JETS
42/3 (September 1999) 395–410
INTERPRETING THE CURSES IN THE PSALMS
ALEX LUC*
Imprecations or curses in the Psalms are not con˜ned to the familiarimprecatory psalms of 35, 58, 69, 83, 109 and 137. The last two psalms areespecially known for their harsh language, which calls for the destruction ofthe children of the psalmists’ enemies. The phenomenon of psalmic impreca-tions is further complicated by the use of some of these psalms as Scripturalwitnesses in the NT. Previous studies have not given adequate attentionto the Biblical basis of these imprecations and the similarity of their languageto the other parts of the OT, especially the prophetic writings. Throughexamining the prophetic role of the psalmists, the imprecatory parallels inprophetic speeches, and the prior Scriptural bases of the psalmic impreca-tions, this study will suggest that it is best to consider the imprecations asprophetic judgment proclamations, and that in light of this consideration aproper understanding of the psalmic curses themselves and their contempo-rary implications for Christians may be attained.
I. APPROACHES TO PSALMIC IMPRECATIONS
In this study, the term “imprecatory psalm” does not suggest a genre butrefers to a psalm that contains one or more verses of imprecation. The im-precations are basically the psalmists’ call or wish for divine punishmentson the enemies. They are generally expressed in the form of a jussive state-ment (as in 55:15, “Let death come upon them!”), sometimes in the form ofan imperative (as in 59:11, “Make them totter by your power, and bring themdown!”), or a mix of the two, as in Psalm 109, which begins with an imper-ative and then continues with jussives: “Appoint a wicked man over him! . . .Let his days be few; let another take his o¯ce. Let his children be orphans,and his wife a widow” (vv. 6–9).
Chalmers Martin suggests that there are only 18 psalms that “containany element of imprecation” in the Psalms.
1
But his calculation is too con-servative. On the other hand, R. M. Benson lists 39 psalms in the category ofwhat he labels as “comminatory” psalms, but some of these psalms do not con-tain imprecations in the jussive or imperative mode.
2
When we survey all thestatements or the so-called “wishes” against the enemies or evildoers in the
1Ù
Chalmers Martin, “Imprecations in the Psalms,”
Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testa-
ment Interpretation
(ed. by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972) 113.
2Ù
Of the 39 psalms listed, 17 are futuristic than imprecatory, see R. M. Benson,
War Songs of
the Prince of Peace
(London, 1901), quoted in John W. Wenham,
The Goodness of God
(Downers
Grove: IVP, 1974) 149, n. 2. Willem A. VanGemeren lists 24 psalms, but 6 of these do not contain
* Alex Luc is professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Columbia Biblical Semi-
nary and School of Missions, P.O. Box 3122, Columbia, SC 29230-3122.
HALF PICA TALL
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 395 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
396
Psalms, based on their use of the jussive or the imperative form and not onthe degree of harshness in language, there are 28 psalms that contain oneor more verses of imprecation.
3
The elements of punishment called for in theimprecations may include shame, physical in˘iction, death, misfortune forfamily members, and unspeci˜ed retributive punishment (see Table 1 at theend of this article, “Imprecations and Their Dominant Elements” for furtherdetails on all these 28 psalms).
Before discussing the approaches that are directly relevant to our pur-poses, a word of clari˜cation is needed on two closely related issues that havegained attention in the current studies of psalmic imprecations. One con-cerns the interpretation that considers the imprecations in Psalm 109 as thewords of psalmist’s enemies, so their harshness, and not as the words of thepsalmist. The strongest evidence supporting this view is the shift of pronounsbetween v. 5 (“they”) and vv. 6–19 (“he”), a shift regarded as con˜rmed byv. 20, where the psalmist asks God to return on his “accusers” the evils spokenin vv. 6–19 by them.
4
Those who reject this interpretation argue that the textlacks any indicator (a word such as “saying”) in v. 6 to support such a changeof speaker, and that in view of the harshness of the imprecations, the psalmistwould have clearly indicated the shift if those were not his words.
5
Even ifthe imprecations in vv. 6–19 are from the enemies, the problem of harshnessis not lessened, because in v. 20 the psalmist turns around and wishes the same
3Ù
I have included Ps 54:5 by following
bwvy
y
asô
b
(a jussive, the
ketib
in the MT), which is sup-
ported by the Targum (
bwty
ytwb
), as correctly re˘ected in NIV: “Let evil recoil.” Some have fol-
lowed the
qere
(
byvy
y
asî
b
) of the MT and the LXX (
ajpostrevyei
) to read it as “he will bring” (e.g.
NRSV), but this reading ignores the parallel force of the imperative (
tymxh
ha
s
m
î
t
“destroy!”) in
the second stich of the verse. For the following reasons, I have not included the passages of 11:6;
36:11; and 45:5 in the list. Though the verb
rfmy
yam
t
e
r
in 11:6 is in the short form and its long
form
ryfmy
yam
t
î
r
does occur (e.g. Ezek 38:22), I agree with Keil and Delitzsch (
Psalms
[Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973] 189) that because of its particular context the verb need not be treated
as jussive (so “he will rain”; same in NIV and NRSV). Though in jussive, Ps 36:11 is only the
psalmist’s wish not to be overwhelmed by the enemies. For Ps 45:5, NIV’s “Let your sharp arrow
pierce . . . enemies” is problematic because no verb for “pierce” exists in the Hebrew text to sup-
port the jussive rendering.
4Ù
Hans-Joachim Kraus,
Psalms 60–150
(trans. H. C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 338;
Leslie C. Allen,
Psalms 101–150
(WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1983) 72–73; C. M. Cherian, “Attitude to
Enemies in the Psalms,”
Biblebhashyam
8 (1982) 115. See also a recent expression of this view in Thijs
Booij, “Psalm 109:6–19 as a Quotation: A Review of Evidence,”
Give Ear to My Words: Psalms and
Other Poetry in
and Around the Hebrew Bible
(ed. Janet Dyk; Amsterdam: Kok Pharos, 1996) 91–106.
5Ù
A. A. Anderson,
The Book of Psalms
(NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 2:758; Martin J.
Ward, “Psalm 109: David’s Poem of Vengeance,”
Andrews University Seminary Studies
18 (1980)
164; J. Carl Laney, “A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms,”
Bibliotheca Sacra
138 (1981) 37–
38. Derek Kidner points out that taking vv. 6–19 as the enemies’ words would make Peter’s quot-
ing of v. 8 of this psalm in reference to Judas in Acts 1:16 “very forced” (
Psalms 73–150
[London:
IVP, 1975] 389). Oscillation between the singular and the plural also occurs in some psalms but
implies no change of speaker. In Psalm 55, vv. 9–11 point to the psalmist’s “enemies” while vv. 13–
14 to a “foe”; vv. 15, 19, 23 “they,” but vv. 20–21 “he.” In Psalm 143, “an enemy” (v. 3) pursued
the psalmist, but in vv. 9–12, he asks God to save him from his “enemies.”
the jussive or imperative mode: 3:7; 6:10; 7:14–16; 37:2, 9–10, 15, 20, 35–36; 63:9–11; 64:7–9
(“Psalms,” in
Expositor’s Bible Commentary
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991] 5.832). The trans-
lation of the verbs in 3:7 is uncertain because they are in Hebrew perfects, and the other ˜ve
passages are futuristic. I have assigned these passages to the category of judgment predictions
on the fate of the enemies (see Table 2).
one pica long
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 396 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
INTERPRETING THE CURSES IN THE PSALMS
397
things on his enemies: “May this be the Lord’s payment to my accusers.” More-over, the quotation approach explains only Psalm 109 and not the imprecationphenomenon of the Psalms as a whole. Commentators will still face the chal-lenge of interpreting the harsh language of the other imprecatory psalms.
Another issue concerns the context of the imprecations being a prayer oflament, a context sometimes overemphasized by commentators in explainingthe harshness of the utterances. They point out that the curses may not beas oˆensive as they appear if the reader keeps in mind that they are privateexpressions before God and not direct verbal attacks on the opponents. AsErich Zenger points out, the fact that these psalms are poetic prayers “dis-tinguishes them from insistent complaint and propagandistic rhetoric.”
6
Though an appeal to the context of the imprecations as prayer is important,it does not constitute a strong argument to justify the overall phenomenon ofthe psalmic imprecations. First, not all the imprecations appear in prayers:Psalm 68 and Psalm 104 are hymns, Psalm 119 a wisdom psalm, and Psalm11 and Psalm 129 trust psalms. Second, imprecation is not an indispensablepart of a lament prayer, even though it is often analyzed as part of thispsalmic genre.
7
There are at least 60 psalms that can be classi˜ed as la-ments, but less than half of them contain any curses; though many lamentsre˘ect extreme pains, the psalmists do not invoke imprecations.
In surveying literature on the subject, there are only three approachesdirectly relevant to the whole issue of interpretation of psalmic imprecations.
8
First, a number of commentators have considered the imprecations as merelythe psalmist’s own sentiments before God. The strength of this approach is thatit takes seriously the harsh language of the imprecations. It suggests that theseare personal expressions and are not to be treated as inspired words seen in theother psalms or in the other parts of the same psalm. They are utterances ofa psalmist who faces extreme pains and evils, spoken either out of his own frailhuman nature or out of the limited perspective of the OT. As Peter C. Craigiesuggests, these “expressions of vindictiveness and hatred” cannot be “puri˜ed”simply because they are in Scripture, and they are the psalmist’s “naturalreactions” to evil and pain, and “the sentiments are in themselves evil.”
9
The
6Ù
Erich Zenger,
A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath
(trans. L. M.
Maloney; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994) 78.
7Ù
See a discussion of imprecation as part of the lament genre in Claus Westermann,
Praise and
Lament in the Psalms
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1981) 52–54, and Tremper Longman III,
How to Read
the Psalms
(Downers Grove: IVP, 1988) 27–28.
8Ù
One other possible approach that I have not included is the interpretation of the “enemies” as spir-
itual forces and not humans, but this approach is hardly convincing. This view may be seen in a recent
work by Fredrik Lindstr
ö
m,
Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms
(Stockholm:
Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1994), but the work is criticized for its ˘awed methodology by
Michael L. Barr
é
(
Critical Review of Books in Religion 1996
[Atlanta: Scholars, 1997] 156–158). See
also a critique of any mythicizing or spiritizing of the “enemies” in Zenger,
A God of Vengeance
74–
75. That Sigmund Mowinckel can truly be considered a proponent of this view, as suggested by Laney
(“A Fresh Look” 39), is uncertain, since Mowinckel often interprets the enemies in these psalms as
human beings (
The Psalms in Israel’s Worship
[New York: Abingdon, 1962] 2.7, 49, 51–52).
9Ù
Peter C. Craigie,
Psalms 1–50
(WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1983) 41. Similarly, C. S. Lewis holds
that their presence in the Bible does not make them “good and pious,” and that “the reaction of the
Psalmists to injury, though profoundly natural, is profoundly wrong” (
Re˘ections on the Psalms
[London: Geoˆrey Bles, 1958] 22, 25).
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 397 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
398
sentiments may also be understood as a product of the limited perspectiveof the psalmist being an OT believer. William L. Holladay points out that theimprecations exhibit “a very diˆerent spirit” from the one set forth in the NT,partly because the OT understands the human nature as “the undivided self,”and the psalmists are “wrong about the location of evil,” not distinguishingthe sinner from sin.
10
The challenge, however, that this view faces is the use of some of thesepsalms in the NT, the presence of the NT imprecations, and the OT teachingof loving one’s enemies. The NT quotes from Psalm 35, Psalm 69 and Psalm109, psalms which contain some of the harshest language of imprecation. Inaddition, Jesus uses an expression somewhat similar to Ps 137:9 when herebukes Jerusalem, saying that the enemies “will dash you to the ground, youand the children within your walls” (Luke 19:44). In judging the Corinthianoˆender, Paul says, “Hand this man over to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5; cf. Ps 109:6).
11
As to the perspective of the OT, loving one’s enemies is taught in Exod23:4–5 and Prov 25:21, and God’s people are called to live a life re˘ectingGod, who abounds in “compassion, love, and forgiveness” (Exod 34:6–7).While the OT teaches God’s compassion and love for one’s enemies, nowheredoes the OT judge these imprecations as unacceptable. All this suggests thatviewing the imprecations as merely the psalmists’ own sentiments ultimatelyhas to rely more on the interpreter’s own judgment of the imprecatory lan-guage than on Scriptural judgment.
A second approach is to see the imprecations as prophetic predictions,and thus as divine announcements and not personal sentiments. This ap-proach ˜nds support in the use of some of these psalms by the NT aspre˜guring the life of Christ and in the role of David being called “a prophet”in Acts 2:30 (see also 4:25). In commenting on Psalm 109, Augustine callsthe imprecations in the psalm “predictions,” which are in “the mode of pre-dicting the future, under the appearance of wishing evil.”
12
C. H. Spurgeonalso considers the curses in this psalm “predicting the future,” being a “mirrorof warning” to Christ’s enemies.
13
Herbert Lockyer suggests that “it is betterto consider them not as imprecations but as predictions” of the wicked.
14
Interestingly, medieval Jewish commentator Yefet ben Ali interprets thispsalm to be a prediction of the Karaite-Rabbanite con˘ict in his time and theimprecations are against the Karaites’ opponents.
15
An important insight ofthis prediction approach is that it recognizes the prophetic nature of the
10Ù
William L. Holladay,
Long Ago God Spoke: How Christians May Hear the Old Testament
Today
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1995) 302, 308. Somewhat similarly, W. Graham Scroggie,
The
Psalms
(London: Pickering & Inglis, 1950) 77–79.
11Ù
See also other references to NT imprecations in Kidner,
Psalms 73–150
31; Wenham,
The
Goodness of God
154–157; E. Calvin Beisner,
Psalms of Promise
(Colorado Springs: Navpress,
1988) 171–176.
12Ù
St. Augustine,
Expositions on the Book of Psalms
(trans. H. M. Wilkins; London: Oxford,
1853) 5.213.
13Ù
C. H. Spurgeon,
The Treasury of David
(Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim, repr. 1983) 168, 174.
14Ù
Herbert Lockyer, Jr.,
Psalms: A Devotional Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993) 446–447.
15Ù
Uriel Simon,
Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: From Saadiah Gaon to Abraham Ibn
Ezra
(trans. L. J. Schramm; Albany: State University of New York, 1991) 94–95.
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 398 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
INTERPRETING THE CURSES IN THE PSALMS
399
Psalms, a recognition which has recently gained attention in Psalms stud-ies, a point to which we will return. But a major weakness of this approachlies in not giving su¯cient explanation to the dominant use of the jussives(and imperatives) in the imprecations. Though uncertainty sometimes existsin the interpretation of a Hebrew imperfect, the presence of a jussive in aspeech becomes quite certain when the short form of the imperfect is usedor when it is parallel to an imperative. For example, in Ps 109:13, “Let hisposterity be (
yhy
y
‰
h
î
, not
hyhy
yihyeh
“will be”) cut oˆ, let their name be blottedout (
jmy
yimma
h
, not
hjmy
yimma
h
eh
“will be blotted out”).”
16
The jussivelanguage in the imprecations cannot be bypassed lightly.
Appealing to the covenant as the basis for the psalmic curses is the thirdapproach. An obvious strength of this approach is that it identi˜es the con-nection between the imprecations and a prior Biblical framework whichprovides them a basis. J. Carl Laney suggests that the covenantal basis pro-vided by the Abrahamic covenant is the “fundamental ground on which onemay justify the imprecations in the Psalms,” and that David “had a perfectright, as the representative of the nation” to pronounce the curses on Israel’senemies.
17
But Laney does not explain on what basis the other psalmists,without being king like David, may justify their imprecations. Commentingon Psalm 109, E. Calvin Beisner argues that the curses are justi˜ed becausethe enemies are “covenant breakers.”
18
Allan M. Harman’s recent study fur-ther investigates this covenantal basis, covering both the Abrahamic andthe Mosaic covenants. Harman argues that the imprecations are “covenantcurses incorporated into the hymnology of Israel” and that a number of theimprecatory psalms employ covenantal terminology and structure. He usesPsalm 5 and Psalm 109 as important evidence. But for Psalm 137, unlikethe other two, he justi˜es the imprecations on the basis of two prior prophetictexts (Hos 13:16, Isa 13:16).
19
His analyses are insightful but are supportedthrough only a few selected psalms, and for Psalm 137, he does not followthrough with his covenantal analysis.
Though the covenant idea provides an important Biblical basis for theimprecations, it merely serves as a general framework. Its relevance is obvi-ous when we deal with the curses on Israel’s national enemies, but manyimprecations are against the people of the psalmists’ own circle. In addition,explicit appeals to covenants for the curses are lacking from the psalmsthemselves. First, though “covenant” is used 24 times in the Psalms, except in
16Ù
Note also in this example, Psalm 109 begins the whole imprecatory section (vv. 6–19) with
an imperative (
dqph
hapq
e
d
“appoint”), signaling the subsequent imperfects to be jussives. The
jussives are re˘ected rather consistently in the renderings by the LXX into either optatives or
imperatives.
17Ù
Laney, “A Fresh Look” 41–42.
18Ù
Beisner,
Psalms of Promise
168.
19Ù
Harman shows that in Psalm 5, God is addressed as “my King and my God” (v. 2) and by his
covenant name (vv. 6, 12), and following the covenantal structure, the psalm begins with the re-
lationship between God and his people, then the law of God (vv. 4–6), and blessings and curses
(vv. 7–10). He also points out the blessings and curses to be an important feature of Psalm 109
(“The Continuity of the Covenant Curses in the Imprecations of the Psalms,”
RTR
54/2 [1995]
66–67, 72).
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 399 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
400
two cases, the term does not occur in any of the imprecatory psalms. Buteven in these two cases, they are human covenants and not divine cove-nants: Ps 55:21 refers to the covenant made between the psalmist and hiscompanion who turned enemy, and Ps 83:6 refers to the enemies’ making acovenant in opposition to God. To examine the Biblical basis of the impre-cations, we must look beyond the general teaching of the covenants. Second,the curses in the Pentateuchal covenants are presented either in the formsof “I will,” “you will” and “they will” (Gen 12:2; Lev 26:13–44; Deut 29:20–23;30:1–20; 31:16–18; 32:20–43) or in the form of “cursed is (are)” (Deut27:13–26; 28:15–19, 45, see also Gen 27:29; 49:7). They are not exactly inthe jussive and imperative forms that we see in the psalmic imprecations.Direct parallels for the psalmic language must be sought beyond the generalframework of covenants, as will be discussed later.
II. PSALMIC IMPRECATION AS PROPHETIC JUDGMENT
An analysis of the imprecatory psalms suggests that in interpreting thecurses we must take into account the prophetic nature of the Psalms, thelanguage of the imprecations, and their Scriptural bases. As the followingwill show, the language and the content of these imprecations are not verydiˆerent from the direct or indirect judgment speeches of the prophets asseen elsewhere in the OT. This proposed approach, imprecation as propheticjudgment, will be supported by observations involving three areas: First,the prophetic role of the psalmists; second, the imprecatory parallels in pro-phetic speeches outside of the Psalms, and lastly, the prior Biblical bases ofthe imprecations.
1.
The Prophetic Role of the Psalmists
. In this section, we will examinethe prophetic role of the psalmists and their judgment speeches in relationto our proposed understanding of imprecation as prophetic judgment. Beingwriters of psalms does not mean that the psalmists cannot be prophets.From Abraham and Moses to the post-exilic prophets, we have witnessedthe prophetic message presented in a variety of genres: not only oracles ofsalvation or judgment, visions, and parables, but also hymns, prayers, andlaments.
20
Any approach that compartmentalizes the prophetic speechesand the psalms into two very distinct genres imposes arbitrary patterns onthese biblical texts. The prophetic nature of the psalms and their parallel tothe prophetic writings have received some signi˜cant attention in recentPsalms studies. As Raymond J. Tournay observes, the “prophetic dimension”of the canonical Psalter has too often been neglected in modern Psalmsstudies, a dimension long recognized by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Forexample, on Ps 14:1, the Targum interprets that David the psalmist is “inthe spirit of prophecy,” and on 46:1, the same description is used to describethe sons of Korah. The
Midrash Tehillim
points out that in Ps 45:2 “the sons
20Ù
See additional genres of the prophetic speeches in J. Lindblom,
Prophecy in Ancient Israel
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 155–156.
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 400 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
INTERPRETING THE CURSES IN THE PSALMS
401
of Korah predicted the future.”
21
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11QPsacknowledges that David in composing the many psalms “uttered throughprophecy which was given him from before the Most High.”
22
As mentioned earlier, the prophetic role of the psalmists is recognized bythe NT. Not only David is called “prophet” in the NT, but many psalms,including some imprecatory psalms, are interpreted as prophetic speechesconcerning the life and work of Christ (e.g. Ps 41:9 in John 13:18 and Matt26:23–24; Ps 35:19 in John 15:25) and concerning those opposed to him(e.g. Ps 109:8 in Acts 1:20; see also Tables 1 and 2). Within the OT itself,David characterizes himself in a manner similar to many prophets, sayingthat “the Spirit of the Lord spoke through me” (2 Sam 23:2; cf. 1 Chr 22:8;28:6), and “the hand of the Lord was upon me” (1 Chr 28:19). He is called “theman of God” (Neh 12:24, 36), a familiar description for a prophet. Otherpsalmists, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun are also servants of God who “proph-esied” (1 Chr 25:2, 5).
23
The prophetic role of the psalmists is recognized not only by the NT and OTwritings other than the Psalms but is evident from the Psalms themselves.One important proof of their prophetic function is their role of deliveringdivine oracles, an act common to the prophets. There are 15 psalms containingone or more oracles of God, and among these psalms, Psalm 89 contains thelongest oracle (vv. 3–4, 19–37) and Psalm 90 the shortest (where in v. 3 Godsays “Turn back, you mortals”).
24
The oracles are frequently introduced ina way similar to prophetic speeches, such as “says the Lord” (12:5; 110:1),“God says” (50:16), and “God spoke” (60:6).
In light of the psalmists’ prophetic role, the judgment predictions in formof prophetic utterances provide a helpful comparison with the imprecations.The term “judgment prediction” is used here to cover broadly the psalmists’
21Ù
Raymond J. Tournay,
Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the
Second Temple in Jerusalem
(She¯eld: JSOT, 1991) 31–32. See also Amos Chakam,
Sepher Te-
hillim
(Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1986) 13–15; W. H. Bellinger, Jr.,
Psalmody and Prophecy
(She¯eld: JSOT, 1984) 9–21; Walter Houston, “David, Asaph and the Mighty Works of God:
Theme and Genre in the Psalm Collections,”
JSOT
68 (1995) 101–102. On the relation between
the Psalms and the prophetic writings, see e.g. Graham S. Ogden, “Prophetic Oracles Against the
Nations and Psalms of Communal Lament: The Relationship of Psalm 137 to Jeremiah 49:7–22
and Obadiah,”
JSOT
24 (1982) 89–97, and Bernard Gosse, “Le Psaume 83, Isa
ï
e 62, 6–7 et la
tradition des Oracles contre les Nations des livres d’Isa
ï
e et d’ Ez
é
chiel,”
BN
70 (1993) 9–12.
22Ù
For an additional discussion on the prophetic nature of the Psalms in the Qumran and early
rabbinic writings, see S. E. Gillingham,
The Poems and the Psalms of the Hebrew Bible
(New
York: Oxford University Press, 1994) 261–264.
23Ù
Simon,
Four Approaches
187; Wilf Hildebrandt,
An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of
God
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995) 173. See also Keil and Delitzsch,
Psalms
75, 419; Tournay,
Seeing and Hearing God
67–68.
24Ù
The divine oracles in the 15 psalms are 2:6–9; 12:5; 46:10; 50:5–23; 60:6–8; 68:22–23; 81:6–
16; 82:2–7; 89:3–4, 19–37; 90:3; 91:14–16; 95:8–11; 105:15; 110:1, 4; and 132:11–18. Of these 15
psalms, 4 psalms are assigned to David (if including Psalm 2), 3 to Asaph, 1 to Moses, 1 to Sons
of Korah, and 1 to Ethan the Ezrahite. Most of the oracles contain God’s words of blessing. As for
the oracles of judgment and the elements of punishment similar to that of the imprecations, see
Table 2. See also Gillingham,
The Poems and the Psalms
226–230, and A. A. Anderson, “Psalms,”
It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988) 56–59.
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 401 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY402
futuristic statements concerning the destiny of the wicked, whether statedin form of a divine oracle or from the psalmist’s con˜dent perspective. Forexample, “his enemies I [God] will clothe with disgrace” (132:18) or “all my[the psalmist’s] enemies will be ashamed” (6:10). There are at least 27psalms that contain this type of judgment prediction. Though the punish-ments called for in the imprecatory psalms seem severe, they are not verydiˆerent from those we see in the judgment predictions on the fate of the en-emies or evildoers in the Psalms. The elements of punishment we have seenin the imprecations also occur in the judgment predictions, including shame,physical in˘iction, death, misfortune for family members, and unspeci˜edretributive punishment (see the enclosed Table 2, “Judgment Predictions onEnemies and Dominant Elements”). A few examples of their parallels mayillustrate this point:
1) Pour out Your indignation upon them, and let Your burning anger overtake them.May their camp be a desolation; let no one live in their tents (69:24–25, imprecation).The LORD will swallow them up in his wrath, and ˜re will consume them.You will destroy their descendants from the earth, and their children from humankind (21:9–10, judgment prediction).
2) Let sinners vanish from the earth, and let the wicked be no more (104:35, imprecation).The wicked will perish, and the enemies of the LORD . . . like smoke will vanish away (37:20, judgment prediction).
3) Let the net that they hid ensnare them; let them fall into their own destruction (35:8, imprecation).Their mischief will return on their own heads, and on their heads their violence descends (7:16, judgment prediction).
4) Let the wicked be put to shame; let them go dumbfounded to Sheol (31:17, imprecation).My enemies shall turn back, and in a moment be put to shame (6:10, judgment prediction).
In light of the psalmists’ prophetic role, the similarity between these twotypes of statements suggests that we should not place a sharp distinction infunction between the imprecations and the judgment predictions. This ob-servation is reinforced by the instances where an imprecation and a judg-ment prediction occur in the same context, with one echoing and a¯rmingthe other, showing that the imprecations are an important part of thepsalmists’ overall proclamation:
1) Repay them according to their work (28:4, imprecation).God will break them down and build them up no more (v. 5, judgment prediction).
2) Let his enemies be scattered . . . let the wicked perish before God (68:1–2, imprecation).God will shatter the heads of his enemies (v. 21, judgment prediction).
3) Let death take them by surprise; let them go down alive to Sheol (55:15, imprecation).
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 402 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
INTERPRETING THE CURSES IN THE PSALMS 403
You [God] will cast them down into the lowest pit (v. 23, judgment prediction).
In addition, in Psalm 109, the lengthy section of imprecations (vv. 6–19) isechoed by a proclamation, “My accusers will be clothed with disgrace andwrapped in their own shame” (v. 29).25 In Psalm 12, the curse on the op-pressors “May the Lord cut oˆ all ˘attering lips, the tongue that speaks greatboasts” (v. 3) is echoed by God’s a¯rmation, “Because the poor aredespoiled . . . , says the LORD, I will. . . . ” (v. 5). In short, the severity of theimprecations is not very diˆerent from the judgment predictions. In light ofthe prophetic role of the psalmists and their similarity and relation to thepredictions, psalmic imprecations should be considered a form of propheticjudgment proclamations, a consideration supported by the parallels from theprophetic speeches outside the Psalms and the prior Biblical bases of theimprecations in the subsequent discussions.
2. Imprecatory Parallels in Prophetic Speeches. Since the challenge of thepsalmic curses has much to do with the so-called “wish” language, to supportthe idea of imprecation as prophetic judgment, important evidence must comefrom direct parallels, especially in language, from the prophetic speechesoutside the Psalms.26 To correspond to what can be seen in the Psalms, theparallels from the other parts of the OT will be discussed in two groups, thosein contexts where God is addressed in the second person and those where heis not.27
Early parallels in contexts where God is addressed in the second personmay include Moses’ proclamation whenever the ark procession begins, “OLORD, let your enemies be scattered, and your foes ˘ee before you” (Num10:35), and the prophetess Deborah’s call, “Let all your enemies perish, OLORD” (Judg 5:31). Among the prophetic writings, Isaiah’s apocalyptic songin chap. 26 contains an imprecation in the midst of praising God for his ulti-mate victory and his punishment on the wicked: “O LORD . . . let them seeyour zeal for your people, and be ashamed; let your ˜re for enemies consumethem” (Isa 26:11). The confessions or laments of Jeremiah provide somenotable parallels. In Jer 11:20, the prophet cries out to God when facing pos-sible death from those who seek his life: “O LORD of hosts . . . let me see your
25ÙThough uncertainty exists, NRSV’s rendering of this verse as jussive (“May my accusers
be. . . . ”) is less convincing than NIV’s futuristic translation. The futuristic force is supported by
the immediate context (v. 28 and v. 30). In v. 28, “they will curse” is favored over “let them curse”
because of its being parallel to “you will bless,” supported by the parallel of “they” (hmh hemmâ)
and “you” (hta åattâ); in v. 30, the tense is clearly futuristic (“I will”).26ÙThough listing only several parallels from the prophetic writings, Wenham regards the use
of a similar imprecatory language as an important point for understanding the psalmic curses
(The Goodness of God 150–153).27ÙAs indicated earlier, not all of the imprecations occur in prayers. In addition, even in prayers,
seven imprecations appear in an immediate context where God is not addressed in the second per-
son but in the third person, e.g. the imprecation of Ps 55:15 in the context of vv. 12–19. The other
six psalms, with the immediate context in parentheses, are Ps 12:3 (vv. 4–6), Ps 54:5 (vv. 3–4),
Ps 68:1–2 (whole psalm), Ps 104:35 (vv. 31–35), Ps 119:78 (whole psalm), and Ps 129:5–8 (whole
psalm).
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 403 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY404
vengeance upon them!” His cry is immediately followed by God’s own procla-mation of judgment on these enemies, which includes punishment on theirchildren: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, I am going to punish them; theyoung men shall die by the sword; their sons and their daughters shall dieby famine” (vv. 21–22). God’s response to Jeremiah’s cry makes di¯cult anyattempt to view the prophet’s imprecation as merely his own vindictive utter-ance.28 In Jer 17:18, we encounter another imprecation, “Let those who per-secute me be put to shame . . . Let them be dismayed. Bring on them theday of disaster, and crush them with double destruction!” In addition, thecall for punishment on the enemies in Jer 18:21, in a language quite similarto the imprecations of Psalm 109, deserves special attention: “Give theirchildren over to famine, and deliver them over to the power of the sword.Let their wives become childless and widowed; let their men be smitten todeath, and their young men slain by the sword in battle.”
Because of the prophet’s personal suˆerings and the resemblance of hislaments to the psalmic laments, it appears to be an exercise of circular rea-soning to use the Jeremian parallels to shed light on the imprecatory psalms.But the Jeremian parallels can actually provide an important perspective toour understanding of the psalmic curses. To understand Jeremiah’s laments,and thus the psalmic laments, we must recognize the public role of a prophet,a role representing God to a particular audience. Even when presented in theform of private dialogues or prayers, the prophetic speeches possess a publicmessage. An obvious example is the public function of a call narrative.Though the narrative may involve only dialogues between the prophet andGod, it carries a message ultimately intended to impact a public audience.This noteworthy dimension of prophetic prayers of lament may also be seenin a recent study by Mark S. Smith. He argues that the laments of Jeremiahgo beyond defending his prophetic legitimacy, functioning in the Scripturalcontext “to announce Yahweh’s judgment” of the people and to show theirguilt.29 The laments, though presented in the form of prayers by the prophetbefore God, serve not merely as private expressions but public proclama-tions of judgment. The same understanding is important to our interpreta-tion of the imprecations in the psalmic laments. Whether viewed from theirsetting in life, especially their use in ancient Israelite worship, or from theirsetting in writing (the canonical context), the public dimension of the psalmshas frequently been noted in Psalms studies. An obvious piece of textual evi-dence for the public function of the psalms is the frequent uses of the phrase“for the director of music” in the titles of psalms that in content appear tobe private prayers (e.g. Psalms 5, 9, 58, 69, and 109).
28ÙThere is a rebuke from God in Jer 15:19 to call Jeremiah to turn back (bwv swb), but the rebuke
has much to do with Jeremiah’s complaint that God is like a “deceptive brook” and with his being
at the point of giving up his ministry (v. 18).29ÙMark S. Smith, The Laments of Jeremiah in Their Contexts (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) xx–xxi,
63–66. Lindblom holds that even with these words Jeremiah still “speaks as a prophet” (Prophecy
296–297), and R. E. Clements suggests that the experience of Jeremiah may serve to show the
extent of his contemporaries’ rejection of God (Jeremiah [Atlanta: John Knox, 1988] 117). See also
Timothy Polk, The Prophetic Persona (She¯eld: JSOT, 1984) 139–140.
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 404 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
INTERPRETING THE CURSES IN THE PSALMS 405
For the parallels to the psalmic phenomenon that appear in contextswhere God is not addressed directly in the second person, i.e. not as prayersbut in the form of a proclamation, we have an early example in Gen 9:26–27,where Noah pronounces a curse on his descendant Canaan, “Let Canaan behis [Shem’s] slave.” In Isaiah, the prophet also uses a language similar towhat we see in the psalms in his judgment against the king of Babylon: “Letthe evildoers’ descendants never be named! . . . Let them never rise to pos-sess the earth or ˜ll the face of the world with cities” (Isa 14:20–21), and inhis prophecy addressing Babylon for her inevitable fall, “Let your nakednessbe exposed!” (47:3).30 In Isa 44:11, the proclamation of judgment is againstthe idol makers and worshippers, “Let them all assemble themselves, letthem stand up, let them tremble, let them together be put to shame!”
A proclamation similar to Isa 44:11 appears in Jer 50:27, where Goddelivers his judgment on Babylon through Jeremiah, “Kill all her bulls, letthem go down to the slaughter! Woe be on them, their day has come, the timefor their punishment!” In Dan 4:23, a divine curse is placed on king Nebuchad-nezzar because of his pride, “Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven,and let him share with the beasts of the ˜eld until seven periods of time passover him” (see also 4:15). Lastly, we may mention two judgment oraclesagainst God’s people. In rebuking them for their worship of other gods, Godannounces a judgment on his people, “Let them be just like this [ruined]waistband, which is completely useless” (Jer 13:10); and years later facingagain the potential danger of worshipping foreign gods, Malachi warns, “Maythe Lord cut oˆ from the tents of Jacob anyone who does this” (Mal 2:12).
3. Prior Biblical Bases of the Imprecations. Besides the similarity oflanguage, like prophetic judgments, the psalmic imprecations depend onprior Biblical teaching for their authority. Behind many imprecations arethe psalmists’ concerns for social justice in Israel and the destiny of God’speople among the hostile nations, concerns commonly seen in the propheticwritings. These concerns clearly re˘ect the teaching of the Pentateuch. Thecovenants, as mentioned earlier, undoubtedly serve as the general Biblicalbasis for the imprecations when these concerns are violated. The imprecationin Ps 58:6–7 is against the rulers who “devise injustice” and “mete out vio-lence” (vv. 1–2), and the wicked in Psalm 109 is rebuked for “having houndedto death the poor and the needy” (v. 16; see also 10:9–11, 18; 12:5; 55:9–11;and 94:5–7). Imprecations against the oppressive nations in Ps 79:6, 12 haveto do with their “destroying” God’s people and causing their blood “pouredout like water” (vv. 2, 7; see also 9:17–18; 83:2–5; 129:1; and 137:3, 7). Thesepsalmic concerns re˘ect the psalmists’ desire for God’s glory to be mani-fested, often because their enemies despise God and mock at him for failingto protect his people (e.g. 28:5; 64:5; 69:6; 74:10; 79:6–10; 83:2; 109:27; 137:3).
30ÙThe verb “expose” is correctly considered a jussive in M. O’Connor and Bruce K. Waltke, An
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: 1990) 569, contrary to NIV and NASB,
which translate the verb as futuristic or predictive even though it is in the short form lgt tiggal
(not hlgt tiggaleh as in Exod 20:26, Ezek 16:36, 57, and Prov 26:26).
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 405 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY406
To demonstrate further the prior Scriptural basis of psalmic curses, I willfocus our discussion on Psalms 109 and 137 because of their well-knownharsh language.
The harshest imprecations in Psalm 109 involve David’s appeal to God topunish also the wicked’s family: “Let his children be orphans, and his wifea widow. Let his children wander about and beg, let them be driven out ofthe ruins they live” (vv. 9–10).31 As mentioned earlier, the psalmist is againstthe wicked who hounded to death the poor and the needy (v. 16), and thepsalmist’s appeal is not without prior Biblical support. In Exod 22:21–24,God commands that none of his people shall oppress a stranger, widow, ororphan, “If you abuse them, and when they cry out to me, I will surely heartheir cry; and my wrath will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword;and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans.” In light ofthis command, the psalmist is in essence asking God to realize the judgmenthe has proclaimed to show forth his justice.32 As already mentioned earlier,Jer 18:21 contains an imprecation resembling what we see in Psalm 109. Asimilar judgment occurs in Amos 7:17, where the prophet announces a pun-ishment on Amaziah, “Thus says the Lord, Your wife will become a harlot inthe city, your sons and your daughters will fall by the sword, your land will beparceled up by a measuring line, and you yourself will die upon unclean soil.”If the identity of David’s enemy is as explicit as can be seen in Amos or Jere-miah, we may be less troubled by the extensive imprecations in the psalm.Historical speci˜city does make a diˆerence, a point we will elaborate later.
In Psalm 137, the captors ridicule God’s name, implying that the destruc-tion of Jerusalem has been perceived as evidence that their god is greater thanthe God of Israel. In that context the psalmist calls out to God to realize hisjudgment on Babylon the aggressor: “O daughter of Babylon, you destroyer(ddv sdd, or “the doomed one”)! Blessed will be the one who repays (µlv slm)you what you have done (lmg gml ) to us! Blessed will be the one who takesyour little ones (µyll[ çllym) and dashes them against the rock!” (vv. 8–9).The date of the psalm is not quite certain; it was written either near the endof the exile or after the return from exile.33 In either case, the prophecies
31ÙKidner sees these imprecations reminiscent of a curse by David on Joab for shedding inno-
cent blood, as recorded in 2 Sam 3:29, “May the guilt fall on the head of Joab, and on all his fa-
ther’s house; and may the house of Joab never be without one who has a discharge, or who is
leprous, or who holds a spindle, or who falls by the sword, or who lacks food” (Psalms 73–150
390).32ÙMichael Fishbane also adds as background the warning from Exod 34:6–7 that God visits
“the iniquity of the parents upon the children” (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford:
Clarendon, 1985] 340, 347–348).33ÙThough commentators frequently consider the psalm post-exilic, some date it to the exile,
before Babylon’s fall: Zenger, A God of Vengeance 47, Ibn Giqatilah (Simon, Four Approaches
194), and W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Hard Sayings in the Old Testament (Downers Grove: IVP, 1988) 174.
The exilic date explains better the intense yearning for the fall of Babylon. Though the use of
“there” (µv sam) and the Hebrew perfects in vv. 1–3 seem to support the post-exilic date, the ev-
idence is inconclusive. Ezekiel uses “there” (µv sam) to describe his experience in Babylon (1:3;
2:15) while he wrote the narrative in exile. The perfects do not necessarily imply a distant past,
and the verbs in vv. 4–6 and v. 9 are in imperfects. Elmer A. Leslie dates the psalm to right be-
fore the fall of Babylon, but with the psalmist writing somewhere in the Diaspora, and not in
Babylon or Jerusalem (The Psalms [New York: Abingdon, 1949] 256).
one pica long
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 406 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
INTERPRETING THE CURSES IN THE PSALMS 407
concerning Babylon in Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 51 are the important Scrip-tural bases for the imprecation, as supported by the use of similar terminologybetween these two earlier texts and the psalm.34
In Isaiah 13 (c. 8th cent. BC), “an oracle against Babylon” (v. 1), theprophet proclaims Babylon’s eventual fall in spite of its awesome power. Thedevastation that the Babylonians brought to the other peoples will turn backon them, “their little ones (µyll[ çllym) will be dashed to pieces before theireyes, their houses will be looted. . . . ” (v. 16, see also v. 18). Dated sometimebefore 562 BC,35 the judgment oracle on Babylon in Jeremiah 51 is anotherimportant biblical basis for the psalm: “Babylon must fall because of Israel’sslain . . . The Lord will destroy Babylon . . . A destroyer (ddv sdd ) will comeagainst Babylon, her warriors will be captured, their bows will be broken.For the Lord is a God of retribution (lmg gml ), he will repay (µlv slm) in full”(vv. 49, 55, 56).36 Though harsh, the statement “dash little ones against therock” is also a literary expression that uses a part for the whole, describingtotal defeat in war (see similar expressions in Hos 13:16; Nah 3:10; 2 Kgs 8:12;and Luke 19:44). In summary, Ps 137:9 can be understood as the psalmist’scall on God, in the midst of oppression and cruelty, to ful˜ll his earlier judg-ment predictions on Babylon so that the nations will know Yahweh alone isGod, and the one who realizes the predictive word is “blessed” because thisperson serves God’s will.
III. IMPRECATIONS AND CHRISTIANS TODAY
Can the imprecations be used by Christians on our contemporary enemiestoday? For commentators who consider the imprecations as the psalmists’own sentiments, these statements are clearly inapplicable to the Christianera. For those who see the imprecations just as inspired as the other partsof the Psalms, the responses vary. Laney argues that since the imprecationsare based on the Abrahamic covenant, which is God’s promise to Abrahamand Israel, the “church-age believers” cannot do what the psalmists did.37
Longman points to a somewhat diˆerent reason, noting that the type of en-emies of the OT era is diˆerent from that of our era, and thus we cannot praythese prayers the same way as David prayed.38 On the other hand, Beisnerappeals to the existence of curses in both testaments and argues for the con-tinued use of curses on our enemies. But his arguments are greatly weakenedby his proposed conditions that only those who are “truly innocent” may praycurses, and that the curses can only be used against those “who are hardenedbeyond redemption.”39 Similarly, Zenger holds that the imprecations are no
34ÙS. L. Gordon, Tehillim (Tel Aviv: S. L. Gordon Publishers, 1978) 2.238, 243.35ÙJ. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 732.36ÙSee also Kidner, Psalms 73–150 460.37ÙLaney, “A Fresh Look” 44.38ÙLongman, How to Read 138–139; somewhat similarly, Donald M. Williams, Psalms 73–150
(Dallas, TX: Word, 1989) 290–291.39ÙBeisner, Psalms of Promise 178. Also J. C. McCann holds, though cautiously, that the curses
of Psalm 109 can be used by Christians as prayers for other Christians who suˆer like the psalmist,
but not as prayers for themselves (Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as
Torah [Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1993] 116–117).
one pica long
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 407 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY408
one pica long
less relevant for people of faith today, and that denying the use of these im-precations is to refuse the suˆerers “the right to lament . . . a fundamentalact of their humanity.” Yet in dealing with Ps 137:9, Zenger retranslates itas “O daughter of Babylon, happy the one who puts an end to your rule.”40
Though Christian responses vary, by acknowledging imprecation as pro-phetic judgment this approach has implicitly accepted certain boundarieswithin which the question of application may be answered. In general, howwe apply the judgment proclamations in the prophetic speeches, especiallytheir warnings and their punishments, will aˆect how we apply the psalmicimprecations today. The historical and theological factors that determineour interpretation of prophetic judgments are directly relevant to this ques-tion of application. The greatest challenge to the reader of prophetic judg-ments is not whether there are timeless theological truths or principlestaught in these judgment speeches, but whether the exact terms of judgmentor elements of punishments may be pronounced on our contemporary ene-mies. Two factors need to be considered. First, it is the historical factor thatwe have noted earlier. If the original audience did not expect the exact termsof punishment to apply to someone other than the intended person (e.g. onthe Babylonian king in Isaiah 14 or Amaziah in Amos 7), we should not usethe exact terms on someone today. Second, because the prophetic view of his-tory acknowledges the Messianic era as the climax, an era toward which allprophetic messages directly or indirectly make a contribution, prophetic proc-lamations of judgment must be understood in light of the coming of Christ,an understanding re˘ected in the NT. Some elaboration is needed on thesetwo factors.
Like other proclamations of judgment, many psalmic curses in their orig-inal contexts are directed to speci˜c persons, and consequently the historicalspeci˜cities of the imprecations cannot be ignored. The historical superscrip-tions testify to the fact that many psalms were the psalmists’ responses toreal life situations, e.g. both Psalm 54 and Psalm 59 begin with a historicalsuperscription, each concerning a diˆerent occasion involving Saul and hismen seeking David’s destruction. The antiquity of these two superscriptionsis witnessed by their presence in the LXX. Clues to their historical contextmay also be present within many psalms themselves. Two of the 28 psalmsin our study have explicitly identi˜ed who the enemies are: in Psalm 83, thenames of the ten nations threatening Israel (83:5–8) are clearly identi˜ed,and in Psalm 137, the names of Edom and Babylon (vv. 7–8). But the absenceof names in other imprecatory psalms does not automatically mean that nospeci˜c enemies were envisioned by the psalmists. Except in Psalm 104,where the enemies are the wicked in general, and if we do not relegate thereferences to merely stylistic reasons, the imprecations in the rest of thepsalms concern enemies who in various degrees aˆected the life of the psalm-ists. For example, the enemy cursed in Psalm 109 can be identi˜ed as a formeracquaintance, and in Psalm 55, the psalmist points to a known enemy, “Butyou” (v. 13). Though less speci˜c, the enemies in the other psalms aredescribed as “my enemies,” “those who seek my life,” a former acquaintance
40ÙZenger, A God of Vengeance 92, 95.
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 408 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
INTERPRETING THE CURSES IN THE PSALMS 409
turned adversary, or “nations” that mocked God and threatened the survivalof his people (e.g. 71:7).41 Historical speci˜city in these cases (the abovePsalms 54, 55, 59, 83, 104, 109 and 137) makes it problematic for Christiansto pronounce the exact imprecatory terms of punishment on enemies today,even though important principles may be gleaned from them.
Besides the historical factor, the question of application must be evaluatedin light of Christ. In line with the prophetic view of history, the NT interpretssome of the imprecatory psalms, which in the MT are “of David,” as descrip-tions of the life of Christ or as prayers of Christ (e.g. Ps 69:21 in John 19:28).42
Thus from the NT perspective, the enemies in the imprecatory psalms areenemies of Christ, the Son of David. This perspective is in line with the OTexpectation that under the Messianic rule, a new era of peace will dawn.While not condoning sin, Christ has taught us to love our enemies and prayfor those who persecute us (Matt 5:44, Luke 6:27). The enemies are nowde˜ned by Christ’s perspective and not by our perspective. It is too easy forus to read into these psalms the contemporary enemies we want to name. Theonly contemporary enemies that we can con˜dently wish their destructionare those Paul has told us: “For our struggle is not against ˘esh and blood,but against the principalities, against the authorities, against the powers ofthis dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlyspheres” (Eph 6:12). Though using the exact terms of psalmic curses on ourenemies today may run the risk of disregarding the stated historical and thetheological factors, the imprecations continue to serve as important remind-ers of God’s concern for justice in this world and of his judgment on those whopractice evil.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A study of the prophetic role of the psalmists, the imprecatory parallelsin prophetic speeches, and the prior Biblical bases of the curses suggest thatthe psalmic curses are quite similar to the prophetic proclamations of judg-ment in the other parts of the OT. First, the prophetic role of the psalmistsis witnessed by the evidence in both the OT and the NT; second, the impre-cations have many parallels from the prophetic speeches in language andfunction; and third, like other prophetic judgments the psalmic imprecationsdepend on prior Biblical teaching for their authority, especially on the Pen-tateuch. Though the imprecations are generally expressed through a modethat appears to be personal wishes, they are prophetic judgments againstthe wicked and are not to be treated as merely the psalmists’ own vindictivesentiments. The psalmic curses continue to remind us of the reality of eviland judgment, and for Christians the curses must be understood in light ofJesus and in light of the larger Biblical context they now possess.
41ÙAlso “my enemies/my adversaries/my accusers” (5:8; 9:3; 17:9; 31:11, 15; 35:19; 54:7; 55:15;
59:1, 10; 69:18, 19; 71:10, 13; 119:78, 139, 157; 139:22; 143:9, 12), and “those who seek my life/my
hurt” (17:11–12; 54:3; 40:14; 69:4; 70:2; 71:10, 13; 109:25; 141:8–9).42ÙGillingham, The Poems and the Psalms 265–266; Holladay, Long Ago 316; Martin, “Impre-
cations” 130–131.
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 409 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY410
Abbreviations:Sh=Shame, Ph=Physical in˘iction, Dth=Death, Fm=Family members suˆered, Rtr=un-speci˜ed Retributive punishment, NT=The psalm (not necessarily the imprecation itcontains) is quoted in the NT.
Note: Any reference marked with an asterisk is part of a divine oracle.
Table 1. Imprecations and their Dominant Elements
Sh Ph Dth Fm Rtr NT Sh Ph Dth Fm Rtr NT
5:10 ∑ ∑ 69:22–28 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑7:13 ∑ ∑ 70:2–3 ∑9:19–20 ∑ 71:13 ∑10:15 ∑ ∑ 79:6, 12 ∑12:3 ∑ 83:13–17 ∑ ∑28:4 ∑ 104:35 ∑ ∑31:17–18 ∑ ∑ 109:6–20 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑35:4–8, 26 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 119:78 ∑40:14–15 ∑ ∑ 129:5–8 ∑ ∑54:5 ∑ ∑ 137:7–9 ∑ ∑ ∑55:15 ∑ 139:19–22 ∑58:6–7 ∑ ∑ 140:9–11 ∑ ∑ ∑59:11–12 ∑ ∑ 141:10 ∑68:1–2 ∑ ∑ ∑ 143:12 ∑
Table 2. Judgment Predictions on Enemies and Dominant Elements
Sh Ph Dth Fm Rtr NT Sh Ph Dth Fm Rtr NT
2:9* ∑ ∑ ∑ 68:21 ∑ ∑6:10 ∑ 68:22–23* ∑ ∑7:16 ∑ 72:8–10 ∑9:3 ∑ ∑ 82:7* ∑ ∑11:6 ∑ 89:23, 32* ∑ ∑21:8–10 ∑ ∑ 92:9 ∑ ∑28:5 ∑ 94:23 ∑ ∑ ∑34:21 ∑ ∑ 95:11* ∑ ∑37:15–20 ∑ ∑ 108:13 ∑50:22* ∑ 109:29 ∑ ∑52:5 ∑ ∑ 110: 5–6 ∑ ∑ ∑55:23 ∑ 112:10 ∑ ∑63:9–10 ∑ 132:18* ∑ ∑64:7–8 ∑ ∑
12-Luc_Article JETS 42.3 (1999) Page 410 Friday, August 27, 1999 2:44 PM
