That the imprecations of the wicked by the godly in Scripture present a problem to the Christian has been a common observation, most recently made by Rev. Neal Plantinga in Today, January 25 and 26. First impressions are often deceiving, however, and we do well to take another, more careful look at that which at first glance surprises us.

We must remind ourselves of some basic principles before proceeding further. First, Scripture is the inerrant Word of God to man. It comes to man with all the authority of the Holy One of Israel, Sovereign over all the universe. Many may not appeal to anything else. Scripture is our final authority.

Second, standards for morality and ethical behavior come from God, who creates them. There is no standard of right and wrong outside of and above God to which He Himself is responsible or according to which He acts. The good is good because God does it, rather than God doing the good because it is good.

Taken together, these two principles cannot allow man to stand in moral judgment over that which Scripture commends or commands.

Perhaps it is granted that the above principles are true, but it is argued that the imprecations in Scripture are not commanded or commended. Rather they are in Scripture as warnings to us of that which we should avoid. After all, arc they not at odds with the frequent exhortation to love our enemies? Are they not at odds with the character of God and the conduct of Christ? These are legitimate questions and demand careful answers.

It must first be noted that these imprecations have their basis in the jealousy of the godly for the honor of Jehovah and His cause. In Nehemiah 4, the Samaritans were attempting to impede the work of the Jews as they rebuilt the wall in response to God’s command. They thus were opposing God. Nehemiah desires that God’s will be done and the city restored. He utters his prayer not because the Samaritans annoyed him or even merely because they opposed him, but rather they had set themselves against the program of God.

David utters Psalm 109 for the same basic reason. The enemies were opposing God’s anointed King and thus had set themselves against God. Moreover, as verses 16-18 indicate, the enemies were men of wickedness and unrighteousness, persecuting the afflicted and the needy and delighting in cursing rather than blessing.

The expressed concern of the godly for God‘s honor and program points out again that God is holy and righteous and just as well as loving, gracious, and merciful. The grace of God in bearing longsufferingly with the wicked does not remove His right to punish their sin thoroughly at any time. God owes mercy to no one.

The same God who desires that the wicked turn from his way and live also hates all who do iniquity (Psalm 5:6), hates the one who does violence (Psalm 11:5), and hates the false witness and the one who spreads strife (Proverbs 6:16). He will repay those who hate Him (Deuteronomy 7:10), will inflict curses on those who hate His people (Deuteronomy 30:7), and brings wrath upon those who help the wicked and who love those who hate the Lord (II Chronicles 19:2). Yet Christ gave God as the example of One who is kind and good to evil men (Matthew 6:43–45 and Luke 6:26–37). Obviously, Christ did not find these two courses of action to be contradictory or incompatible.

It is said that Ezekiel 18:23 is a Christ-like prayer, which we readily grant. Yet Christ also condemned Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (Luke 10:12–15) and the Scribes and Pharisees (Luke 11:27–52). He Who sent the seventy out as lambs, without swords (Luke 10:3, 4), later sent out the twelve with the exhortation to take a sword even if it required selling ones cloak to obtain it. Obviously, He knew no incompatibility in these actions. We would do well to see no incompatibility in them either. Love for God and His righteousness must give definition to love for one’s enemies.

Mr. Spencer who comes from Collins, New York, and graduated from Cedarville College in Ohio, it presently completing work toward the Master of Divinity degree at Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary. He has begun work for the Th.M. degree at that school in consultation with Dr. C Van Til at Westminster on a thesis comparing the old Princeton and the Amsterdam apologetics.