Ezekiel and the Heart of Idolatry

By John N. Day

[John N. Day is Pastor, Bellewood Presbyterian Church, Bellevue, Washington.]

Tertullian opened his treatise on idolatry by declaring, “The principal crime of the human race, the highest guilt charged upon the world, the whole procuring cause of judgment, is idolatry.”[1] No portion of Scripture addresses this root issue of idolatry so repeatedly and pointedly as the hard-hitting Book of Ezekiel. This article addresses the focal points of the prophet’s discussion, as he was confronted by God and called to confront God’s exiled people on this issue.

According to the Book of Ezekiel, “idolatry is the quintessential cause of the Babylonian exile.”[2] The sin of idolatry was the primary reason for God’s judgment on Israel—whether idolatry at the high places (chap. 6), idolatry in the temple (chap. 8), or idolatry in the heart (chap. 14). Of all the sins God condemns and people commit, idolatry is the root sin, the sin that explains all the others.[3]

And this sin of idolatry is rooted in the heart. As Ezekiel 20:16 explains, “They rejected My rules… for their heart went after their idols.”[4] This key statement is issued in Ezekiel’s recounting of Israel’s past. Even at the time of their magnificent deliverance from Egypt, “none of them cast away the detestable things their eyes feasted on, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt” (v. 8). This idolatry continued throughout Israel’s history and into the exilic period. That Ezekiel issued such a statement underscores his understanding that idolatry is a heart issue. Changed circumstances do not change an idolatrous nature; the heart remains the same unless it is changed by an act of divine grace. Even the graphically sexual allegories of covenant infidelity (chaps. 16 and 23) underscore the fact that this penchant for idolatry is seated in the heart and can be displaced only by God’s judgment and grace.

Overview of Ezekiel

The Book of Ezekiel begins with the prophet’s “conscription” to the ministry (chaps. 1–3), then moves into the hard message he was to proclaim, namely, judgment on Judah, particularly for their heart of idolatry (chaps. 4–24). This second section divides into two subsections, each introduced with a “drama.” The first subsection presents the imminent and unthinkable message that “time’s up and God’s gone!” (chaps. 4–11). The second subsection presents a varied collection of woes, twice punctuated by extended portrayals of Judah’s apostasy and idolatry as (porno-) graphic adultery. The obscene and shockingly offensive depictions are spoken in this way to arrest attention and change hardened hearts.

Ezekiel then presented a series of judgments on the nations (chaps. 25–32), for judgment extends to all; no one is exempt. All stand as sinners before God. These judgments center on Tyre, the great economic power of the world at that time, and Egypt, the great political power. The central issue of judgment for both is focused on pride, which resides in the heart (notably, chap. 28).

Chapters 33–48 then record a message of hope for God’s people. The first subsection transitions from recapitulation of present judgment (chap. 33) to the promise of eschatological salvation (chaps. 34–39). In a second subsection the book closes with the magnificent vision of the new temple, new worship, and new land (chaps. 40–48). This brings the book full circle, replacing the apparent abandonment of God’s promises with the returned and eternal presence of God. After confrontation and judgment, God’s promise remains, and in the end, grace reigns.

The Setting of Despair

The Exile was a jolt of disillusionment for God’s people. They were faced with both the trauma of “broken promises” and the trauma of “God conquered.” All the promises of God had evidently failed: the promise of land, of monarch, of temple. Now they found themselves in hopeless despair on foreign soil. But God was still God there; and His promises were still good—even better than they could ever hope or dream (as seen in the visionary end of Ezekiel regarding the temple, the monarch, and the land).

God’s people had succumbed to a perpetual danger, the peril of presuming on His grace. They thought that God’s presence in the temple was the guarantee of their security, even though their hearts were rebellious against God’s commands. But He stated clearly, “You eat flesh with the blood and lift up your eyes to your idols and shed blood; shall you then possess the land? You rely on the sword, you commit abominations, and each of you defiles his neighbor’s wife; shall you then possess the land?” (33:25–26). God’s promises are sure, but they are not received by status or “right” or descent. They are received only through a heart of faith. Membership among God’s covenant people was never enough for an Israelite; he must be circumcised in both flesh and heart (cf. 44:7, 9; Rom. 2:28–29).

For most of their history Judah’s king and people had been dominated by idolatry, though not always in allegiance to Baal himself (or his ilk). Yet they continued to face real and pernicious idolatries—power and pride, selfishness and greed (“their heart is set on their gain,” Ezek. 33:31). Whatever a person places before obedience to God, whatever one desires above God, becomes an idol. As God declared as the first of His commands, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3).

Thus Ezekiel was commissioned to address both spiritual disillusionment and hardened rebellion, to reconstruct religion’s fundamentals as an internal work of grace and a life of faith, and to confront and prepare hearts for their promised return.

The Exile was also a jolt of disillusionment for Ezekiel. He is introduced “among the exiles” (Ezek. 1:1) as “Ezekiel the priest” (v. 3). Then after his initial confrontation with the glory of God, he was back among the exiles, embittered and overwhelmed (3:14–15). Though a priest, he had no place to serve. And he was a less-than-eager conscript, for the Spirit had to lift him, and God’s hand rested heavy on him (e.g., 3:14).

When God began to confront His stubborn people through His “toughened” prophet,[5] He began with a revelation of Himself (1:4–28). God appeared to His defeated people—in the heart of the enemy camp! And He appeared in a somewhat typical “storm-and-fire” theophany, a heavenly throne-chariot, reminiscent of the ark of the covenant. God’s people needed (and continue to need) a renewed vision of God—majestic and mysterious, terribly transcendent and yet profoundly near. God was still the Sovereign in Babylon; and He is still the God of His people, with promises to make and to keep, promises of judgment for sin, and yet promises of hope and grace.

The Heart of the Matter

Crucial chiasm

This root issue of idolatry comes to its focus and first climax in chapters 8–11, which form an artful and powerful literary unit. As Block observes, “The editor of Ezekiel’s prophecies evidently intended 8:1–11:25 to be treated as a single composition. The boundaries of this literary unit are set by a formal introduction (8:1–4) and a corresponding conclusion (11:22–25). The major themes [of this introduction and conclusion] seem to have been deliberately arranged in an artistic chiastic order.”[6]

This unit opens with Ezekiel among the exiles, his transportation to Jerusalem by the Holy Spirit in visions of God, and the appearance of the glory of God. Then it closes in reverse order: the glory of God, Ezekiel’s return to Chaldea by the Spirit, and his report to the exiles about his vision. Moreover, inside this frame the larger section itself is fashioned as a chiasm.

A. Introduction (8:1–4)

B. Abomination issue: problem (8:5–18)

C. Judgment on land and leadership (chap. 9)

D. Abandonment of God’s temple by His glory (chap. 10)

C.´ Judgment on land and leadership (11:1–13)

B.´ Abomination issue: solution (11:14–21)

A.´ Conclusion (11:22–25)

In the center of the chiasm is the departure of God’s glory (chap. 10).[7] This is the key moment, the staggering event. In a frightening reversal of imagery God mounted the cherubim not to deliver His people but to abandon them (10:18–19). This departure was immediately surrounded by the exercise of God’s judgment, centering on the apostate leadership (chaps. 9 and 11a).[8] Points B and B´ address the issue of abomination: abominations in the temple that justify—even necessitate—God’s abandonment of the temple (8:6), which in turn speaks to the need for divine regeneration (chap. 8 and 11:16–21). This latter half of chapter 11 has been appropriately styled “the gospel according to Ezekiel.”[9] Here the heart is seen as the seat of idolatry, and thus there is the need for a divine “heart transplant.” God said, “And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. But as for those whose heart goes after their detestable things and their abominations, I will bring their deeds upon their own heads, declares the Lord Yahweh” (11:19–21).

This hope is then repeated and elaborated on in 36:25–28. Notably this requisite “one heart” (i.e., not a divided heart) contrasts with those whose “heart” went after their abominations. This underscores the fundamental issue, as expressed in the phrase “the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart.”

Another item of literary and theological interest is the manner in which Ezekiel was given a divinely guided “tour of the temple” in four stages, marking the increase and fullness of Judah’s abominations. These involve breaking the first two commandments: “You shall have no other gods before me,” and “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness… [to] bow down to them or serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God” (Exod. 20:3–5).

The first stage relates to bringing a representation of the pagan world into God’s own precincts. This was the first step of compromise (Ezek. 8:5–6). In the second stage the elders of Israel and their beastly idols were hidden in the darkness. This was the secrecy of a double life (vv. 7–13). Especially notable is “Jaazaniah, the son of Shaphan”—Shaphan was the godly secretary during Josiah’s reformation (cf. 2 Kings 22). Third, women were weeping for Tammuz, engaging in the Babylonian form of the pagan myth (Ezek. 8:14–15). This was a sad act of replacement—turning not to their God but to the “god” of their overlord. In the fourth stage the princes of the people (cf. 11:1) were in the very place of pardon (the altar), bowing toward the sun, exchanging the glory of God for a far lesser glory, trading the Creator for the created (8:16–17; cf. Rom. 1:20–23). This was an act of patent rejection; the people literally turned their backs on God to face the sun. Thus in spite of God’s manifest deliverances and persistent calls to repentance and warnings of judgment, and in spite of reforms instituted by Hezekiah and Josiah, the hearts of God’s people still embraced pagan beliefs and practices.

This fullness of abomination was answered by a “matched abandonment,” for the glory of God departed from the temple in four stages. The first step was small and almost tentative—to the threshold of the temple (Ezek. 9:3). Second, God’s glory moved to the threshold again, ready to mount (10:4). Third, it went to the entrance at the east gate (vv. 18–19). Fourth, it went to the mountain east of Jerusalem (11:22–23).[10] This singularly unthinkable event was the communal realization of that against which David prayed, out of his horrid sin: “Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me” (Ps. 51:11). It is a solemn reminder to God’s people in every age to turn from a heart of rebellion to a heart of repentance.

Idols in the Heart

This idolatry was not only external—the worship of images of metal, wood, and stone. It was fundamentally, as God now explained (chap. 14), an issue of the heart. Humanity’s root problem is internalized idolatry. And God’s own people are no exception.

When the elders of Israel went once again to Ezekiel for a word from the Lord, Yahweh responded with a pointed observation. “These men have taken their idols into their hearts [or, ‘erected their idols in their hearts’], and set the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces” (14:3, echoed in vv. 4 and 7). This followed God’s denunciation on the false prophets and prophetesses in chapter 13, in which Ezekiel exposed the marks of the charlatan who declared “all is well” in sin, motivated by money and power.

In chapters 8–11 the issue of idolatry was “there and them.” In chapter 14 it is “here and us.” The previous passage addressed the scourge of externalized idolatry. The exiles lived far from those abominations in the temple. But they could never escape the scourge of internalized idolatry, the abominations in the heart (cf. 11:18–21). Evidently there was an established practice of hypocrisy. People were outwardly practicing religion, but their hearts were elsewhere, on their “stumbling blocks of iniquity.” Their geographical location had been forcibly changed, but their disposition had not. People today need to ask themselves, “What idols are we ‘hiding’ in hypocrisy? What sins are we setting up and stumbling over? What rival loves do we embrace?”

Three times Yahweh mentioned these idols in the heart (14:3, 4, 7). And after each reference He responded. First, He asked, “Should I answer?” (14:3). Sin separates from God (v. 7a), and holding onto sin while (ostensibly) seeking God invites divine silence. Second, He said, in essence, “I will answer—but not the way you intend” (vv. 4–5). Rather than a word of comfort to their hearts in their covert and egregious idolatry of the heart, His purpose was to “seize” their hearts. Third, He said, “I will answer—but not the way you want” (14:7–8); for He answered in judgment. His words, “I will set my face against” (v. 8), is the ironic and ominous conclusion to the repeated “they set before their faces” (vv. 3, 4, 7). But that is not God’s final answer. Still there was hope; the call always comes, “Repent!” (v. 6). That is, “Turn away your faces from all your abominations.” This is a dramatic portrayal of repentance: turning from sin and to God. And in the end God will do what they could not do. He will fulfill His promise “that they may be my people, and I may be their God” (v. 11).[11]

This “heart idolatry,” as Zimmerli calls it, is “half-hearted piety, which prays for help from God before it is ready to give him his rightful place.”[12] These people had experienced God’s judgment and wanted His salvation, and so they eagerly came to Ezekiel to hear a word from God, expecting consolation. Yet they were not willing to relinquish their old patterns of thought and practice and submit to God. “The judgement had not completely broken their old nature, with the old trust in powers other than God, just as men always resist letting go the past completely, with all its particular helps. Who really wants to die completely?”[13]

That is why half-heartedness is a template of idolatry. When someone wants to embrace both (cf. 11:19, 21), it invariably leads to whole-scale apostasy. This is seen early in Judah’s kings; their not following Yahweh with a whole heart is said to be evil (1 Kings 14:22; 15:3). Instructively Jesus’ great and first commandment is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37 [italics added], citing Deut. 6:5). This is why Josiah was “the good king” par excellence. “Before him there was no king like him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him” (2 Kings 23:25, italics added). This is also why Jesus said that people cannot serve both God and “stuff” (Matt. 6:24); and that “whoever loves father or mother [etc.] more than me is not worthy of me” (10:37). These are all “whole heart” statements. “Half a heart” is a heart filled with idols.

As stated earlier, idolatry is basically a matter of the heart, and it is a temptation for God’s people in every age. Idolatry is not just “there and then”; it is just as much “here and now.” Idolatry is seen not just in such obvious substitutes as Asherah or Tammuz. It is just as likely to manifest itself in such things as greed and people-pleasing, selfishness, and power. Whatever commands one’s allegiance is his idol. Whatever one places before obedience to God or whatever one desires above God is an idol. Even something that begins good and noble can become an idol. For example the bronze serpent, that symbol of God’s deliverance of the Israelites, became transformed into Nehushtan, and so Hezekiah had to destroy it (2 Kings 18:4). This is why Calvin stated so blatantly, “Man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols.”[14] This inclination toward idolatry is the most basic expression of the sinful nature.

One manifestation of this heart-idolatry was driven home to the present writer when a young woman came into the church seeking God with tears. The root issue of her conflict—wanting a relationship with God and yet feeling so distant from Him—turned out to be a different relationship. She was living with her boyfriend and was unwilling to give up the “security” of her sin to turn to the Lord in faith. This was her idol. What began as a temptation and then became a pattern of sin was now her idol, and idols of the heart are extremely tenacious. But the power of God’s grace is stronger still. For many men this issue arises in the use of pornography. As Powlinson asks, “Has something or someone besides Jesus the Christ taken title to your heart’s trust, preoccupation, loyalty, service, fear and delight? It is a question bearing on the immediate motivation for one’s behavior, thoughts, and feelings. In the Bible’s conceptualization, the motivation question is the lordship question. Who or what ‘rules’ my behavior, the Lord or a substitute?”[15]

That is why the apostle Paul stated so forthrightly that covetousness is idolatry (Col. 3:5; cf. Eph. 5:5), and why he counseled the rich not “to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God” (1 Tim. 6:17). Although such covetousness or greed is the only thing the New Testament clearly defines as idolatry, idolatry is not limited to greed. As the apostle John wrote, idolatry is anything that becomes a rival love, a rival god: “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions” (1 John 2:16). This echoes Ezekiel’s charge, “Cast away the detestable things your eyes feast on, every one of you, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt” (Ezek. 20:7), and his laments, “For their heart went after their idols… and their eyes were set on their fathers’ idols” (vv. 16, 24). Notably the climactic last line of 1 John, which at first seems odd and out of place, commands, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). Evidently “idols” here means anything that takes away from one’s first love—of God, of Christ, and of other believers. This would include the manifestation of man-pleasing, sadly expressed in John 12:42–43. “Many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.”

Idolatry as Adultery

Through Ezekiel God not only revealed just how deeply seated idolatry is; He also revealed how deeply wrong it is. The steady penchant for idolatry is nothing less than flagrant adultery. This fact shows how God feels about idolatries against Him, who is the believers’ faithful Lover and covenant Husband. God lamented, “How I have been broken over their whoring heart that has departed from me and over their eyes that go whoring after their idols” (Ezek. 6:9). He became quite graphic in the horrid and whorish allegories in chapters 16 and 23.

Why did He speak in such a shocking way? It is because of the nature of the covenant relationship between God and Israel. Given the abject stubbornness of this “rebellious house,” severe measures were needed to get across the severity of what they were doing and what this meant to God. He depicted Israel’s long-standing penchant for “spiritual adultery” by means of analogy to a brazen and insatiable whore, at times even obscene (characteristically muted in the translations). Chapter 16 in particular is a poignant picture of tender love returned with brazen betrayal (see vv. 1–14, 15–34), a portrait of amazing grace and appalling disgrace. Following this is God’s graphic and harsh judgment (vv. 35–52), and yet in the end there is hope (vv. 53–63). Amazingly the chapter begins and ends with references to God’s grace.

This deep hurt and disgust is expressed in the sexually explicit descriptions of Judah’s harlotry, notably, playing the whore with her male images (v. 17), spreading her legs to every passerby (v. 25), lustfully remembering her days in Egypt—the place of her slavery and from which she was delivered—“whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses” (23:20). She was a nymphomaniacal whore, to the extreme; she turned everywhere—from Egypt to Assyria to Chaldea (16:26–29)—except to God. She was not even like an ordinary prostitute, who receives payment for her favors. She was actually married and well provided for (vv. 32–33)! “She commits adultery not because

Yahweh has failed her but for the thrill of it.”[16] This depiction of lust shows that at its core idolatry is an internal issue, a matter of the heart. “You trusted”—not in your Husband, but rather—“in your beauty” (v. 15). Thus the issue in temptation is not alliances as such but reliances (where one turns in trust) and the inclinations of the heart (where one is drawn).

In these allegories of adultery God exposed Judah’s idolatries. They were combining true religion with the prevailing religious ideas and practices of the cultures around them. For security they trusted in political alliances rather than in God. They were motivated by material affluence and were characterized by moral decadence.

This speaks to believers today too. God’s people in every age need to ask themselves these questions: “How often and in what areas do we abandon God in action, attitude, and affection? Do we compromise our morals for our own desires or for a better standing in the world? Are we captivated by the Giver or the gifts? Are we motivated by the pursuit of wealth and the desire to be comfortable, or by the pursuit of God and the desire to be Christlike? Are we prone to trust in the worldly alliances we make, or do we look to God as our Sovereign? How freely do we conform to prevailing religious ideas and pressures of our culture?”

The Promise of Hope

Divine solution

Ezekiel 36:24–28 gives God’s answer to Judah’s hopelessness and inability—the promise of regathering, internal cleansing, divine “heart surgery,” Spirit empowering, and covenant relationship. “I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to obey My rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.”

This sequence of return, regeneration, and renewal is an enlarged echo of the initial promise given in 11:18–20. In 36:25–27 Ezekiel presented three images of Israel’s yet-future spiritual life. The first image is that of cleansing by water. This is the fulfillment of various ritual washings and sprinklings, which depict cleansing from sin and salvation from uncleanness (vv. 33, 29). The second image is that of a new heart: the exchange of a heart of stone for a heart of flesh. The third image is this new spirit, which is the regenerating and indwelling Spirit of God Himself, who gives God’s people the ability to obey (v. 27). The closing statement in verse 28 is the covenant formula in its simplest form. It defines the saving relationship between God and His people, both in time and for eternity (e.g., Gen. 17:7; Lev. 26:11–12; Rev. 21:3). It is also a formula that forms the backbone of hope in the Book of Ezekiel (11:20; 14:11; 34:30–31; 36:28; 37:23, 27).

Ezekiel 36 figured prominently in the background of the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus, especially Jesus’ words about “water and the Spirit and new birth from above.” As Jesus said, “Israel’s teacher” certainly ought to have known that this activity of the Spirit is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God (John 3:3, 5, 10). Ezekiel’s words are another reminder that the solution to society’s ills and problems is not education or economics or even morality. Sin calls for a divine heart transplant, for only God can give spiritual life.

Eschatological schema

Ezekiel 34 and 36–37 depict the salvation of Israel, returned to the land, united under the kingship of the Davidic Messiah, with showers of blessing, the dwelling of God, and the fulfillment of the covenant promise, “You shall be my people, and I will be your God” (36:28). But this blissful state is twice interrupted—first, by the destruction of Edom (chap. 35), the biblical code for the (near) enemies of God and His people (cf. Isa. 34; 63:1–6); and second (after a long period of peace and safety)[17] by the great eschatological battle against Gog and Magog[18] (Ezek. 38–39), the biblical code for the (far) enemies of God and His people. After God’s victory over this final foe Israel will enjoy her temple (40:1–43:12) and worship (43:13–46:24), and land (chaps. 47–48).[19] All those promises previously forfeited by stubborn sin will be renewed, enlarged, and enhanced by an even greater grace, closing with the climactic and resounding final words, “Yahweh is there!” (48:35). Revelation 19–22 presents a similar pattern: the arrival of the Messiah, the destruction of God’s enemies, the messianic reign, the eschatological battle, the blessings of the eternal state.[20]

Conclusion

Ezekiel, perhaps more than any other prophet, forcefully exposed idolatry as the root problem of the heart. For God’s people, faith had become largely externalized. But the “unthinkable” Exile forced the issue when God confronted and conscripted Ezekiel to deliver His message of both bitter judgment and sweet hope. Although the location of God’s people had been forcibly changed, their disposition had not; for idolatry is fundamentally a matter of the heart. This root problem of “internalized idolatry” carries forward from the Old Testament into the New, and thus Ezekiel’s message is relevant to God’s people in every age.

Notes

1. Tertullian, “On Idolatry,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 3.61.
2. John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel, Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 25.
3. See Andrew Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of the Exile, Oxford Theological Monographs, ed. J. Day et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 109.
4. All Scripture quotations in this article are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Standard Bible Society), 2001 (with the one exception that in this article the divine name is rendered “Yahweh”).
5. The name “Ezekiel” means “God toughens or strengthens.” Chapters 2–3 record how God “toughened” Ezekiel so that he might deliver God’s tough word to this tough crowd.
6. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 272.
7. This departure is centered in chapter 10, although this theme is woven throughout the book. There are four stages of “greater departure” from the temple (9:3; 10:4, 18–19; 11:22–23), corresponding to the four stages of “greater abomination” in the temple (8:5–6, 7–13, 14–15, 16–17). God’s glory is first presented in chapter 1 and returns in 43:1–5, thus framing the book as a whole. Also in 10:18–19 and 11:22–23 the unthinkable happened—God’s glory left; and in 43:1–5 the unbelievable happened—the glory returned.
8. For, as the Scriptures reveal, judgment begins at the household of God (1 Pet. 4:17), and the leaders “lead” in judgment (cf. Ezek. 9:6, “begin at My sanctuary. .. with the elders,” and 11:1, “princes of the people”). Some, however, whose hearts are His, are “marked” for survival. As an ironic echo of Passover, this mark of protection (9:4, 6) is placed on people who will be spared the judgment of God. Here, however, it is not God’s people in general but only the penitent who will be spared the impending plagues. The mark of protection on the forehead was on those who were truly His, as evidenced by their grieving over the abominations. The mark thus signified both ownership and allegiance, both seated in the heart and expressed in daily life.
9. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 341.
10. It is not coincidental that Jesus Christ, who is both the true Temple and the Glory of God (John 1:14; 2:19–22), ascended to heaven from this mountain (Acts 1:9–12) and will return to this place (Zech. 14:4). And after He pronounced destruction on Jerusalem for her stubborn unbelief, He moved from the temple to the mountain east of Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37–24:3).
11. Notably this intensely gracious and wondrously intimate relationship comes through judgment. This hope is seen after God’s announcements of judgment on their sins.
12. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel, trans. Ronald E. Clements, ed. Frank Moore Cross et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 1:309.
13. Ibid.
14. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1.11.8.
15. David Powlison, “Idols in the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’ ” Journal of Biblical Counseling 13 (1995): 35. Duguid remarks on the modern fascination with soap operas: “What makes these soap operas so fascinating to people is the fact that these characters have no restraints on the expression of their idolatries. Why do they fall into bed with one another so easily? It is because their feelings of lust have become an idolatry, an idolatry that says that nothing in the world is of comparable significance to meeting the demands of these feelings right now. God’s law, which forbids immorality and adultery, is considered by them a matter of relatively insignificant weight. Why do they murder one another at the drop of a hat? It is because their feelings of jealousy and anger have become an idolatry that says, ‘Feed me or I will make your life miserable!’ Why do they lie and cheat and steal? It is because their covetous hearts have fastened onto an idol that they must have, regardless of the consequences. These are idolaters who live out the full scope of their idolatries” (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999], 139).
16. Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 113.
17. Ezekiel 38:8–9, 14–16 states that Gog and his hordes will advance “after many days” and “in the latter years” against God’s people, who will have long been “dwelling securely.” The sequence in Ezekiel 37–39 may be compared to that in Revelation 20: resurrection, reign, and war (after a long time of peace).
18. This war between God and Gog is the great and final battle. There is a direct literary allusion to this “Gog and Magog” in Revelation 20:8, and a veiled allusion in 19:17–21 (cf. Ezek. 39:17–20). Ezekiel called the enemy Gog of the land of Magog (38:2), but he also referred separately to both Gog and Magog (39:6) as God’s foe.
19. Much of the imagery of the apostle John’s vision of the new heavens and new earth in Revelation 21–22 is drawn from Ezekiel 47–48.
20. The Book of Revelation includes four discrete visions, structurally demarcating the major units in the book, introduced by a call typically to “come” and a description of being transported “in the Spirit” (1:9–11; 4:1–2; 17:1–3; 21:9–10; framed by a prologue and epilogue, 1:1–8; 22:6–21). The third vision is in two parts, the second of which (19:11–21:8) concerns the coming of Christ. This section is distinctly woven together by the repetition of certain literary phrases that bind it in a certain sequence. First, heading each minor section (19:11–21; 20:1–10; 20:11–15; 21:1–8), and punctuated throughout, is the phrase “Then I saw” (καὶ εἶδον)—not simply “and” (καὶ) (contra G. K. Beale The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 974–76). This strongly indicates both a literary tie and a sequential flow (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11–12; 21:1). Such a flow argues against the suggestion that the section begun in 20:1 recapitulates Christ’s first advent and speaks of the church age. Second, closing each minor section is the pointed repetition of the reference to the lake of fire. Again, this serves to bind this second portion of the third vision into a seamless literary, theological, and temporal whole. First to be so judged are the beast and the false prophet (19:20); then the devil (20:10); after that death and hades, along with the nonelect (20:14–15); and finally all the wicked (21:8).

“Coals of Fire” in Romans 12:19-20

By John N. Daya

[John N. Day is Senior Pastor, Bellewood Presbyterian Church, Bellevue, Washington.]

Since the startling events of September 11, 2001, Western Christians have been confronted with an increased awareness of enmity: whether targeted violence, religious persecution, or general opposition. How should Christians respond to such enmity? At the conclusion of that “masterful summary of Christian ethics”[1] rehearsed in Romans 12:9–21 comes the clarion call for kindness (vv. 19–20), kindness freely expressed under the assurance of divine vengeance.

Rather than being a haphazard collection of ethical injunctions, verses 9–21 evidence a highly stylized structure whose content is summed up in and subsumed under the introductory heading of ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος, “genuine love”—a love that includes abhorrence of what is evil and adherence to what is good (v. 9).[2] The verses that follow serve to explicate what that sincere or unhypocritical love looks like in several concrete examples. Within these examples the centrally located command to “bless” (v. 14) is given special emphasis, which evidently stems from Paul’s attempt to demonstrate that the dominant Christian virtue “reaches its climax in the love of enemies. Love is intended not only to permeate the relationship of Christians to one another but also to shape their attitudes towards those who even seek their ruin.”[3] This enemy-love finds its climactic image in “coals of fire” (v. 20), an image that has ignited and sustained a furor of debate across the centuries. What is the meaning and significance of the usage of this imagery here? Romans 12:17–21 reads:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil… .

Do not avenge yourselves, beloved;

but give place to [God’s] wrath,

for it is written: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”

says the Lord;

but “if your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him [something] to drink;

for in doing this you will heap coals of fire upon his

head.”

Do not be conquered by evil,

but conquer evil with good.[4]

Whereas the meaning of verse 19 is clear in its prohibition of personal revenge in the ethic of love and in light of the promise of divine vengeance, there is vigorous debate as to the meaning of verse 20, as it follows on the heels of verse 19 and relates to the rest of the context. Two of the three principal views on verse 20 were first presented by Chrysostom and Augustine. The former held that the “coals of fire” referred to some future divine punishment that awaits those who spurn the Christian’s deeds of love. If the enemy did not repent at such grace extended, he summoned on himself the sure judgment of God.[5] Augustine, however, held that these “coals of fire” referred to the burning pangs of shame that the enemy would experience on being shown kindness, and which would lead to repentance and reconciliation. In this Augustine is followed by a majority of modern commentators, if one allows a third view (discussed later) to be considered a subset of the second. Cranfield, one of their number, believes that this latter interpretation is clearly to be preferred, “for it is congruous with the context in Romans, while the former interpretation [Chrysostom’s] is quite incompatible with it.”[6] But if such a meaning is applied in this instance, it runs counter to the pattern of this image in Scripture.

The third view agrees with the second that “coals of fire” is a positive image; however, it is not to be understood as “a burning sense of shame.” Instead the image harks back to an actual Egyptian ritual of repentance, known from the demotic Tale of Khamuas (or Chaemwese). In this narrative the bringing of “a forked stick in the hand and a censer of fire on the head”[7] was used to demonstrate repentance to the party wronged—although it is significant to note that in the tale itself the repentance is more forced than heartfelt. Morenz was the first to draw the comparison between this tale and the reference in Proverbs and Romans to the “coals of fire.”[8]

However, the comparison is questionable for two reasons. First, there is no mention of the “forked stick” in Proverbs 25:22, which is the alleged parallel to the tale, even though in that tale the two elements are inextricable. Moreover, Proverbs 25:22 makes reference to “coals” in lieu of Khamuas’s “censer.” This is a significant distinction, if direct borrowing is assumed. Second, the composition of Khamuas dates to the middle Ptolemaic times—roughly 233-232 B.C. And although “the repentance ritual may antedate the literary document,”[9] it is far from certain that it does so by as many years as would place it in a Solomonic context (cf. Prov. 25:1).[10] Earlier support for an Egyptian provenance of Proverbs 25:21–23, however, may be sought from the second chapter of the Instruction of Amen-Em-Opet.[11]

He who does evil, the (very) river-bank abandons him,
And his floodwaters carry him off.
The north wind comes down that it may end his hour;
It is joined to the tempest;
The thunder is loud, and the crocodiles are wicked.
Thou heated man, how art thou (now)?
He is crying out, and his voice (reaches) to heaven.
O moon, establish his crime (against him)!
So steer that we may bring the wicked man across,
For we shall not act like him—
Lift him up, give him thy hand;
Leave him (in) the arms of the god;
Fill his belly with bread of thine,
So that he may be sated and may be ashamed.[12]

Granted, Proverbs 25:23, which directly follows on the troublesome verse 22, seems to be more at home in an Egyptian rather than a Palestinian context, for it states that “the north wind brings forth rain”—something true of Egypt but not of Palestine. However, although the passage from Amen-Em-Opet refers to such a wind and to feeding one’s enemy, the response of the enemy in the face of such kindness is “shame”[13] rather than a “stick and censer” or “coals of fire.”

Several facts support the first view that the “coals of fire” represent divine judgment and that Romans 12:20 is in large measure reinforcing the message of verse 19. These facts include the grammatical structure of the verses in their apparent parallelism, the context in which they are located, and the development of the imagery from the Old Testament. The imagery of “coals of fire” is invariably used in the Old Testament as a symbol of divine anger or judgment. For example mirroring the imagery of Proverbs 25:21–22, from which Paul quoted, Psalm 140:9–10 reads, “The heads of those who surround me may He cover them with the trouble of their lips. May (fiery) coals fall upon them; may He throw them into the fire, into watery pits—may they never rise!”[14] For the apostle Paul to utilize this potent image in a manner foreign to its common usage—and without any clear contextual indicators to that effect—seems unlikely.

This would also apply to Proverbs 25:21–22, whose near context—the additional proverbs of Solomon in 25:1–29:27—does not express a coherent argument. These verses therefore stand alone as their own discrete context: “If one who hates you is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. For you will heap fiery coals on his head, and Yahweh will reward you.”

Verse 21 outlines what was to be the general attitude and action of the Old Testament believer toward an enemy in need. If Solomon indeed utilized this imagery in common with its accustomed usage in the Old Testament, verse 22 would be seen as a word of comfort: that the enemy’s enmity would not go unpunished by the divine Judge, and that the believer’s kindness in the face of that enmity would not go unrewarded. In this, it is granted that the enemy remained hostile. That such an implicit remark is left out of the proverb is not unexpected, for proverbs by their very nature are characterized by conciseness.

Romans 12:19–20 has a certain symmetry, which suggests that the message of verse 20 is to be construed as complementary and essentially identical to that of verse 19. The commands in verses 9–21 are characteristically participial in form—stationed under and serving to explicate the summary heading of “genuine love” (ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος, v. 9). This prevailing structure[15] serves to bind verses 19–20 together under the primary participial command: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved.” This primary command is counterweighted by the two parallel ἀλλά phrases of verses 19–20: “but give place to (God’s) wrath,”[16] and “but ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him [something] to drink.’ ” What the one expresses in a passive manner with regard to the renunciation of personal vengeance, the other expresses in an active manner with regard to the doing of good. In some measure these deeds of kindness are compared to making room for God’s wrath. Furthermore the primary command is substantiated by the two γάρ phrases:[17] “for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says the Lord,” and “ ‘for in doing this, you will heap coals of fire upon his head.’ ” This apparently intentional parallel structure suggests quite strongly that these “coals of fire” refer to the same divine and principally eschatological vengeance expressed in verse 19.[18]

In addition the immediate context argues for such an understanding. The principle of Christian nonretaliation enjoined by Paul in verse 19a is explicitly based on and motivated by “the deference to God’s impending vengeance”[19] in verse 19b. The issue Paul was addressing at this point in the chapter is “how to act when all attempts to avoid conflict with the enemies of God and of his Church have failed”[20] (vv. 17–18). In such circumstances the Christian is to continue to respond in love, entrusting justice to God, who has promised to repay the impenitent. In this way these verses are similar to what Paul had earlier addressed in 2:4–5: “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart, you are storing up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”

Thus implicit in the affirmation that the Lord will repay (12:19), heaping coals of fire on the head of the enemy (v. 20), is the fact of continued enmity.[21] This view is not to be construed as presenting a fundamentally negative view toward the Christian’s enemies, as in the caricature, “do good to your enemy so that his punishment will be all the more severe.”[22] Rather, it is a positive word of comfort for Christians in the face of stubborn and unrepentant enmity. In the context of verses 9–21, verses 19–20 function not only to reemphasize what is to be the ethic and characteristic activity of the Christian, but also to provide a consolation to the believer in the face of stubborn enmity and provide support for the justice of God in the face of injustice.[23] Christians are called to seek the benefit of those who hate them (v. 14), but believers are also to remember that grace repeatedly spurned has the assurance of divine vengeance (v. 19).[24]

Notes

1. David Alan Black, “The Pauline Love Command: Structure, Style, and Ethics in Romans 12:9–21, ” Filologia Neotestamentaria 2 (1989): 14.
2. This passage is framed by the call both to “hate evil, clinging to the good” (v. 9) and to “conquer evil with good” (v. 21). Black rightly observes that the overt repetition of these words “is a major device for defining 12:9–21 as a literary unit. Not only does it signal the beginning and end of the unit, but it binds the intervening material together, suggesting that what is embraced within the brackets belongs together” (ibid., 16).
3. Ibid., 18. Reflecting on the command of Christ to “love your enemies” and on the nature of obedience to that command in light of the elaboration found in Romans 12:9–21, Piper writes that such love is ready and willing to meet the physical needs of the enemy (v. 20); it likewise seeks the spiritual welfare of the enemy—ultimately his conversion, desiring that the enemy be blessed and not cursed (v. 14). And yet the evil from which the enmity stems is viewed as no less abhorrent (v. 9), for if there is no intense hatred (ἀποστυγοῦντες) of evil, then there will be no intense love for one’s enemy. Indeed, the good that love desires is primarily the removal of the cause of enmity, which is unbelief (John Piper, “Love Your Enemies”: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979], 129–30). Thus in the right context and in the right way holy hatred and genuine goodness can join hands (vv. 19–20; cf. Ps. 35).
4. All translations are those of the author unless indicated otherwise.
5. Cranfield, himself no advocate of this understanding, yet admirably relates this position. Chrysostom “explains that Paul knew that even if the enemy were a wild beast he would scarcely go on being an enemy after accepting the gift of food, and that the Christian who has been injured would scarcely go on hankering after vengeance after he has given his enemy food and drink; and [he] goes on to say that to give one’s enemy food and drink with the intention of increasing his future punishment would be to be overcome of evil” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1979], 2:649).
6. Ibid.
7. Cf. F. Ll. Griffith, Stories of the High Priests of Memphis: The Sethon of Herodotus and the Demotic Tales of Khamuas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1900), 32, 38, 121, 135.
8. Siegfried Morenz, “Feurige Kohlen auf dem Haupt,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 78 (1953): col. 188.
9. William Klassen, “Coals of Fire: Sign of Repentance or Revenge?” New Testament Studies 9 (1962–1963): 343.
10. Although this verse indicates that the proverb in question was copied and recorded for posterity by Hezekiah’s men, this only brings one about two hundred years closer to the Egyptian ritual (thus still five hundred years away). Moreover, the proverb itself is Solomonic (tenth century B.C.) rather than Hezekianic (eighth century B.C.), which leaves the issue intact.
11. The Instruction of Amen-Em-Opet, dated somewhere between the twelfth and sixth centuries B.C., bears a certain relation to the near context of Proverbs 22:17–24:22. It is uncertain, however, whether Proverbs borrowed its common material from Amen-Em-Opet, whether Amen-Em-Opet borrowed from Proverbs, or whether they both drew from a common milieu of wisdom material.
12. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 422. The relevance of this passage to Proverbs 25:21–22 (and its quotation in Rom. 12:20) is borne out in its advice regarding how one is to act toward an evil person or enemy (viz., treat him with kindness, leaving the matter ultimately to God) and that person’s consequent response to such kindness.
13. As such, this passage correlates well with view two above.
14. Cf. Psalm 18:9, 13 (2 Sam. 22:9, 13); 2 Esdras 16:53; and Psalm 11:6, emended to read פַּחֲי, “coals of” (cf. Symmachus’ ἄνθρακας), in lieu of the Masoretic text’s פַּחִים “snares.” As it stands, the Masoretic text of Psalm 11:6 contains an unparalleled metaphor for judgment, which evidently arose from an accidental transposition of the yod and mem in a consonantal text. Moreover, the adopted reading yields better line symmetry than that of the Masoretic text.
15. This pattern is broken in only two places, if one excludes the summary heading (v. 9a) and the concluding call (v. 21). These are verse 14 (εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας ὑμας, εὐλογεῖτε καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθε) in which the repeated imperative is used to highlight this verse for its characteristic importance and as the fulcrum of the passage, and verses 19–20, in which the single participial command μή ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦντες, ἀγαπητοί (v. 19a) is supported and expanded by what follows in verses 19b–20.
16. “The reference to God’s wrath and leaving room for it is exceedingly important in interpreting this text. When we believers are mistreated, abused, and our rights are infringed upon, the desire for retaliation burns within us because we have been treated unjustly. We are not to give in, however, to the desire to get even. Rather, we are to place the fate of our enemies firmly in God’s hands, realizing that he will repay any injustice on the last day” (Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentaries on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 673).
17. Although the second γάρ is part of the quotation from Proverbs 25:21–22, it functions within that quotation as a word of comfort in support of the actions of kindness. And within the structure of Romans 12:19–20 and the development of its argument it functions in a similar way.
18. Piper, “Love Your Enemies,” 115. Also Krister Stendahl believes that it is unlikely that “the passage as it stands could reasonably be understood by its first readers in any other sense than as a word related to the vengeance of God” (“Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love: 1 QS x, 17–20 and Rom. 12:19–21, ” Harvard Theological Review 55 [1962]: 352).
19. Stendahl, “Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love,” 354.
20. Ibid.
21. Piper notes that “there is a very real sense in which the Christian’s love of his enemy is grounded in his certainty that God will take vengeance on those who persist in the state of enmity toward God’s people” (“Love Your Enemies,” 118 [italics his]). Cf. the example of Christ in 1 Peter 2:23, who suffered without retaliation, because He entrusted Himself to God the Father, who judges justly.
22. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1988), 750.
23. As Schreiner summarizes, “The sure realization that God will vindicate us frees us to love others and to do good to them,” thus conquering evil with good (v. 21) (Romans, 675). Darrell L. Bock notes the following with regard to the love command in the Sermon on the Plain, from which much of the essence of Paul’s remarks was drawn: “The reason the disciple can love all humanity is that the disciple knows that God will deal justly with all one day. Even the woes of Luke 6:24–26 are grounded in God’s final act of justice. It is the sermon’s eschatology of hope and justice that lays the groundwork for the disciple’s love ethic” (Luke 1:1–9:50, Baker Exegetical Commentaries on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994], 567).
24. Also the state and the judicial system are to exercise divinely sanctioned vengeance, and Christians are to uphold that justice and to submit under God to those institutions that exact it (13:1–4).

The Imprecatory Psalms and Christian Ethics

By John N. Day

[John N. Day is Senior Pastor, Bellewood Presbyterian Church, Bellevue, Washington.]

One eminently troublesome portion of the Scriptures is the so-called “imprecatory psalms.” These psalms express the desire for God’s vengeance to fall on His (and His people’s) enemies and include the use of actual curses, or imprecations. Such psalms naturally evoke a reaction of revulsion in many Christians. For are not Christians to love their enemies (Matt. 5:44), to “bless and not curse” (Rom. 12:14)? How then does one justify calls for the barbaric dashing of infants against a rock (Ps. 137:9) or the washing of one’s “feet in the blood of the wicked” (58:10)? Are the imprecatory psalms merely a way of venting rage without really meaning it? Or is cursing enemies the Old Testament way and loving enemies the New Testament way? Has the morality of Scripture evolved? And is it in any way legitimate to use these psalms in Christian life and worship?

The imprecatory psalms have been explained as expressing (a) evil emotions, either to be avoided altogether or to be expressed and relinquished,[1] (b) a morality consonant with the Old Covenant but inconsistent with the New,[2] or (c) words appropriately uttered solely from the lips of Christ, and consequently only by His followers through Him.[3]

This article proposes that the imprecatory psalms have a place in the New Testament church by establishing (a) that they root their theology of cursing, of crying out for God’s vengeance, in the Torah—principally in the promise of divine vengeance expressed in the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:1–43), the principle of divine justice outlined in the lex talionis (e.g., 19:16–21), and the assurance of divine cursing as well as blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:2–3); and (b) that this theology is carried largely unchanged through the Scriptures to the end of the New Testament (Rev. 15:2–4; 18:20), thus buttressing its applicability to believers today.

Though some New Testament passages seem to contradict the cry of the imprecatory psalms, other verses confirm it. The tension between “loving” and “cursing” can be harmonized, and must be properly dealt with by God’s people in whatever dispensation they are found. As the character of God does not change, so the essence of God’s ethical requirements does not change. Therefore, as the imprecatory psalms were at times appropriate on the lips of Old Testament believers, so they are at times appropriate on the lips of New Testament believers as well. Moreover, whereas love and blessing are the characteristic ethic of believers of both testaments, cursing and calling for divine vengeance are their extreme ethic and may be voiced in extreme circumstances, against hardened, deceitful, violent, immoral, unjust sinners. Although Christians must continually seek reconciliation and practice longsuffering, forgiveness, and kindness, times come when justice must be enacted—whether from God directly or through His representatives (in particular, the state and judicial system; Rom. 13:1–4).

But how can it be right for Christians to cry out for divine vengeance and violence,[4] as in the imprecatory psalms? Several observations from Scripture address this question. First, the vengeance appealed for is not personally enacted; rather God is called on to execute vengeance. Second, these appeals are based on God’s covenant promises, most notable of which are these: “The one who curses you, I will curse” (Gen. 12:3), and “I will render vengeance on My adversaries, and I will repay those who hate Me” (Deut. 32:41). And since God has given these promises, His people are not wrong in petitioning Him to fulfill those promises. Third, both testaments record examples of God’s people justly calling down curses or crying for vengeance, without any intimation that God disapproved of such sentiments. Fourth, Scripture further records an instance in which God’s people in heaven, where there is no sin, cry out for divine vengeance and are comforted by the assurance of its near enactment (Rev. 6:9–11). Since these martyred saints are presumably perfected, their entreaty should not be considered wrong.

Though the Book of Psalms includes almost one hundred verses with imprecations,[5] this article discusses three representative psalms: Psalm 58, an imprecation against a societal enemy; Psalm 137, an imprecation against a national or community enemy; and Psalm 109, an imprecation against a personal enemy. Notably these three psalms contain the harshest language or most severe imprecations against the enemies.

Psalm 58

Curse Against A Societal Enemy

In Psalm 58 who is being cursed and what kind of people are they? First, the objects of David’s imprecations were the rulers or “judges” within the community—those who were responsible for seeing that justice is properly meted out. This psalm is framed by an ironic inclusio of judicial terms and ideas. The human “you judge” (v. 1) contrasts with the divine “who judges” (v. 11); the human “gods” (v. 1)[6] with the true “God” (v. 11); the lack of human justice “on earth” (v. 2) with the hope of divine justice “on earth” (v. 11); and the human perversion of “righteousness” (v. 1) with the divine vindication of the “righteous” (v. 11).

Second, these individuals are described as unjust, whereas justice should pervade (vv. 1–2), and they are chronically dishonest (v. 3), ferociously violent (vv. 2, 6), and stubbornly wicked and deadly (vv. 3–5). Thus this psalm calls down God’s vengeance not on occasional transgressors of God’s laws, who harmed out of ignorance or whose abuses were casual rather than premeditated and repetitive, but on those who chronically and violently flaunted their position contrary to God’s righteousness.[7] They held positions of governing, legislative, or judicial authority, and they exploited their power for evil and their own ends.[8]

Thus by vivid imagery and simile David appealed to Yahweh to render these injurious “gods” powerless and even to destroy them if need be (vv. 6–8). The realization of this longed-for vengeance would vindicate and comfort the righteous who had suffered so grievously and would establish Yahweh as the manifest and supreme Judge of the earth (vv. 10–11). For with the prevalence of such societal evil, the honor of God and the survival of His faithful were at stake. The joy of the righteous at the bloody vengeance of God (v. 10) is to be understood against this background.[9] Moreover, this expression of exultation over the destruction of the enemies of God and His people is seen throughout Scripture. It begins in the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:43), finds utterance in the Psalms (Ps. 58:10), is proclaimed in the prophets (Jer. 51:48), and climaxes in the Book of Revelation (18:20).

Theological Foundation

The Pentateuch is the foundational revelation of God not only because it was given first but also because much of biblical theology is present there in germinal form and then is developed more fully in succeeding portions of Scripture. Not surprisingly, then, the imprecatory psalms base their theology of imprecation in the Torah. And here the principal basis on which David uttered his heated cries for divine vengeance is the covenantal promise of divine vengeance—a promise given its initial and classic articulation in Deuteronomy 32, the “Song of Moses.”

In two major elements it is likely that Psalm 58 alludes to the latter half of the Song of Moses.[10] First, the context out of which David spoke is that of powerlessness in the face of oppression, and he cried out in confidence to God, who could act decisively on behalf of His defeated people. This element runs strongly through the final verses of Deuteronomy 32. When all the power (literally, “hand”) of His rebellious people is gone because of their heathen oppressors (v. 36), God demonstrates the power of His hand, from which none can deliver (v. 39). He lifts it to heaven with a self-imposed oath (v. 40), and draws His sword with His hand to bring vengeance on His enemies (v. 41).

Second, similar words and concepts exist between the two passages. In Psalm 58 David taunted the unjust “gods” (v. 1), asserting that indeed “there is a God who judges on earth” (v. 11); and in Deuteronomy 32 Yahweh taunted the pagan gods (v. 37), asserting that “He alone is God” (v. 39) and that He is the God of justice (v. 4). David likened the wicked oppressors to the venom (חֲמַת) of a snake and a deaf cobra (פֶּתֶן, Ps. 58:4); and in Deuteronomy 32 Yahweh promised that one of the evils He would heap on His rebellious people would be such venom (חֲמַת, v. 24).[11] Then later Moses associated the persecutors of God’s people with the imagery of venomous (חֲמַת) serpents and deadly cobras (פְּתָנִים, v. 33). In Psalm 58:10 bloody vengeance is longed for, while in Deuteronomy 32:41–43 graphically bloody vengeance is promised. And in the hope of its realization the righteous are said to “rejoice” (v. 43; Ps. 58:10).[12]

Moreover, this promise of divine vengeance found in Deuteronomy 32 is central to the theology and hope of both testaments of Scripture. It is carried from the Law through the Prophets and the Psalms into the New Testament. Indeed Deuteronomy 32:35 is quoted by the apostle Paul in his discussion of New Testament ethics (Rom. 12:19).[13] And in Revelation 6:9-11both the cry of the saints in heaven for this vengeance, and the context out of which they cry—their martyrdom—bluntly hark back to the promise of God in the Song of Moses to “avenge the blood of His servants” (Deut. 32:43). This eschatological tie is made explicit in Revelation 15:2–4, in which, at the close of the ages and following the bloody vengeance described in 14:19–20, the saints in glory are said to sing “the Song of Moses”and “the Song of the Lamb” (15:3)—a song that proclaims the greatness of God’s justice and the consequent worship to arise from the nations (cf. Deut. 32:43). And in the judgments that will occur against eschatological Babylon (reminiscent of Jer. 51:48) comes the call to “rejoice” at this execution of divine retribution (Rev. 18:20).

Psalm 137

Curse Against A National Or Community Enemy

Psalm 137 has been understandably styled “the ‘psalm of violence’ par excellence.”[14] Verses 8–9 in particular have been called “the ironical ‘bitter beatitudes,’ “ whose sentiment is “the very reverse of true religion,” and “among the most repellant words in scripture.”[15] Disturbed by such wishes in the psalm, many Christians have rejected its last three verses altogether as being inappropriate for New Testament believers. Others, in an attempt to maintain the psalmist’s piety and that of others who would haltingly echo these words, and yet to avoid the violence inherent in the text, have suggested that these words be interpreted allegorically.[16]

However, the psalm’s historical context argues against these interpretations. This communal lament is sung from the context of the Babylonian exile—an exile preceded by the horrors of ancient siege warfare. Jerusalem’s demise at the hands of the pitiless Babylonians, goaded on by the treacherous Edomites (Obad. 10–16), was a national atrocity that both virtually wiped out and deported the community of faith. Moreover, in her demise were destroyed the bastions of that faith: the Davidic monarch, the chosen city, and the temple of Yahweh. All those things that had rooted Israel’s identity as a nation and as the people of God had been either demolished or uprooted.

Siege warfare in the ancient Near East was frighteningly cruel; and the most brutal and all-too-common practice of conquerors was the dashing of infants against rocks in the fury and totality of war’s carnage (2 Kings 8:12; 15:16). This barbarous slaughter of the most helpless of noncombatants “effected total destruction by making war upon the next generation.”[17] The Scriptures make further use of this gruesome picture in judgment oracles against Israel (Hos. 13:15), Jerusalem (Luke 19:44), and Assyria (Nah. 3:10). And most notably this fate is also promised to Babylon (Isa. 13:16).

The abrupt and appalling shriek in Psalm 137:7–9, then, is essentially the “passionate outcry of the powerless demanding justice!”[18] In the face of humanly unpunishable injustice God’s chastised people had no other recourse but to turn to Him. And it is to Him that their appeal for strict retaliation in both kind and degree is made—and surrendered. But does even this historical background prepare the reader for or justify the sentiment expressed in the emotional climax of the psalm? Indeed these verses raise the question with which the faithful of both testaments must surely grapple: How could a pious psalmist cry for such violence and revenge that he would call “blessed” those who take up enemy infants and dash them mercilessly against the rocks?

Theological Foundation

The basis on which the psalmist pleaded for such horrid retribution, though interlaced with extreme emotion, is not the vicious fury of bloodthirsty revenge but the principle of divine justice itself, particularly as it is expressed in the so-called lex talionis, stated three times in the Pentateuch (Exod. 21:22–25; Lev. 24:17–22; Deut. 19:16–21). Rather than serving as a sanction for personal vengeance, this Old Testament command actually protected against the excesses of revenge. Essentially it was designed to ensure justice—that the punishment would fit the crime. Thus rather than being a primitive and barbaric code, this Old Testament statute forms the basis for all civilized justice. It was a law of just recompense,[19] not of private retaliation.[20] Indeed the implementation of this law was in a judicial rather than a personal context.[21]

In addition the psalmist was probably familiar with the recent prophecy of Jeremiah 50–51 for in both Psalm 137:8 and Jeremiah 51:56 the words “destroy,” “recompense,” and “repay” occur in relation to the expected judgment against brutal Babylon. Moreover, not only was the lex talionis instituted by God Himself in Israel’s law code, but also it was a law “based upon the very nature of God. Yahweh, although a God of love, is also a God of retribution who deals with His creature’s trespasses against His holiness on the basis of His retributive justice.”[22] This is seen most clearly and poignantly in the necessity of the Cross. Since the nature of God does not change, the principle of divine justice based on that nature, as encased in the lex talionis, must also remain constant.[23]

Therefore in Psalm 137:7–9 the psalmist asked Yahweh for exact recompense against the treacherous Edomites and the merciless Babylonians—utter destruction by means of the violent slaughter of the enemy’s infants.[24] The cry was for a punishment commensurate with the crime committed. The one who would carry out such justice was called “blessed” (vv. 8–9), for through him justice would be realized, the honor of God would be upheld, and a certain measure of the world gone wrong would be righted. Such matters are to be received with a measure of sober rejoicing. Indeed, this rejoicing is commanded at the future devastation of Babylon according to the lex talionis (Rev. 18:6, 20; cf. Jer. 51:48). Thus the psalmist appealed to Yahweh as the Judge to mete out justice according to His own edict. Though Christians in particular are shocked by the request, it falls within the bounds of divine jurisprudence and is divinely promised and divinely enacted. So the principle of judicial retaliation cannot be maligned without at the same time maligning the character of God.

But can Christians legitimately and in good conscience echo this cry? Although Allen insists that the “Christian faith teaches a new way, the pursuit of forgiveness and a call to love,” he perceptively asks, “Yet is there forgiveness for a Judas (cf. John 17:12) or for the Antichrist?”[25] As Edom and Babylon were ancient examples of the Antichrist, as were Judas and false teachers in the first century of this era, times may come in which believers may join with their brothers and sisters of past ages and appeal for the devastation of a current manifestation of “Antichrist”—and in language appropriate to the offense. These words may certainly be offered for brothers and sisters in, for example, the Sudan who have experienced widespread rape, murder, mutilation, and enslavement at the hands of a wicked regime. In such circumstances of horrible brutality, where there is the very real temptation to “forget” (Ps. 137:5) or abandon the faith for the sake of one’s life and comfort, Psalm 137 appeals to God, the sole source of power in the midst of powerlessness and of hope in the midst of hopelessness.

Psalm 109

Curse Against A Personal Enemy

This psalm, above all others, has been severely criticized. For example it has been styled “as unabashed a hymn of hate as was ever written.”[26] Unquestionably “this is one of the hard places of Scripture, a passage which the soul trembles to read.”[27] The yearning for such detailed and appalling retaliation as is found in this psalm is vividly confrontational—particularly in light of the commands to “love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44) and to “bless and curse not” (Rom. 12:14). Indeed David[28] imprecated his enemy in a manner starkly reminiscent of certain ancient Near Eastern curse formulas.[29] Furthermore this psalm has been sorely misused in the life of the broader Christian community. Calvin records the reprehensible abuse of this psalm in his day in which some people prayed for the death of others in return for a price.[30]

The issue that spawned the denunciations of David was no petty or transient matter. His enemies had returned hatred for his sustained love, and evil for his sustained good (Ps. 109:4–5; cf. 35:11–15, 19; 38:19–20). David was in desperate need (109:16, 22, 31) and had already shown concern for his enemy. However, this concern had been spurned and returned with repeated enmity. Moreover, even in the midst of the enemy’s litigations and David’s counterimprecations he expressed a measure of concern for the enemy in his prayers (109:4). In light of his enemy’s appalling lack of lovingkindness, climaxing in his abuse of the legal system (vv. 2–7, 31), David resorted to his only remaining recourse for rectification.[31]

David asked the divine Judge to extend to his enemy the demands of the lex talionis.[32] And again, although a known personal enemy[33] was imprecated, David did not react in private revenge, as might be expected in such a circumstance. Instead, he released the retaliatory demands of justice to the One in whose jurisdiction it rightfully lies. He voiced his cry for vengeance to God (vv. 21, 26–29)—a cry that would transform to public praise when divine deliverance was realized (vv. 30–31). Such is the nature of God’s acts; vengeance on His enemies means salvation for His people.

Theological Foundation

But if Psalm 109 includes the curses of David against a personal enemy, how can these words be justified, particularly the curse passed down to the enemy’s children (vv. 10–15)? In addition to the principle expressed in the lex talionis, the basis on which David could justifiably call down such terrible curses was the promise of God to curse those who cursed His people: “I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses [from קָלַל] you I will curse [from אָרַר]” (Gen. 12:3). The Abrahamic Covenant, of which this promise is a part, assured God’s blessing on those who would bless Abraham’s faith-descendants and cursing on those who would treat them with contempt.[34] David, then, appealed to God to do as He had promised, to curse those who had so mistreated him.[35]

Literary echoes of Genesis 12:3 occur in Psalm 109. Most directly, in verse 28 the enemy’s cursing (from קָלַל) is contrasted with Yahweh’s blessing (cf. vv. 17–18). In addition David’s imprecations allude to earlier cursing formulas in the Mosaic Covenant (which builds on the Abrahamic Covenant). For instance verse 9, “Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow,” makes explicit appeal to talionic justice in harking back to the words of Yahweh to the Israelites in Exodus 22:22–23, “You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless” (cf. Deut. 27:19). In essence David was reminding God to be true to His promise.

But is this covenant promise of divine cursing relevant to Christians? The New Testament affirms the enduring validity of the Abrahamic promise for those who embrace Christ through faith (cf. Gal. 3:6–29). “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants—heirs according to promise” (v. 29). And if one is an heir of the Abrahamic Covenant, one inherits both its promise of blessing as well as its promise of cursing.[36] This dual-edged promise, moreover, was not merely a spiritual abstraction; it applied as well to the physical life of God’s people in their times of extremity. For example, when Jesus first sent out the Twelve, He instructed them that if they were welcomed into a home, they were to let their peace remain on it; but if they were refused, they were to shake the dust off their feet as a sign of peace’s antithesis—the curse of coming judgment.[37] This action, though voiceless, was an implicit imprecation (Matt. 10:11–15; cf. 2 Tim. 4:14).

Psalm 109 is a harsh and explicit appeal to the Lord of the covenant to remain true to His promise to curse those who curse His people (cf. Luke 18:1–8). In its function in the community of faith, then, this psalm is the cry of the child of God who has no other recourse for justice—when no other aid is available for the redress of grievous personal wrongs, when the abuses of one’s enemies have reached the extent that the question of theodicy is evoked, when the name of God and the enduring faith of His people are at stake. From such a context this prayer was first offered, and in such a context it may be voiced again.[38]

Imprecations In The New Testament

After such a barrage of imprecations and pleas for divine vengeance against one’s enemies (who are also God’s enemies), the demands of Jesus and His apostles are at first startling. These injunctions initially seem to counter and even overthrow the ethics of that “harsher age” as expressed in the imprecatory psalms. However, the New Testament too is interspersed with imprecations.

Apparent Contradictions

In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), that grounding expression of Christian ethics, He commanded His followers, “Love your enemies” (5:44). Matthew 5:17–48 is replete with radical statements that seem to contradict the Old Testament; yet these contradictions are more apparent than real. Jesus introduced His several internalized and intensified “restatements” with the words, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” (v. 17). He did not set Himself up as a rival to the Old Testament; He did not disparage or discredit what had come before. Rather, the Old Testament propelled people toward Christ, is summed up in Christ, and must be interpreted through Christ (cf. Luke 24:27, 44–45; John 5:39–40, 46).

In Matthew 5:21–47[39] Jesus affirmed the Old Testament by reiterating by means of hyperbole the original intent of several commands, contrary to the prevailing pharisaical and scribal understanding of them. This He did by plunging to the heart of the matter—the intent and implications of the commands, climaxed by His words in verses 43–45, 48. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous…. Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Jesus’ words “You shall love your neighbor” are a quotation from Leviticus 19:18—words that come directly after a prohibition against revenge or a personal grudge, and that are considered the second greatest commandment by Jesus’ own testimony (Matt. 22:39; Mark 12:31). The words “hate your enemy,” however, are not found in the Old Testament. Yet there is a likely representation of the mindset behind this quotation in the Rule of the Qumran Community (1QS).[40] Apparently many people in Jesus’ day had come to believe that when the Old Testament commanded the love of one’s neighbor, that command implied the hatred of one’s enemy. This understanding is given expression in the apocryphal book of Sirach 12:7, “Give to the good man, but do not help the sinner.”[41]

When Jesus said, “Love your enemies,” He shockingly asserted the unthinkable: that believers are to “love” those they “hate” (or who hate them). This does not discount that they are yet one’s enemy; but in a sense one’s enemy becomes his neighbor.[42] Even in Leviticus 19 “neighbor” is broader than its immediate parallel, “brother,” and it includes everyone within one’s bounds (even resident aliens, who were in some sense “the enemy”). In Leviticus 19 both fellow Israelites and resident foreigners were to be loved in like manner—”as yourself” (vv. 19:18, 34).[43] Jesus, then, rather than presenting a novel (or imposing even a foreign) interpretation on the passage, was both distilling and radicalizing the essence of the Old Testament teaching in this regard.

In addition, in certain instances the Old Testament unquestionably commands kindness toward enemies. For example Proverbs 25:21–22 states, “If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.”[44] And this command was carried out by Elisha, who counseled the Israelite king to feed rather than kill the enemy Arameans (2 Kings 6:18–23), and by Naaman’s Israelite slave girl, who sought the welfare of her enemy master, the Aramean army commander (5:1–3). While it must be granted that the specific command “love your enemies” is not in the Old Testament,[45] the concept “cannot be confined to the words themselves. When enemies are fed and cared for, rather than killed or mistreated, then in effect love for the enemy is being practiced.”[46]

However, how can a Christian love his enemies while he voices such barbaric pleas as expressed in the imprecatory psalms? In extreme circumstances even Jesus did not shirk from uttering excoriating woes (e.g., Matt. 11:20–24; 23:13–39)[47] and pronouncing imprecations (Mark 11:12–14, 20–21)—all against hardened unbelief. Yet one cannot accuse Him of acting out of accord with His own radical dictum.[48] By Jesus’ own example love for one’s enemy means showing him or her sustained and indiscriminate kindness. However, if the enemy’s cup of iniquity has become full, this love is overtaken by the demands of justice and divine vengeance. Jesus’ approach in this regard was strikingly similar to the approach of the psalmists who penned such harsh words. Notable among them is David, who showed kindness toward those who were his enemies, and for his repeated kindness received abuse (Pss. 35:12–17; 109:4–5). In the broader view, then, rather than being completely incompatible, enemy love and enemy imprecation strangely complement each other.[49] And the imprecatory psalms illustrate the appropriate time for the cry of vengeance.

Instances Of Imprecation

An instance of imprecation from Jesus’ lips is recorded in Mark 11:14. On the way to the temple courts He cursed a fig tree that had all the appearance of vitality but no fruit. As both the near context and the larger development of the Gospel make clear (Mark 11–13), this cursing of the fig tree was an imprecation against faithless and fruitless Israel, who had so stubbornly rejected Him.[50] This rejection culminated in the Crucifixion, and Christ’s imprecation climaxed in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The curse of Christ marks the distinct end of one era and the beginning of another: “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!” (11:14; cf. Matt. 21:19). Immediately following His curse Christ moved into the temple precincts where, in lieu of the expected purity of worship, He found the basest form of corruption: greed. After Jesus purged the temple, Peter took notice of this same tree and marveled at the effect of Christ’s curse: “Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered!” (Mark 11:21). As the context strongly intimates, this curse of Christ was not directed against the fig tree as such, as much as it was directed (for His disciples’ benefit) against His unrepentant people as a sign of their divine visitation in judgment. This is marked by the intentional crafting of this pericope as an inclusio to the temple cleansing (vv. 12–21)—the dramatic locus of the rejection of Christ by His people and of His people by Christ (cf. vv. 14, 18). At His approach to the temple, then, in its state of acute corruption, and in view of the patent and repeated rejection of Him by the leaders of His people, this curse was called down by Christ.

In addition, in Galatians 1:8–9 (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22) Paul uttered what is unquestionably a curse of the severest magnitude: that of eternal damnation. “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed [ἀνάθεμα ἔστω]. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”

In the Septuagint the term ἀνάθεμα was used to translate the Hebrew רֶם—a term associated with the Israelite “holy wars”; whatever was so designated was dedicated to Yahweh for total destruction. Paul’s use of the term likewise refers to being brought under the divine curse—here the curse of eternal condemnation.[51] The intended recipients of Paul’s imprecation were perverting the gospel of grace by enslaving it to the rigors of legalism. Those who seek to undermine the ground and sustenance of the Christian’s salvation truly merit the harshest of denunciations, for the name of Christ is at stake (cf. Gal. 5:12; 2 Pet. 2:14; Jude 11–13).

Furthermore when Simon the Sorcerer[52] sought to purchase from Peter the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter uttered the caustic curse, “May your silver perish with you” (Acts 8:20). Yet, however severe, this apostolic curse was to be carried out only if there was continued sin and impenitence. This is evidenced by the exchange that followed, in which Peter voiced a plea for repentance along with the offer of release: “Repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you” (v. 22). Even in the midst of such imprecation—whether by a psalmist or an apostle—there is implicit or explicit the hope of repentance and restoration.[53]

Additionally Revelation 6:10 records the cry of martyred saints. “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” This harks back to the divine promise in the Song of Moses to “avenge the blood of His servants” (Deut. 32:43), and is a plea characteristic of the imprecatory psalms (cf. Pss. 58:10–11; 79:5, 10; 94:1, 3). Moreover much that follows in the Book of Revelation is God’s response to the martyrs’ cry (e.g., Rev. 15:3, “the Song of Moses”; 16:6; 18:20, 24; and 19:1–2, “Hallelujah! … He has avenged the blood of His bondservants”). Significantly the condition of these martyred saints, having moved on to their heavenly abode, “guarantees the absence of any selfish motives in their prayer life.”[54] What is striking about their petition, however, is the consequent justification of similar prayers uttered by the saints on earth. If it is praiseworthy for perfected saints to pray in this way, then it is appropriate for believers now.

Conclusion

This article has sought to demonstrate that at times it is legitimate for God’s people to utter prayers of imprecation or pleas for divine vengeance—like those in the Psalms—against the recalcitrant enemies of God and of His people. This is based on the psalms’ theology of imprecation in the Torah, and on the presence of this theology carried essentially unchanged to the end of the canon.

Though some passages in the New Testament seem to contradict—and thus supersede—the “immoderate” appeal of the imprecatory psalms, others serve to establish it. The antinomy of loving and cursing one’s enemies is mysterious, yet harmonizable; properly understood, these concepts complement rather than contradict each other. Indeed, in both testaments of Scripture two reactions toward enmity are exampled: the one characteristic of God and of His people, and the other evidenced in extreme circumstances—against hardened enmity, deceit, oppression, injustice. Patterned after God, God’s people are to practice repeated grace. Yet grace repeatedly spurned calls for punishment, and at such a juncture God’s people are justified in calling for divine justice.

The imprecatory psalms, then, may recapture for God’s people in the present age a present recourse. When they are overwhelmed, they have an Avenger to appeal to, knowing that their Avenger will answer. As Surburg reflects,

When all is quiet and peaceful in the Church, many may not feel very keenly the need for the use of the Imprecatory Psalms…. However, when persecution bursts upon the Church, as has been the case in communistic and atheistic Russia, in Communist China, in Cuba where Christian pastors and their flocks have been subjected to torture, inhuman indignities and death, when the faith of God’s people is severely tried by the enemies of the Lord, Christians have instinctively turned to these psalms. Some people may have considered the Imprecatory Psalms an offense in better days, but their relevancy has been brought home to them, when the forces of evil have persecuted and tortured them because of [their] belief in God and faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ.[55]

These prayers are a divinely appointed source of power for believers in their powerlessness.[56] In the face of sustained injustice, hardened enmity, and gross oppression, they are the Christians’ hope that divine justice will indeed be realized—not only in the eschaton (2 Thess. 1:6–10) but also in “the land of the living” (Ps. 27:13). Christians should find in them a God-imbued source of strength and honor, and seek to use them, as appropriate, in their worship of God.

Notes

1. For the former position see C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1958); and idem, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967). For the latter see Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984); and idem, Praying the Psalms (Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s, 1986). This position is questionable on five counts. First, it runs counter to the prevailing piety of the psalmists—notably David, the principal author of these psalms. Far from being a man given to rage and revenge, he was quick to exhibit a Christlike spirit toward his enemies—in particular King Saul (e.g., 1 Sam. 24). Although David, “a man after [God’s] own heart” (13:14; cf. Acts 13:22), was guilty of sin (adultery, deception, and murder; 2 Sam 11), these acts did not express his pervading character, which was revealed in his repentance (Ps. 51). Therefore, if the imprecatory psalms are considered sinful, their presence in the Davidic psalms contradicts what is known of him elsewhere in Scripture. In fact even in the psalms the utterance of any imprecation comes only after the enemy’s repeated return of “evil for good” (35:12–14; 109:5), or after gross (and frequently sustained) injustice (Pss. 58, 79, 137). Second, the purposes that govern the expression of imprecations in the psalms and the principal themes that run repeatedly through them are on the highest ethical plane. These include concern for the honor of God and for the public recognition of His sovereignty (e.g., 59:13; 74:22), concern for the realization of justice in the face of rampant injustice, along with the hope that divine retribution will cause people to seek the Lord (e.g., 58:11; 83:16), an abhorrence of sin (139:21), and a concern for the preservation of the righteous (35:1, 4). Third, this view is contrary to the inspiration of the psalms. By the testimony of both David and David’s greater Son, the psalms were written under divine inspiration (2 Sam. 23:2; Mark 12:36). And Peter’s quotation from both Psalms 69 and 109—two of the most notorious of the imprecatory psalms—is introduced by the statement that these Scriptures “had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas” (Acts 1:16, italics added). Fourth, to explain the imprecatory psalms as outbursts of evil emotion may account for the initial writing of the psalms, but it does not adequately explain why these psalms were included in the Psalter, the book of worship for God’s people. Though this does not of itself demand that the things expressed therein are faultless, the sheer quantity of cries for divine vengeance in the Book of Psalms calls into question the view that they are expressing evil emotions. Nor did later copyists and compilers feel any need to expunge such material as unfitting for the Scriptures. Fifth, this view does not adequately account for imprecations in the New Testament, notably from the lips of the Lord Himself (Mark 11:12–14, 20–21).
2. For example J. Carl Laney, “A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms,” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (January-March 1981): 35-45; and Chalmers Martin, “The Imprecations in the Psalms,” Princeton Theological Review 1 (1903): 537-53. Though both are admirable treatments of this topic, their proposal inadequately accounts for the presence of imprecations in the New Testament and the enduring validity of the Abrahamic promise for church-age believers (Gal. 3:6–29). Also this view runs counter to the internal witness of Scripture and of the Lord Jesus Christ, who asserted that the two “great commandments” given in the Old Covenant are the same two “great commandments” reinforced in the New (Matt. 22:36–40). Thus from Jesus’ own testimony the morality of the New Covenant in its highest expression is consistent with that of the Old (cf. Gal. 5:13–14; 6:2; Rom. 13:8–10; 1 John 4:20–21). Moreover, Martin’s assertion that the progress of revelation fundamentally alters the Christian’s stance toward the enemies of God, since the “distinction between the sin and the sinner was impossible to David as an Old Testament saint” (ibid., 548) insufficiently characterizes the broader theology of Scripture. There it is not only “love the sinner but hate the sin,” but also paradoxically “love the sinner but hate the sinner” (cf. Ps. 5:4-6 and 139:19, 21-22 with Matt. 5:44-45). For even according to the New Testament, sinners—not just sin—will be destroyed, suffering the eternal torment of hell (e.g., Mark 9:47-48). See the observations of John L. McKenzie, “The Imprecations of the Psalter,” American Ecclesiastical Review 111 (1944): 91-93.
3. For example James E. Adams, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace: Lessons from the Imprecatory Psalms (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1991); Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “A Bonhoeffer Sermon,” trans. Daniel Bloesch, ed. F. Burton Nelson, Theology Today 38 (1982): 465-71; and idem, Psalms: The Prayer Book of the Bible, trans. James H. Burtness (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1970). This view is based on the function of David in Scripture as both the genetic and typological forerunner of Christ. In response, however, this scriptural portrayal of David is not meant to disassociate David’s words and actions from his person in history. In fact delaying these Davidic psalms of imprecation until the cross of Christ and distancing them from their historical setting and speaker robs them of both their immediate and archetypal significance and power. Neither does it answer the imprecations or cries for divine vengeance in the non-Davidic psalms or in other parts of Scripture—including both testaments. If such are deemed morally legitimate elsewhere, then this proposal offers no genuine solution to the issue of imprecation in the Psalms or in general.
4. The central issue of divine vengeance presents a problem partly because the promise of such vengeance forms much of the basis on which the psalmists voiced their cries of cursing and partly because of the concept of vengeance itself. To people today the word “vengeance” bears sinful and negative connotations. But to the ancient Israelites the concept of vengeance was tied to the requirements of justice: Where justice was trampled, vengeance was required. Furthermore God’s vengeance is inseparably linked to His lovingkindness; it is the other side of His compassion, the (perhaps inevitably) “dark side” of His mercy (Brueggemann, Praying the Psalms, 62). The Scriptures unequivocally attest that Yahweh has passionately and decisively taken sides for His people in history. He delivers His people; but without God’s vengeance against His enemies, there can be no deliverance for His people (Isa. 35:4; 63:3–4).
5. The passages in the Psalms that contain imprecations include at least these: 5:10; 6:10; 7:6, 9, 15–16; 9:19–20; 10:15; 17:13; 28:4; 31:17–18; 35:1, 4–6, 8, 19, 24–26; 40:14–15; 52:5; 54:5; 55:9, 15; 56:7; 58:6–10; 59:5, 11–13; 68:1–2, 30; 69:22–25, 27–28; 70:2–3; 71:13; 74:11, 22–23; 79:6, 10, 12; 83:9, 11, 13–18; 94:1–2; 104:35; 109:6–15, 17–20, 29; 129:5–8; 137:7–9; 139:19, 21–22; 140:8–11; 141:10; and 143:12—a total of ninety-eight verses in thirty-two psalms. However, fourteen psalms may be rightly deemed “imprecatory” (i.e., their characterizing element is imprecations or cries for divine vengeance): Psalms 7, 35, 52, 55, 58, 59, 69, 79, 83, 94, 109, 129, 137, and 140.
6. The identity of these “gods” as leaders in the land is supported by a number of textual factors. First, the inclusio of verses 1 and 11 unifies the psalm. Second, in verse 1 the vocative “O sons of men” parallels “O gods.” Third, mention of the “wicked” follows in verse 3 and in the same vein as verse 1, suggesting that the two groups are to be equated. Fourth, the “wicked” are manifestly human—they are born (v. 3) and they bleed (v. 10). Fifth, in verse 1 the “gods” are confronted with a crime of speaking, as are the “wicked” in verse 3. Sixth, the “gods,” if distinct from the “wicked,” mysteriously disappear from the text and escape unscathed; however, if the “gods” are equated with the “wicked,” then they do receive their due punishment. See David P. Wright, “Blown Away Like a Bramble: The Dynamics of Analogy in Psalm 58, ” Revue biblique 103 (1996): 219. Cf. Psalm 82 and John 10:34–35.
7. F. G. Hibbard notes an enlightening illustration in this regard, which occurred in his family: “I happened to be reading one of the imprecatory psalms, and as I paused to remark, my little boy, a lad of ten years, asked with some earnestness: ‘Father, do you think it right for a good man to pray for the destruction of his enemies like that?’ and at the same time referred me to Christ as praying for his enemies. I paused a moment to know how to shape the reply so as to fully meet and satisfy his enquiry, and then said, ‘My son, if an assassin should enter the house by night, and murder your mother, and then escape, and the sheriff and citizens were all out in pursuit, trying to catch him, would you not pray to God that they might succeed and arrest him, and that he might be brought to justice?’ ‘Oh, yes!’ said he, ‘but I never saw it so before. I did not know that that was the meaning of these Psalms.’ ‘Yes,’ said I, ‘my son, the men against whom David prays were bloody men, men of falsehood and crime, enemies to the peace of society, seeking his own life, and unless they were arrested and their wicked devices defeated, many innocent persons must suffer.’ The explanation perfectly satisfied his mind” (The Psalms Chronologically Arranged, with Historical Introductions; and a General Introduction to the Whole Book, 5th ed. [New York: Carlton & Porter, 1856], 120).
8. The venom of this psalm is reserved for those who, when they should be protecting the helpless under their care, instead prey on them. Jesus also used harsh language against people such as this. Speaking against the religious leaders of His day, He warned, “Watch out for the teachers of the law.. .. They devour widows’ houses.. .. Such men will be punished most severely” (Mark 12:38, 40, NIV). It is important to emphasize here that David himself did not seek to exact revenge; he appealed to the God of vengeance. See Roy B. Zuck, “The Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1957), 67–70, 74–75.
9. But how could David—or now, a Christian—pray in such hideous terms? Two points may be noted in response to this question. First, what is voiced here is poetry, and biblical poetry often uses vivid imagery. Where a concept in narrative form may be described dispassionately, in poetry it may well be expressed emotively. H. G. L. Peels perceives that the phraseology of Psalm 58:10b, which seems “so offensive to modern ears, simply intends to employ a powerful image, borrowed from the all too realistic situation of the battlefield following the fight (wading through the blood), to highlight the total destruction of the godless” (The Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root NQM and the Function of the NQM-Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament [Leiden: Brill, 1995], 218; cf. Ps. 68:21–23). Moreover, much of Scripture’s “immoderate” language is heard from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself. Second, passionate rhetoric naturally and rightly arises out of extreme circumstances. Here in Psalm 58 the invectives hurled one after the other serve to express both the psalmist’s sincere desire and his sense of outrage at the flagrant violations of justice. John Calvin commented that, patterned after the example of God, the righteous should “anxiously desire the conversion of their enemies, and evince much patience under injury, with a view to reclaim them to the way of salvation: but when wilful obstinacy has at last brought round the hour of retribution, it is only natural that they should rejoice to see it inflicted, as proving the interest which God feels in their personal safety” (Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson [reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979], 2:378).
10. Compare also Psalm 79:5–10 with Deuteronomy 32:21–43.
11. Although this refers ostensibly to a curse of literal snakes, the psalmist borrowed the imagery and used it metaphorically, as even the Song of Moses did in verse 33.
12. Although the verb רָנַן in Deuteronomy 32:43 differs from the verb שָׂמַח in Psalm 58:10, the two are related and are poetically synonymous (cf. Ps. 32:11).
13. Christians are called to seek the benefit of those who hate them (Rom. 12:14), but when grace is repeatedly spurned, divine vengeance is assured (v. 19; cf. the use of such imagery in Ps. 140:9–10).
14. Erich Zenger, A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 46.
15. R. E. O. White, A Christian Handbook to the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 200.
16. For example, Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms, 136.
17. Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 237. This action serves as a macabre illustration of the depth of human depravity. Sin always destroys, and destroys mercilessly.
18. Zenger, A God of Vengeance? 47.
19. Gordon J. Wenham observes that the phrases “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” were likely “just a formula. In most cases in Israel it was not applied literally. It meant that compensation appropriate to the loss incurred must be paid out. Thus if a slave lost an eye, he was given his freedom (Exod. 21:26). The man who killed an ox had to pay its owner enough for him to buy another (Lev. 24:18). Only in the case of premeditated murder was such compensation forbidden (Num. 35:16ff.). Then the principle of life for life must be literally enforced, because man is made in the image of God (Gen. 9:5–6)” (The Book of Leviticus, New International Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 312 [italics his]).
20. By Jesus’ day the lex talionis, contrary to its intent, had indeed become a “law of retaliation,” sanctioning that mindset of revenge rendered by the phrase, “Do unto others as they have done unto you.” Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:38–42, however, were given to “shock” His followers back to the original intent of the law, not by explaining its proper use as such, but by prohibiting its perversion—any “rights” of private retaliation—and by inculcating an attitude of longsuffering (see Prov. 20:22; 24:29; Matt. 7:12).
21. Of the three instances Deuteronomy 19:16–21 makes this most explicit.
22. Bobby J. Gilbert, “An Exegetical and Theological Study of Psalm 137” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981), 69 (italics his).
23. The similar “law of sowing and reaping” is evident in several passages (Prov. 26:27; Hos. 8:7; 10:12–13; Gal. 6:7–8), and in Jesus’ words, “By your standard of measure it will be measured to you” (Matt. 7:2).
24. But was this appeal legitimate in light of God’s command that children not be put to death for the sins of their fathers (Deut. 24:16)? In answer Deuteronomy 24:16 refers to judicial sentence to be carried out by men; God, on the other hand, retains the prerogative to visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children (Exod. 34:7; cf. God’s command for the annihilation of the entire populace of Canaan at the entry of His people there). God has rights that people do not have, for only He is God. Harsh though His justice may appear, believers are called to trust His goodness in the midst of His justice and to accept any concomitant tensions.
25. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 242.
26. Lewis, Christian Reflections, 118.
27. C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (reprint [7 vols. in 3], Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 2:436.
28. By whom were the vehement curses of verses 6–19 voiced—David or his enemy? In modern treatments of the psalm verses 6–19 are often put in quotation marks, as the words of David’s enemy uttered against him. If this is correct, then the offense of the psalm is largely alleviated and a moral dilemma avoided (but this does nothing to alleviate the offense of other imprecatory psalms; cf. also the striking parallel to 109:6–19 in Jer. 18:19–23). This view is not without support. Principally first, whereas 109:6–19 castigates the enemy in the singular, the verses that both precede and follow present the enemy in the plural. And second, the psalms are known to make frequent use of unintroduced quotations, whether brief (e.g., 22:8; 137:3) or lengthy (e.g., 50:7–15). However, the difficulties with this view outweigh the apparent support. First, whereas the use of nonexplicitly introduced quotations is common in the psalms, they are in general contextually quite clear and readily recognized as such. This is not the case in Psalm 109. Second, the change from the plural to the singular, and back again, is not unknown in the psalms, notably Psalm 55. There this literary phenomenon is utilized by David to single out the crucial element of enmity against him—a friend turned traitor. And this same convention may be at work in Psalm 109 as well. Third, the designation “afflicted and needy,” a key phrase synonymous with the pious in the Psalms, is used in both verses 16 and 22, in what appears to be an intentional verbal and emotional tie betwen the two. Fourth, the exclamations in verses 16–18 (e.g., he “loved cursing,” v. 17) are certainly not true of David; even his enemies would find it difficult to label this man in such language. And fifth, this view runs counter to Peter’s application of the imprecation in 109:8 as the words of David regarding Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:16, 20). See also Zuck, “The Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms,” 42–44.
29. Psalm 109:18, “So may it enter into his body like water, and into his bones like oil” (author’s translation), is redolent of this imprecation embedded in the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon: “[As oil en]ters your flesh, [just so may] they cause this curse to enter into your flesh” (D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon [London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1958], 78).
30. John Calvin, “Commentary on the Book of Psalms,” trans. James Anderson, in Calvin’s Commentaries (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 4:276.
31. James 5:1–6 speaks in a similar caustic manner against the rich who had exploited their workers and manipulated the court system to condemn the innocent for their own gain. Although not identical to the character of the imprecatory psalms, verses 1–11 do reveal a similar ethic, namely, that it is appropriate at times for the righteous to proclaim, cry out for, or even call down the judgment of God on severe or violent oppressors, while at the same time remaining steadfast in suffering, relinquishing the enactment of that judgment to the divine Judge.
32. Psalm 109:2a is answered by verses 6a and 7a; verse 4a is answered by verses 6b and 20a; verse 16a mirrors verse 12a; verse 16b corresponds to the curses in verses 8–12; verses 17–18 exhibit point and counterpoint; and verse 18a is paralleled by the plea in verse 29a. The imprecations wished on the enemy in verses 8–15 characterize the crimes the enemy himself had committed (vv. 16–20).
33. Other psalms that were voiced against known—and even named—personal enemies are 7, 52, 54, 56, and 59.
34. Laney argues that the cries for judgment in the imprecatory psalms, uttered in accord with the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, “are appeals for Yahweh to carry out His judgment against those who would curse the nation” (“A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms,” 42 [italics added]). As such, they are “inappropriate for a church-age believer” to express (ibid.). However, the emphasis in the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12:2-3 is not so much on the nation Israel as it is on all the people of God. This is made clear not only in Galatians 3, but also in the curses of the Sinaitic Covenant promised against rebellious Israel. The faith of Abraham, not the nation Israel, is the cardinal mark of identity (Rom. 2:28-29; Gen. 12-22).
35. Cf. Exodus 23:22. The Hittite treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub includes a similar prescription: “With my friend you shall be friend, and with my enemy you shall be enemy” (James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969], 204).
36. Although Paul articulated the blessing of the covenant, which the Gentiles inherit through faith in Christ, as that of life, of sonship, of the Spirit (Gal. 3:14, 26; 4:4–7), this was not meant to exclude the more “physical” elements of the Abrahamic Covenant. Rather, it was for the sake of emphasizing the fundamental issues of the promise in the progress of revelation—which issues are most germane to his argument here.
37. That is, God (through His disciples) would bless those who blessed them, and would curse those who cursed them (cf. Gen. 12:3).
38. Walter Brueggemann suggests that the cry of this psalm could be, for example, “the voice of a woman who is victimized by rape, who surely knows the kind of rage and indignation and does not need ‘due process’ to know the proper outcome.. .. For such as these, the rage must be carried to heaven, because there is no other court of appeal. ‘Love of neighbor’ surely means to go to court with the neighbor who is grieved” (The Message of the Psalms, 87).
39. These restatements of Christ are framed by an inclusio of “impossible righteousness” (5:20, 48)—a reminder that the demands of God are impossible apart from divine enabling and may be truly obeyed only by relying on God and His grace.
40. This document begins with the resolve of the members “to love all the Sons of Light—each according to his lot in the counsel of God, and to hate all the Sons of Darkness—each according to his guilt at the vengeance of God” (1QS 1:9–11). This hatred was such that it involved even the withholding of compassion from them (1QS 10:20–21) (James H. Charlesworth, ed., Rule of the Community and Related Documents, vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994], 6–7, 46–47).
41. Bruce M. Metzger, ed., The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version, expanded ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 143.
42. In Matthew 5:43–48 Jesus defined “enemy” in such a way as to include both those who are foes in the customary politico-national sense, but also those against whom enmity may exist among one’s own people (who in Lev. 19:18 are considered one’s “neighbor”). Indeed this latter element is His point of emphasis. Also in the introduction to and parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25–37, Jesus expanded the concept of “neighbor.” In this parable Jesus emphasized that the heart of the command “Love your neighbor” implies, at least to a certain extent, “love your enemy.” One’s “neighbor” may be his “enemy”; for the one who is in need, and whose need may be met, is one’s neighbor—whoever he may be. And this expression of indiscriminate kindness is essentially “love” in action.
43. Cf. Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” with verse 34, “and you shall love him [the foreigner in your midst] as yourself.” Verse 34 includes the foreigner who may also be an enemy (cf. Lev. 19:33 and Exod. 23:9, in which the natural reaction to such a foreigner would be “mistreatment” and “oppression,” and Exod. 23:22–23, in which God specified which enemy nations were to be destroyed when the Israelites entered Canaan).
44. Paul quoted Proverbs 25:22 in Romans 12:20 (cf. also Exod. 23:4–5).
45. Zuck, “The Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms,” 76.
46. William Klassen, Love of Enemies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 28. As is repeatedly illustrated in Scripture, loving one’s enemies is shown primarily by deeds of kindness to them.
47. Though not identical to imprecation, the cry of “woe” in the ancient Near East bore a measure of semantic overlap—and in certain contexts it took on “all the characteristics of a curse” (Waldemar Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972], 3). See also Zechariah 11:17 and Luke 6:20–26.
48. The ultimate expression of enemy love, and of blessing those who persecute and curse, are the words Jesus Himself voiced from the cross—the height of human cruelty—regarding the ones who had nailed him there: “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). This may be compared to the creative tension in the differing responses to degrees of enmity Paul wrote about. Of Alexander, a hardened enemy of Paul and the gospel, the apostle solemnly affirmed, “The Lord will repay him according to his deeds” (2 Tim. 4:14), whereas concerning those who had abandoned Paul in his time of trial and need he pleaded, “May it not be counted against them” (v. 16)—reminiscent of the dying words of the Lord Jesus.
49. The resolution is found in the phrase: “Be quick to bless and slow to curse.” Just as God is slow to anger (Exod. 34:6; Nah. 1:3), so too believers should be slow to anger (James 1:19). Yet in extreme circumstances God expressed anger (Nah. 1:2; Mark 3:5), and so in extreme circumstances believers may express anger without sinning (Eph. 4:26).
50. In the Old Testament the fig tree was frequently associated with the nation Israel. When fruitful, it betokened divine blessing on Israel; yet when withered, it served as “a vivid emblem of God’s active punishment of his people” (William R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-tree Pericope in Mark’s Gospel and Its Relation to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition [Sheffield: JSOT, 1980], 135 [italics his]). In certain passages, moreover, God’s judgment against Israel’s fig trees is associated with her rabid idolatry and perversion of worship. Of particular note is Hosea 9:10–17, in which Yahweh spoke of Israel’s beginnings as “the earliest fruit on the fig tree” (v. 10), but because of their gross iniquity God said He would “drive them out of My house” (the temple, v. 15). And they who were named “Ephraim” (i.e., “fruitfulness”) were instead “withered” and bore no fruit (v. 16). Mark’s readers would have readily understood Christ’s cursing of the barren fig tree as a judgment against Israel, and especially against her religious center, the temple (cf. also Mal. 3:1–5; 4:6).
51. This connotation is confirmed by Romans 9:3, where Paul startlingly expressed the desire to become “accursed. .. from Christ [ἀνάθεμα .. .ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ]” if that would result in the salvation of his people.
52. In Acts 13:9–11 Paul, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” evidently uttered an imprecation of blindness against another sorcerer, Elymas (reminiscent of Deut. 28:28–29), in accord with the principle embodied in the lex talionis. Since Elymas had sought to keep the proconsul in spiritual blindness, Elymas was cursed with physical blindness.
53. As Derek Kidner observes, “For all their appearance of implacability they are to be taken as conditional.. .. Their full force was for the obdurate; upon repentance they would become ‘a curse that is causeless’, which, as Proverbs 26:2 assures us, ‘does not alight’ “ (Psalms 1–72, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973], 30).
54. Robert L. Thomas, “The Imprecatory Prayers of the Apocalypse,” Bibliotheca Sacra 126 (1969): 130. Thomas is not justified, however, in further asserting that the martyred saints are able to pray this way (as are the psalmists) because they had been given some special revelation as to “which persons are reprobate, a knowledge possessed only in divine perspective” (ibid., 129-30). This merely evades the issue. Jesus Himself encouraged His followers, practically speaking, to identify the “reprobate” when He said, “You will know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:16).
55. Raymond F. Surburg, “The Interpretation of the Imprecatory Psalms,” Springfielder 39 (1975): 100.
56. “When these holy prayers are again prayed in the Spirit and with understanding, there will come unsuspected power and glory to the church of Christ” (Adams, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace, xiii). Moreover, the fact that the imprecatory psalms involve imprecations against both personal and community enemies lends itself to like application today.