inversion of a normal song of Zion motif and thus fits better in that literary purposive

framework. The action of the taunting may have been in the past even if the exile was still in

effect so the use of perfect tense verbs may also not be as helpful as one might think. In addition,

the direct address to Zion in no way means that the psalmist is in the vicinity of Jerusalem. One

could ask why the psalmist could be in Israel and address the rubble of Jerusalem before it was

rebuilt but not do the same while in exile in Babylon. It will also be demonstrated that the direct

address of Zion/Jerusalem is a motif of songs of Zion and so better serves that function over its

use as an indicator of location.

In fact, there seems to be good reasons to place the composition of the psalm sometime

during the Babylonian captivity prior to a return to the land. As has been mentioned, most of the

reasons for a post-return composition are better explained as literary features based on the kind

of psalm it is but there are also some conceptual features of the psalm that support the position as

well. One aspect that all commentators perceive is the vividness of this psalm. In truth it is

4 Leslie Allen, Psalms 101-150 in Word Biblical Commentary, vol 21 (Word Books Publishers, Waco, TX: 1983) 239. 5 Though we will see shortly that this may be more a literary tool to add to the motif than a time marker. 6 Presumably if he had still been in Babylon he would have used a proximally closer adverb such as here. 7 Willem VanGemeren, Psalms in The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 5 (ed. Frank Gbelein; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI: 1991) 826

4

precisely the level of vibrancy that has led so many commentators to protest to just how violent

and possibly hateful it is.8 For these scholars, the intensity of the psalm is exactly what has led

them to a negative evaluation of it. When we compare this psalm to other passages that deal with

the promised destruction of Babylon (e.g. Is. 13:16; Jer. 51), there is a stark contrast between

their tones. Jeremiah has an intensity looking forward to the destruction and recompense due to

Babylon in the future, but it is only the first hand experience of violation and captivity, of

violence and oppression that can muster the fury that drips from the pen of the psalmist who

blesses the one who will smash Babylonian infants against stones. It is hard to imagine someone

a generation or more removed from the events still maintaining such vividness and animosity.

One can also observe that the psalmist includes himself in the company of Israel who was

taken out of captivity and then whose captors taunted them with demands for songs praising the

once mighty Jerusalem. Likely the psalmist was known for his musical aptitude, as well as those

with him, and so a song was demanded of them.9 This would mean that he would have had to

been of such an age that his talents had not only developed10

but also were known. It is possible

then that he was in some kind of service to the temple prior to its demise and composed this song

after having experienced the collapse of Jerusalem, the conquest of his people, and his own

captivity into a foreign land.

Finally there is the question of why the prospect of forgetting Jerusalem would even be a

possibility for him if he was already back in the land. The concern about forgetting the holy city

and the temple of Yahweh looms large for a people in captivity in Babylon,11

yet why would he

need to vow to never forget if he was already back in the land? Notice that the psalmist does not

vow to never forget again, that is, to not make the same mistake twice now that they have a fresh

start back in Israel. He vows to never forget. The plausible answer to this is that he was

experiencing life away from the home he knew and the city/temple he loved and though it lay in

ruins hundreds of miles away, he called down curses upon himself should he forget it while he

was estranged from it. The means that the most likely time and location for the composition of

the psalm is sometime during the Babylonian captivity.

8 In the evaluation of interpretative views to follow, one view explored will be that the psalms are not fit for the church and

merely serve to teach us about the savagery of the ANE man and to look at Christ as an improvement. 9 His skills as a musician are supported by his self-cursing in which his fingers would lose their skill in v5 likely a reference to their skill in playing the harp mentioned in v2. 10 He apparently was trained in how to play the lyre/harp (Ps. 137:5). 11 This is in large part due to the fact that as a nation they had already forgotten Yahweh and whored themselves out after other

gods which brought about their overthrow and exile in the first place.

5

Form

A challenge related to the classification of Psalm 137 is discovered immediately upon

reading the psalm. While much ink has been spilt trying to categorize the kind of psalm that it is,

a neat and tidy taxonomical label for it appears unattainable. Gunkel remarked that it begins like

a communal lament, progresses as a hymn and then wraps up with a curse.12

However, what may

appear prima facie to be an unruly structure which refuses to fit any known mold may actually be

part of the psalmists broader theological tenacity within which he uses unconventional methods

to reinforce a theology of an unparalleled circumstance.

Day argues that the psalm is a Communal Lament that was sung from the context of the

Babylonian exile, though no justification is given for his view.13 VanGemeren, following A.A.

Anderson, agrees with Day however nuances his position by explaining that while the whole

psalm does not fit the structure of a communal lament, because vv1-4 do that it can be classified

as such.14

There are features of the psalm as a whole that would support this such as the

description of the psalmists despair in vv1-3, but also vv5-6 can be read as an implicit

pronouncement of trust and v7 is obviously the beginning of an appeal for justice on any view,15

all features common to a communal lament. However while classifying the psalm as a communal

lament appears to be the most widely accepted position, it is not the only one.

Rodriguez agrees with Krauss and Allen that it is likely a song of Zion.16

This view is

also defended by Schottroff and Kellermann, though there is still some discussion if it is a

communal or individual song of Zion.17

Evidence for this position is plenty with a major

featuring being its mention of Zion/Jerusalem in five of the nine verses (1, 3, 5, 6, 7) and its

direct address to the holy city in vv5-6. However, this particular song to Zion is peculiar because

it is almost an exact contrast to the typical structure of a song of Zion. While the rest of the songs

of Zion follow a loose outline of describing the sure foundations of Zion/Jerusalem (Ps. 46:4, 6-

12 Leslie Allen, Psalms 101-150, 237. Could be Gunkels way of admitting defeat in trying to fit it in a set category. 13 Day, Crying for Justice, p 64. Shepherd, drawing on Day, agrees that Psalm 137 is a communal lament looking back on the fall

of Jerusalem and the exile of her children: John Shepherd, The Place of the Imprecatory Psalms in the Canon of Scripture, The Churchman 111 (1997) 40. 14 Willem VanGemeren, Psalms, 826. VanGemeren also defends here against those who would apparently object to such a classification by saying that cursing does not appear regularly in lament. 15 Allen, Psalms 101-150, 238. 16 Angel Rodriguez, Inspiration and the imprecatory Psalms, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 5 no 1 Spr 1994, p 55 17 Allen, Psalms 101-150, 238. For communal songs of Zion see Pss. 46, 48, 76 and 87. For individual ones, see Pss. 84 and 122. Allen allows for a flavor of a mourning or funeral lament in a non-cultic setting due to the mention of weeping and the non-

use of a lyre, an instrument typically used for joyful occasions.

6

8, 12; 48:9, 13-15; 87:3; 122:2, 6-9), followed by statements about the Psalmist praising the city

or calling on the reader to do so (Ps. 84:3; 12:9) and then ending with a beatitude for the

righteous ones who worship there (Ps. 84:5, 6, 13), Psalm 137 inverts the structure. Firstly, rather

than describing the sure foundation of Zion, the psalm begins with the destruction of the city

already having occurred and her people languishing under tormentors in exile. Secondly, instead

of singing praises to Zion, the psalmist addresses Jerusalem only to say that he cannot sing a

song to Zion because he is in a foreign land - though he vows not to forget Jerusalem. Finally, in

the place of the blessings for the child of God who praises Yahweh and his holy city, there is an

imprecation against those who have devastated her. In fact the beatitude that is given is not to the

faithful Israelite who worships in Jerusalem, but rather for the ones who mete out Gods

vengeance upon Babylon for her destruction of Israel.18

Allen sees another possible reversal of the motif in that while songs of Zion normally

describe with imperfect verbs the Lords victories over the enemies of Jerusalem (usually

described with the adverb there, 48:7, and 76:4), in Ps 137, is in Babylon after a

brutal defeat where the psalmist can only [remember] Zion, (v1).19 Kellerman sees a further

reversal of the motif of the typical plea of self-innocence being inverted into a self-cursing

formulae should the psalmist forget Jerusalem in 5-620

however Allen is critical of as a piece of

evidence for the view.

The psalmist then was writing sometime following the fall of the holy city an assault

not just on his nation, his culture, his economy, and his own homeland (for he is now living in

captivity in a foreign land unable to properly worship Yahweh) but most importantly it is a direct

assault on Yahweh himself. The degree of tragedy of this state of affairs is hard to describe. It is

possibly akin to walking out of a bunker after a nuclear strike to find ones homeland in ruins

just before being carted off as a prisoner of war across the border into a foreign county. The utter

backwardness and chaos for the children of Abraham living in Babylon after the fall of Israel is

perhaps being exemplified by the inversed structure of flipped motifs of the psalm itself. This

would add to the overall gravity and severity with which the psalmist was writing. Therefore the

reversal or deconstruction of the typical Song of Zion structure then seems to be an intentional

18 From history we know that God will actually use the Medes and not Israel to punish Babylon. 19 Allen, Psalms 101-150, 238. We can now also see why using may not actually tell us that the psalmist is no long in Babylon. 20 Allen, Psalms 101-150, 238.

7

decision by the psalmist despite it causing a clear classification of the psalm to be somewhat

elusive. It may be more proper, or at least adequate, to think of this as a Dirge of Zion where the

normal song extolling the indefatigable foundation of Jerusalem has given way to grieving its fall

while captive in a foreign land.21

Cultic Use

Allen notes that the psalm would take on later cultic significance as it closed out the

supplement to the Songs of Ascents and thus may have found use as a processional song as a Jew

started their climb up the mountain to Jerusalem.22

Allen here also observes that it was used in

later Jewish traditions on the ninth of Ab in a service to memorialize the destruction of Jerusalem

and thus may have originally been composed for such a cultic function. Given the considerations

above, it is unlikely that it was composed after the return to the land to commemorate the events

but it may have been brought back home after the exile only to find its proper use in the cultic

calendar.

Structure

The organization of the psalm is also somewhat disputed though overall the three sections

of four lines are easily identified.23

Kidner titles them Pathos (1-3), Defiance (4-6) and

Imprecation (7-9).24

VanGemeren calls them the Lament, the Confession of Confidence and the

Prayer for Divine Intervention25

but divides them in exactly the same way. What are noteworthy

for this current paper are two features that help to develop the theme of this Dirge of Zion.

First of all what should be noticed is that along with each of the three sections there is a

distinctive shift in the subject of the verses. The reader should take note of this by tracking the

personal pronouns. In 1-3 the action is experienced as a communal distress26

and all the pronouns

are in the first person plural. 1-4 is all experienced by us/we. Following this the action moves

21 This may also explain why the Psalmist was unable to sing the song in Babylon at the behest of his tormenters. As Bruggeman

writes, Such songs of Zion are not for public review. Indeed the songs of Zion are pornographic when they are sung among those who do not hope in Zion. But the resolve of verses 4-6 is that there will not be such a raid on our memory. Walter Bruggeman, The Message of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984) 75. 22 Leslie Allen, Psalms 101-150, 239. 23 Shepherd, The Place of the Imprecatory Psalms in the Canon of Scripture, 40. 24 Derek Kider, Psalms 73-150 (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL:1975) 459. 25 VanGemeren, Psalms, 826-829. 26 As stated above, the first section is one of the major reasons for many scholars to classify this psalm as a communal lament so

the communal status and plural personal pronouns should not be surprising on their own.

8

to the first person singular for the second section with the psalmist calling down curses upon

himself should he forget or fail to exalt Jerusalem. This section uses I/me throughout. The final

section contains hardly any pronouns27

but all of the action and participles are in reference to a

third person being spoken about.28

Of importance to our purposes here is that the imprecation

does not take on a tone of personal vendetta with the blessing for vengeance falling on I/We.

Rather, in the imprecation the blessed one who metes out Yahwehs vengeance on Babylon is

left vague and the psalmist does not make a we will avenge ourselves! manner of statement.

The importance of this will be explored further on.

The other significant feature to notice is the lexical similarity between Psalm 137 and

Jeremiah 51. In Ps. 137 the psalmist seems to have the utmost confidence that Yahweh will in

fact bring destruction upon Babylon for what she has done to Israel and her people. Why can the

psalmist be so sure of such a destructive end? The answer is found when we compare this psalm

with Jeremiahs prophecies against Babylon and notice that the psalmist seems intimately aware

of them. In Jeremiah 51:35 the people pronounce an imprecation on Babylon saying, May the

violence done to our flesh be upon Babylon... and Yahweh responds by saying, I will defend

your cause and avenge you. This promise is rooted in his own wrathful statement in 51:22

where he says, I shatter young man and maiden... which is likely one of the reasons for the

psalmists mention of dashing infants to the rocks29, though we will shortly see a more complete

reason for such a statement. In fact, what is even more surprising is that almost every noun and

verb found in Ps. 137:8 is used first in Jeremiah 51.30

Once the psalmist is steeped in the promises given through Jeremiah, he then could be

confident that Yahweh would bring a violent end to violent Babylon because God had already

vowed that he would. Jeremiah 51 also shows the irony that Babylon the destroyer would be

destroyed and so the psalmist does not merely say that Babylon will be devastated, but can speak

of it with such confidence that he can title them as Babylon, you devastated one, in v8 as if it

27 Possible exceptions may be seen in a participle describing Babylon (you devastated one) in 8, as well as Babylon being addressed as you, also in 8. 28 The sons of Edom who said, Raze it, raze it to its very foundation, are spoken of, as is the one who repays and the one who dashes the little ones to the rock. 29 The psalmist may also be combining the prophecy in Jer. 51 with the prophecy found in Is. 13:16 in which the Lord says to

Isaiah concerning Babylon, Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes, and uses the same term for child/infant though it uses a synonym for how the psalmist describes the dashing. 30 Rodriguez gives examples such as daughter of Babylon (Jer. 51:33), the destroyer (Jer. 51:48), to repay (Jer. 51:6), reward (Jer. 51:6), to smash (Jer. 51:20-22) and rock (Jer. 51:25). Angel Rodriguez, Inspiration and the imprecatory Psalms, 56.

9

has already occurred. For him, the destruction of Babylon is just as certain as if it had already

transpired.

Yet the abiding problem for this Psalm is clearly the final line of the imprecation that

there is glory or blessing to be found in what appears to be a cruel and unjust brutality toward the

most innocent of any people, its infants. While other Imprecatory Psalms appear to call down

violence and seek revenge, they do so against violent men who are actively harming and

oppressing the people of God. For many, that helpless infants are the subject of such wanton

violence appears to place this psalm in a class of its own. The challenge is ornamented and made

more cutting by its connection with other theological concepts such as the divine inspiration and

authority of the Scriptures and indeed the omnibenevolence of God himself, for how can an all

good and all loving God take any delight or see any cause as meritorious of the bashing of

infants against the rocks? While the sentiment would be understandable (though some argue

hardly decent or dignified) if we understand the text as the product of thoroughly human

authorship and experience merely expressing a human response to evil, what place does it have

in the canon of a holy and loving God? After all, are we not to turn the other cheek and forgive

seven times seventy times for they know not what they do?

Evaluation of Interpretive Views31

Numerous patterns of interpretation and application have arisen through the centuries as

the church has struggled to understand the role of imprecation in the canon. The views range

from all out denial of their inspiration to a full endorsement of their use in the worship of the

church today. Several of these views will not be examined due to space and as they are

considered simply too far afield. However, the prominent views will be given consideration:

a. Denial of the inspiration of the imprecations as mere human vindictiveness. According

to this view the psalmist may be personally committed to God and the defense of his name but is

in fact estranged from his Spirit and thus not worthy of a Christian ethic.32

This view is simply

unacceptable to the Christian church as a possibility unless there is a desire to simply excise

31 One view that will not be considered here is that imprecation in the OT should be viewed as effective magical spells and that

the mention of the curse directly brought about the outcome. Here most scholars seem to agree that this was not the conception

present in Israel and that such curses would be better employed using execration pottery. The interpretations of the Imprecatory

Psalms that root themselves in issues surrounding Davidic authorship are also not helpful for the purposes of this paper as Psalm

137 is not a psalm attributed to David. 32 John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Abington, 1967), 238.

10

whatever passages of scripture do not decorously and without protest submit to the whims of an

ever changing sinful society. If this option is on the table, then one is left wondering why we

should desire to leave any negative statement (sin?) within the pages of a redacted twenty-first

century canon. How soon would the Song of Moses, the Song of Deborah, the curses of the

prophets and of Lamentations, and even the woes of Jesus fall to the cutting room floor?

b. Imprecations are inspired but only to show authentic human emotion. This is the view

of the Christian darling of scholarship C.S Lewis. He writes that these poems of cursing were

written by ferocious, self-pitying, barbaric men.33 This view is pushed further by Webster who

writes, were these imprecatory psalms the language of more personal animosity to his foes, they

would mark David as one of the most savage, profane and cruel among men.34 However,

besides the precariously diminished view of inspiration and canonicity this position also misses

the overall covenantal thrust of redemptive history which will be explored below.

c. Dispensational views of the Psalms as belonging to Israel and not the church.35

Maclaren writes of the curses of the psalms that the form of these maledictions belongs to a

lower stage of revelation...36 Besides the problem with the dispensational schema overall and

the bifurcation of the ethics of God between the dispensations, the failure of this view is to be

found within the pages of Pentateuch. It cannot be said that the Old Testament saint was living

under a different ethic than the Christian when they were equally commanded, If you come

across your enemys ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the

donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there, be sure to

help him with it, (Ex. 23:4-5), or later, Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone

among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord, (Lev. 19:18). In fact the

same Old Testament with the imprecation also has the endorsement of the ethics of Job when he

says,37

If I have rejoiced at my enemys misfortune

or gloated over the trouble that came to him

33 C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (London: Geoffrey Bliss, 1958) 26. 34 J.H. Webster, The Imprecatory Psalms, in John McNaughter, editor, The Psalms in Worship (Pittsburg: The United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1907) 300. 35 Carl Laney, A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms, Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (1981) 38. 36 Alexander McClaren, The Psalms, Vol. 3 (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1901) 706. 37 Raymond Surburg, The Interpretation of the Imprecatory Psalms, The Springfielder, 39 (December 1975): 98.

11

30 I have not allowed my mouth to sin

by invoking a curse against their life

The psalmist would surely be familiar with the ethic of turning the other cheek and seeking the

good of ones enemies endorsed throughout the Old Testament and so these curses cannot simply

be written off as a bygone ethic.

d. The psalmist is using poetical exaggeration. This view has multiple components with

one of the more inventive being that the received text is at many places missing a transitional

verb which would entail that the imprecation were actually on the lips of the enemy and not the

psalmist himself. deClaiss-Walford also affirms a version of this view when she writes, Poetry

is evocative, emotional, image-filled, and replete with hyperbole, and it cannot, must not, be read

literally.38 For deClaiss-Walford the purpose of the imprecations is not to give a final appeal to

a wrathful God but rather is to lead us to introspection about the wrath and hatred in our own

hearts and to suppress the primitive lust for violence in ones own heart by surrendering

everything to God.39 As we will see presently this view does not take into account the themes of

covenant and lex talionis in the Bible, but here it should also be asked what exactly is being said

then by the curses. If the curse of swift and complete justice is not meant to be literal but

symbolical or allegorical, what is it allegorical about? This view appears to be guilty of splitting

hairs while endorsing a distinction with no real difference and if retribution does not entail real

retribution, then this view may just be subsumed under the previous emotional one.

e. Enemies are impersonal forces and not persons. Mowinckel seems to have adopted this

view to some extent when he listed the modern equivalents of the evil spirits not as oppressive

dictators or wicked men but rather as Dishonesty, Impurity, Selfishness, Lovelessness, Fear,

Bitterness, Hatred and the like...40 It has recently been endorsed by Ringgren who pointed out

that many laments41

describe the enemies being verbally assaulted as wildbeasts, demons, or

mythological monsters.42 For Ringgren this means that the psalmist had forces that were more

than human in mind. Like the others, this view may be possible in the case of some of the psalms

38 Nancy L. deClaiss-Walford, The Theology of the Imprecatory Psalms, Rolf Jacobson, editor, Soundings in the Theology of Psalms (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011) 90. 39 Nancy L. deClaiss-Walford, The Theology of the Imprecatory Psalms, 91. 40 Sigmund Mowinckel, The Old Testament as Word of God, trans, Reidar B. Bjornard (New York; Abingdon Press, 1959) 59. 41 Notably 22:12, 13, 16 and 73:6-9. 42 Page H.Kelley, Prayers of Troubled Saints, Review & Expositor, 81 (1984), no. 3, 378.

12

but it is hard to imagine how it would work with Psalm 137 considering the all too human infants

included in the imprecation.

So which of these views, if any, should the Christian accept as the most in line with the

Jesus ethic taught to us in the Gospels? It will be helpful at this point to address three factors that

that assist in the interpretation and application of this passage for the church: a) covenant, b) lex

tallionis and c) divine vengeance.

Covenant

When God entered into covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses he did so under

the typical covenantal conventions of the time. This included all of the structures of blessings

and curses. Often we rejoice in the promise given to Abraham and what that means for the

believer in Christ, indeed Paul expressly draws on the beauty of the promise and the assurance it

provides for the one who trusts in Jesus. However what thought is given to the equally certain

promise that Yahweh would curse those who curse you?

For Workshop, the Psalms are actually literary expressions of the previous legal texts. He

writes, The curses are reflections of liturgical formulas: they pertain to the ritual of the covenant

as it appears from the ancient litany of twelve curses in Dt. 27.43 The imprecations then can be

seen as the response of the people to God via an appeal to his covenant fidelity. Yahweh

promised that he would curse any people who cursed his people. That was not something that

Israel invented for themselves to feel special but was the direct revealed promise of God in his

own words. It was his statement. Israel then was playing the vassal as they appealed to their

suzerain to keep good on his pledge. Kline writes, The Psalters function in covenantal

confession suggests that it may be regarded as an extension of the vassals ratifications response,

which is found in certain biblical as well as extra-biblical covenants as part of the treaty text.44

This is also supported by the fact that the blessings of the covenant are repeatedly

celebrated in Psalms. The cultic community expects and prays for blessing from Yahweh.45

We see the psalmists calling on God to bless his people (3:8; 28:9; 29:11; 67:1, 6, 7; 118:26;

128:5; 129:8 and 134:3) in addition to praising God for his loving kindness a way of

43 A. Workshop, The Psalms of Imprecation, Indian Theological Studies, 21 (3-4), Sept. Dec. 1984. 343. An interesting point about Dt. 27 is that after each of the curses declared by the Levites, the people respond with a communal amen. 44 Meredith G. Kline, The Structures of Biblical Atuhority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 63. 45 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (Minneapolis; First Fortress Press, 1992) 70.

13

expressing is his covenant fidelity (105:7-10; 117:2; 119:90 and the repeated refrain in 136). So

the psalmists are seen repeatedly appealing to the blessings and the curses associated with

Yahwehs covenant promises for Israel.

Lex Tallionis

The principle on which the psalmist makes his appeals is not some violent or blood

thirsty need for revenge but was rather the very marked and measured standard of retribution

found throughout the Old Testament and formalized in the law (Ex. 21:22-25; Lev. 24:17-2; and

Dt. 19:16-21). This principle was not intended to provide justification for flights of fury and

personal vendettas but was actually put in place specifically to curb such excesses. It was

established to set a standard of recompense where the punishment must fit the crime. While the

principle of LT was likely not applied literally in Israel in all cases,46

where the loss of life was

involved there is little doubt that a life for life system of justice was in operation. For the

psalmist then, the bloodshed caused by Babylon on such a large scale could only be rectified by

the shedding of her own blood to the same degree she bashed the Israeli infants to the stones

and so the same must be done to them when they are overthrown. This was not revenge. This

was justice. Thus the law of even and equal recompense underlies the whole psalm. Babylon will

be scourged with her own whip and will suffer with the same horrors that she caused other to

suffer under. One can think of the Lords statement that those who live by the sword will die by

the sword a statement of the LT if there ever was one.

As revelation progressed the tightening of the regulations away from personal vendetta

toward more judicial or governmental settings can be observed. Retaliation became more

explicitly condemned and prohibited. For example, in Proverbs we find, Do not say, Just as he

did to me, so I will do to him; I will pay that man back for what he has done, (24:29; cf. 20:22).

For the psalmist the cry for vengeance against Babylon and Edom were not wanting evil to befall

her neighbors such that Israel could prosper and gain land or power or some other benefit. Rather

it was that justice must be turned back on Babylon for her violent ways and to Edom for

encouraging her to go even further. This would have been viewed as a punishment

commensurate with the crime that was perpetrated meted out by a rightful authority Yahweh

46 Wenham notes that it would be used as a formula and allowed for a slave who was harmed to receive his freedom (not harm

back) in Ex. 21:26, and the man who killed an ox was charged a fine rather than have his own ox killed in Lev. 24:28. Gordon

Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1979) 312.

14

himself. Such views of justice should cause the church to pause and wonder what the proper

response is to the manifestations of the evil experienced in the Sudan for example, where

Christians experience widespread rape, murder, mutilation, and enslavement.47

Do we think that

our human sense of justice is somehow more elevated than Yahwehs?

Divine Vengeance

Ancient Near Eastern views of recompense were also very this worldly in that they held

that if justice was going to happen, it would happen within this life.48

If God was going to deal

with Babylon he would not do so in the courts of heaven but by toppling them through the might

of another nation. For the Israelite then it was not even questioned that when God redressed the

wrongs done to his people that he would do so in this life.49

For what other weapon is to be

found in the arsenal of the oppressed against his oppressor when revolt is not an option? An

appeal to divine vengeance was the final court of appeals for the Israelite suffering under the

boot of a seemingly all powerful oppressive force. What could possibly move the ostensibly

immovable rock of Babylon except the unstoppable force of the living God who created the

world and all powers therein?

What is implicit by these curses is the appeal to the other to act. This is no small point of

theology. Indeed this is the heart of Volfs view that a belief in divine vengeance is the only hope

for a world free of personal revenge. It has been observed that these imprecations are never

accompanied by personal acts of violence or revenge against ones enemies.50 Moreover they

demonstrably assume that retaliation and recompense are solely under the authority and are the

duty of Yahweh alone. As LeMon writes, Rather than portraying a picture of Israels God as a

vindictive deity, the psalmists picture God as profoundly and unflinchingly just, a status that

necessitates some form of punishment for those who upset the right order that God has

established. Thus pleas for God to act violently are essentially faithful statements about the

ultimate outcomes of Gods righteousness... The psalmists leave the judgment up to God, putting

47 John Day, The Imprecatory Psalms and Christian Ethics, Bibliotheca Sacra, 159 (2002) 176. Examples could be multiplied especially following the horrors of the 20th century. 48 Page H.Kelley, Prayers of Troubled Saints, 379. 49 Spurgeon reminds us, The revenges of providence may be slow, but they are ever sure... C.H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (Peabody: Henrickson Publishers; 1989) 229. 50 Page H.Kelley, Prayers of Troubled Saints, 380.

15

down the swords, nets, and clubs and lifting up their voices in prayer.51 There is no instance in

the psalms where the psalmist prayed for permission to take revenge on his own enemies by his

own hand but rather God is always appealed to as the avenger against the unjust.52

There are other grammatical reasons to adopt this view of divine judgment as well.

Lessing observes that the statement I will curse in the promises of Yahweh to his people come

from the Hebrew word and when used in that context is always found in an imperfect qal

verb form but when the same verb is used in the context of Israels cursing texts (e.g. Dt. 28) it

appears as a qal, passive participle.53

This is important for Lessing who sees Yahweh as an active

performer in vengeance while Israel is passive, only acting through petition.

Imprecation in the New Testament

For those concerned with the curses found in the Old Testament and who have been

convinced that no such execrations are to be found in the New Testament, a brief comment shall

be made to disabuse them of such a conviction. Not only does the New Testament not denounce

such malediction, but it actually endorses and repeats some of them. In Acts 1:20 Peter combines

curses found in Psalm 69:25 of Psalm 109:8 when he explains why the brutal death of Judas the

betrayer was assured and then later curses Simon Magus by saying that his money will perish

with him (Acts 8:20). In Acts 23:3 Paul asks God to smite the chief priest. In fact he appears to

take it even further when he pronounces those who present another gospel (Gal. 1:9) and who do

not love the Lord (1 Cor. 16:22) as anathema (). This is the same word used by the LXX

to describe those put under the ban during the conquest of the land a statement of utter

annihilation and destruction. They are those who are to be cut off from the land of the living,

thus Paul is quite literally saying that he wishes them to be cursed to death for their sin.54

More

relevant for the discussion here is the vision of the destruction and fall of the eschatological

Babylon in Revelation where John seems to have no issue showing that God is still in the

51 Joel M. LeMon, Saying Amen to Violent Psalms, Rolf Jacobson, editor, Soundings in the Theology of Psalms (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011) 101. Bullock agrees when he writes, The psalmist consigned the matter to God. There was absolutely no effort on his part to take personal revenge. He seemed aware of the Mosaic principle, Vengeance is mine (Deut 32:35). C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books (Chicago; Moody Press, 1979) 140. 52 J. Carl Laney, A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms, Bibliotheca Sacra, 138 (1981) 42. 53 Reed Lessing, Broken Teth, Bloody Baths, and Baby Bashings: Is There Any Place in the Church for Imprecatory Psalms? Concordia Journal 32, no. 4 (2006) 369. 54 This is also the same word that Paul says he would gladly take upon himself if it would save his brethren in Romans 9:3,

showing that Paul likely also agreed that vengeance was the sole prerogative of God and that Paul would not kill to redeem

people but would be killed to spread the gospel himself.

16

business of judging with violence those who use violence to oppress and harm the church (Rev.

18:6, 20; cf. Jer. 51:48).

In fact Jesus himself did not shrink in the face of evil but cursed cities for their lack of

repentance (Mt. 11:20-24), pronounced woes on all manner of religious hypocrisy (Mt. 23) and

overturned the money changing tables that were preventing true worship in the temple (Mt. 25;

John 2). So far from the New Testament maturing beyond the brutish Old Testament ethic of

divine vengeance, it is still a vital part of the canon of the early church.

Application for the Church

Throughout the history of Psalter, the Imprecatory Psalms have always been included

within the canon. Not only do the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible include them, they were

included in the Septuagint Psalter, as well as all of the Psalters found within the DDS.55

It is only

in modern times that some of them have been left out.56

That the body of believers down

throughout the centuries have found value in these psalms and included them in their scriptures

should cause pause to any who wish to jettison them or relegate them to a subordinate canon

within the canon.

Christian worship tends to be all triumph, all good news (even the confession of sin is

not a very awesome experience because we know the assurance of pardon is coming; its printed

in the bulletin). And what does that say to those who, at the moment, know nothing of triumph?

That they muffed it, somehow? That their faith hasnt been strong enough to grant them success?

That the whole business is a fraud?57 We must remember that the cries of lament and the

imprecations are not from the lips of the untroubled saint living in the lap of luxury but the poor,

the needy, and the oppressed. deClaiss-Walford asks even more pointedly, What if a church

member has been gang raped...?58 Surely the simplicity and clarity of the question is enough to

shock the church into imprecation not to personal vendetta but a calling on the covenant God to

stand with his people, to justify them and to mete out justice for the horrors of such real and

unabashed malevolence. McCann writes, In the face of monstrous evil, the worst possible

response is to feel nothing. What must be felt is grief, rage and outrage. In their absence, evil

55 Nancy L. deClaiss-Walford, The Theology of the Imprecatory Psalms, 80. 56

Even the conservative based Trinity Hymnal leaves out Psalm 109 and 137. 57 Donald E. Gowan, The Triumph of Faith in Habakkuk, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976) 38. 58 Nancy L. deClaiss-Walford, The Theology of the Imprecatory Psalms, 83.

17

becomes acceptable and common place.59 Bruggeman wonders if these psalms will only find a

home among those who have been personally brutalized60

but surely the church can grieve

together as our brothers and sisters are raped, tortured, and killed around the world and call out

to God for justice and to throw off the shackles of oppression. As Babylon was portrayed as a

destroyer because of her blood thirst and willingness to brutalize infants in the womb and

without, surely the church can sing the praises of God that he will mete out justice on those who

would still seek to do the same to our children under the deceptive moniker of choice and

personal liberty for is this not a more vile evil than performing such carnage in the heat of

battle? Yet what would an average American Christian think if their pastor stood in the pulpit

with their hand on the Bible and called on the violent vengeance of God against the abortion

clinic, the human traffickers and the jihadists who hunt down and kill our brothers and sisters?

Would we shudder to think we were reverting to the inquisitorial days and times of religious

intolerance and war gone by? However, Bruggeman goes so far as to wonder if true forgiveness

is even possible without a genuinely articulated hatred of evil. For it is only when we give over

our hatred to God, to allow him to judge for us, that we are freed from the cycle of violence and

revenge and are able to forgive in the face of oppression. There is a price to forgiveness however

a weighty and troubling cost. The cost is dying to ourselves to live in Jesus to leave the

problems of evil and sin, vengeance and hatred at the very foot of the cross of Christ. It is there

that our sins, the dictators and mine, are addressed by the wrath of God61 and only after by his

grace. The price is the creature recognizing the Creator as the only holy and righteous Judge and

to agree when the Lord says, Vengeance is mine and to leave it at that. God has promised to

bless and God has promised to curse. Who are we to try and usurp his prerogative in either?

This balance is seen in the reaction of Peter to Simon Magus mentioned above. Although

Peter effectively called down the wrath of God to end the earthly life of Simon, he only expected

it in the case of continued sin. Peter followed the curse with a call to repent and turn to the Lord,

Repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your

heart may be forgiven you, (Acts 1:22). Peter gives us a case study in how the church can

innocently but effectively use imprecation to call out the sin and evil of the world which seeks to

59 J. Clinton McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 119. 60 Bruggeman, The Message of the Psalms, 77. 61 There may even be possible applications to a Christian counseling method for patients coming through times of agony. See

Dominick D. Hankle, The Therapeutic Implications of The Imprecatory Psalms in the Christian Counseling Setting, Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38:4 (2010) 275-280.

18

assault the name of God and oppress his people, while handing over all vengeful action to God

alone. Peters role is not executioner but evangelist. We are to call down Gods justice on the

evils of the world62

but to, in love warn people to flee the coming wrath and to gain new life by

repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. An Israelite could call for the bashing of an infant of

Babylon as a sign of Gods judgment for the horrendous oppression of Gods people but should

that same Israelite ever come across such a child in need, he was to tenderly wrap him, bandage

any wounds, and sing him sweet songs of the gracious work of God while delivering him home

as safely as possible.

Conclusion

The problem of imprecation in the Scriptures is not a new problem and will need special

attention from the church as long as there are wicked and violent men in the world. Yet rather

than suppress them into the shadows or dismiss them as ethics of a bygone age, the church

should rejoice in what they tell us about the God that we worship. God is not dispassionate to the

pleas of his oppressed people. He does not turn a blind eye to injustice and tyranny nor does he

ever take sides against the poor and the needy. He will act in judgment and wrath, for these are

the dark side of his mercy and compassion.63 He is not only a God who blesses his people but

will judge in righteousness and yes, sometimes even violence, to rescue them from the clutches

of evil men. Volfs complete statement is a helpful corrective to the docile and entitled church of

the Western world:

My thesis is that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine

vengeanceMy thesis will be unpopular with man in the WestBut imagine speaking to people (as I have) whose cities and villages have been first plundered,

then burned, and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been

raped, whose fathers and brothers have had their throats slitYour point to themwe should not retaliate? Why not? I saythe only means of prohibiting violence by us is to insist that violence is only legitimate when it comes from GodViolence thrives today, secretly nourished by the belief that God refuses to take the

swordIt takes the quiet of a suburb for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence is a result of a God who refuses to judge. In a scorched landsoaked in the blood of the innocent, the idea will invariably die, like other pleasant captivities

62 Though it is beyond the scope of the present work, Vos gives helpful arguments defending the prerogative of God to give and

take life based on his own good will and that humans do not stand before God with a list of demands and just desserts. Johannes

Vos, The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms, Westminster Theological Journal, 04:2 (1942) 123-138. 63 Page H.Kelley, Prayers of Troubled Saints, 380

19

of the liberal mindif God were NOT angry at injustice and deception and did NOT make a final end of violence, that God would not be worthy of our worship.

64

Truly, there is a species of violence which is entirely worthy of worship. It just does not, indeed

must not, originate from us. The Apostle John records one of the choruses in heaven in

Revelation,

1. Hallelujah!

Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,

2 for true and just are his judgments.

He has condemned the great prostitute

who corrupted the earth by her adulteries.

He has avenged on her the blood of his servants.

3 And again they shouted:

Hallelujah!

The smoke from her goes up forever and ever. (Rev. 19:1b-3)

If perfected saints in heaven are just in their praise of God for his just wrath and destruction of

the wicked, why would it be inappropriate for the church today? Let us rejoice that our God is

holy, righteous and mighty to save and will rescue his people from all bondage, especially the

bondage of sin and death. Then all the people shall say, Amen! (Dt. 27:15c).

64 Mirosalv Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 303-304.