In a recent issue of The Banner some of the psalms, in particular the so-called “imprecatory psalms” were harshly criticized by Marlin Van Elderen, editor of The Reformed Journal as misleading and unsuitable for Christian use. On January 4 the Psalter Hymnal Revision Committee of the Christian Reformed Church held a lecture–discussion on the issue “Should We Sing the Whole Book of Psalms?” On the panel Editor Van Elderen as one of its members restated his criticism of those psalms. Months ago a somewhat similar criticism in the “Today” series of meditations prompted a reader to ask Professor J.G. Vos to send us his extensive article on this subject. The article first appeared in the May 1942 Westminster Theological Journal under the title “The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms” and was reprinted in the June 1959 Blue Banner Faith and Life, pp. 83–89. Because these psalms are now coming under discussion in connection with the revision of our psalter, it may be especially opportune for us to consider Professor Vos’ thorough discussion of the subject. The length of the original article makes it advisable to pass it on to our readers in condensed form.

The Criticized Psalms

Six out of the one hundred fifty psalms (Numbers 55, 59, 69, 79  109 and 137) are commonly classed as “imprecatory.” The word “imprecatory” means “invoking a judgment, calamity or curse” and may not be the most desirable term because of its suggestion of a critical attitude toward those psalms, but it is the one in common use.

Certain expressions in these Psalms have caused a great deal of abuse to be heaped upon them, some persons even going so far as to say that they breathe a savage spirit and are totally, unfit for Christian devotional use. The Imprecatory Psalms contain prayers for the destruction of certain persons. A prayer implies a sincere desire for the thing prayed for. Objectors to the Imprecatory Psalms assert that a desire for the destruction of another is immoral, and therefore that the Psalms which express such a desire are immoral and their use in worship improper and sinful.

The Ethical Question

The problem concerning these psalms may be formulated in two questions, the second depending upon the first: (1) “How can it be right to wish or pray for the destruction or doom of others as is done in the Imprecatory Psalms?” and (2) “Is it right for a Christian to use the Imprecatory Psalms in the worship of God, and if so, in what sense can he make the language of these Psalms his own?” “Whether it is right for a Christian to use these Psalms in the worship of God depends upon whether it can be right to wish or pray for the destruction or doom of others.” These questions Professor Vos proposed to answer.

Unsatisfactory Solutions,

(1) Dispensationalism’s

“A number of unsatisfactory, or only partially satisfactory, solutions of the problems have been proposed. Perhaps the most prevalent of these today—in America, at least—is the proported solution associated with the system of Scripture interpretation known as Modern Dispensationalism.” This explanation suggests that “while it was right for the Old Testament saints, living under the dispensation of law, to invoke judgment upon their enemies, still it would be wrong for Christian people, living under the dispensation of grace, to do the same.” This must be rejected because (1) it is based upon a false scheme of dividing history into seven dispensations which is not “derived from the Bible” but “imposed on the Bible,” and (2) this attempted solution makes Scripture contradict Scripture.

(2) Interpreting Them as Predictions

It has been proposed that these psalms be explained as predictions instead of prayers so that they state what will happen instead of pray that it may happen. But this explanation is “contrary to the language used in the Psalms themselves.”

(3) Spiritualizing Them

It has been suggested that these psalms be regarded as spiritual or figurative, making “them refer to purely spiritual or non–human powers of persons.” But the language of the psalms is too concrete to permit that. Psalm 109:8,9 is applied in Acts 1:20, for example to Judas. They “refer to particular human persons.”

(4) Considering them Sinfully Vindictive

“Chiefly” people “who do not accept the divine inspiration and authority of the Psalter” have suggested that these psalms “proceed not from divine inspiration but simply from personal vindictiveness.” “To pray for the doom of another is sinful; David prayed for the doom of others; therefore David sinned . . . . Although we may condone the sin on the ground that ethical standards were lower in David’s time than now, still we in this Christian age ought to cultivate a milder and kindlier spirit.” To this we must object that (1) the explanation is contrary to the inspiration of the Scriptures, not only the general Biblical doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16), but also the “divine inspiration . . . definitely claimed for the Psalms of David: . . . ‘the Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was upon my tongue’” (2 Sam. 23:1, 2). (2) The explanation contradicts the known history of David who was not “of a vengeful or vindictive character.” Consider his dealings with Saul and with Shimei. The explanation is “contrary to the Biblical data.”

(5) Moral Outbursts Against Atrocious Crime

“A fifth suggested explanation of the Imprecatory Psalms regards them as outbursts of the moral feeling of humanity called forth by unusually brutal or inhuman crimes.” As such they “are not prayers for personal revenge upon adversaries, but cries to the all–just God to judge and condemn the wicked.” Although this explanation is partially true, “it is not true that the Imprecatory Psalms proceed wholly, or even primarily form the outraged moral feeling of humanity. To assert that they do, is to overlook their divine inspiration and authority and to regard. them as merely human compositions, the product of human religious experience and moral life.” This explanation also cannot account for judgments upon the children such as those in Psalms 109:12 and 137:9.

   

A Different Solution

After considering these unsatisfactory solutions Professor Vos suggested that we seek a solution to the problem “along a different line, namely, by a criticism of the presuppositions on which the usual objections to the Imprecatory Psalms are based.” “The usual objections” to these psalms “assert that it is not right to wish or pray for the doom or destruction of another, and that therefore a Christian cannot consistently use these psalms in the worship of God, nor make their language his own except perhaps in a figurative sense far removed from their original and proper meaning. The fundamental objection.”

(1) The Presupposition that the Welfare of Man is His Chief End

If the welfare of man is the chief end of man then it must be “wrong to wish or pray for the doom or destruction of any human being” and “we should only pray for the present good and eternal salvation of every member of the human race, regardless of how wicked a particular person may be, or how great an offense and occasion of stumbling to the people of God. I John 5:16, however, states that ‘there is a sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request.’” “In other words, there may exist cases in which the glory of God and the welfare of man conflict, and in such cases it is wrong to seek the welfare of the particular persons involved. 

“This presupposition, that the welfare of man is the chief end of man, is essentially humanistic … and overlooks the fact that man is not self–existent but a created being who is therefore dependent on God and who does not exist for himself but for God’s glory. If man is the creature of God, then it follows that the chief end of man is to glorify God. Only by denying that man is the creature of God can it be successfully maintained that the chief end of man is the welfare of man. No doubt many of those who object to the Imprecatory Psalms, and who are influenced by the presupposition under discussion, do really believe in God in the theistic sense, but have been greatly influenced by the present-day nontheistic view of life, and in particular by the substitution of the theory of evolution for the biblical doctrine of the creation of man; and this influence may often have been so great as to render the viewpoint of such persons practically (though not theoretically) atheistic. This non–theistic view of life is exceedingly common and popular today and has penetrated the preaching and church life, as well as the newspaper and magazine theology, of our time far more than is commonly realized. The proposition that the chief end of man is the welfare of man is unchallenged in many circles, and it is this point of view that is at the bottom of most, in not all, of the objections to the Imprecatory Psalms. Our answer to these objections, then, must in the first place be a challenge to the legitimacy of this presupposition. The chief end of man is to glorify God, not to seek the welfare of man. These two are of course not mutually exclusive; the glory of God includes the welfare of man in general, but Scripture teaches that particular cases may, and do, exist where the two conflict, and in such cases the believer must seek the glory of God and not the welfare of man which is in conflict with the glory of God.”

(2) The Presupposition that Man Has Rights Which God Must Respect, God and His Law

“The second presupposition underlying the objections to” these “Psalms is that man has rights which even God is bound to respect. This presupposition tacitly, perhaps unconsciously, regards the moral law as something which exists independently of God himself, something to which God as well as man is subject. It is of course quite true that God will never act contrary to the moral law, but this is simply because the moral law is an expression of the nature and character of God, and God cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13). Whatever God does is in harmony with the moral law, simply because God does it, for God cannot act contrary to his own nature of which the moral law is an expression; but this is a very different matter from the notion that the moral law is something above and beyond, which exists independently even of God himself and which God is bound to obey in the same sense that man is bound to obey it. The very idea of obligation to obey the moral law implies a higher power to whom man is responsible. The very idea of obligation to obey the moral law implies a higher power to whom man is responsible. In the nature of the case there. can be no higher power to whom God can be responsible. None can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? It follows that many things which would be wrong for man to do, are right when done by God. A man who throws a bomb in a crowded street and kills a number of people may be guilty of murder, but when God in his providential government sends an earthquake and destroys thousands or tens of thousands of people he is wholly righteous in doing so. It is wrong for man to put the children to death for the sins of the fathers, yet God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those that hate him, and it is worthy of note that this truth is affirmed in the very Decalogue which is the summary of t he moral law given by God to man as a rule of life (Ex. 20:5; Deut. 5:9).”

Man‘s Rights?

“Man is a created being and therefore possesses no rights except those conferred on him by God his Creator. On the subject of human rights, there is much confusion of thought at the present time. Many hold that in creating man, God somehow limited himself, and was thereupon under obligation to respect certain rights possessed by man. Some maintain that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights which not only man, but even God, is bound to respect. According to this view, not only would it have been wrong for David to slay his enemies . . . but it would also have been wrong for God to bring this about in answer to David’s prayers as recorded in the Imprecatory Psalms. Against such notions, the sovereignty of God must be affirmed. God and man are not equals, nor are they both responsible to some higher power or principle. God is the Creator , and man is the creature. Man is responsible to God, but God is not responsible to man. Man, therefore, has no rights whatever except those conferred on him by God; that is to say, man has no rights at all” in “the absolute sense, no rights to which appeal can be made in a controversy between man and God.”

Rights Forfeited By Sin

Furthermore, man as sinful, by the Fall, has forfeited even those rights conferred by God at his creation. Since the Fall, man is in the position of an outlaw and a rebel against God’s authority, possessing no legal status whatever and debarred from claiming rights of any kind. Man is not merely a creature, but a sinner, and is therefore totally devoid of rights which God must respect. In other words, whatever of good man may ever attain can come from no other source than the free, sovereign and unmerited grace of God.

Civil Rights Do Not Hold Against God.

“By the common grace of God even sinful man has rights which other men are bound to respect . . . civil rights which have validity within human society; but sinful man has no rights which God is bound to respect. Therefore while it would be wrong for man, acting on his own initiative and independently of commands from God, to plan, wish or pray for the destruction of the wicked, these would not be wrong if done by God himself or by man in obedience to specific commands of God. But such is precisely the character of the Imprecatory Psalms, for these Psalms were given by divine inspiration and were therefore not simply t he personal desires or petitions of man, but prayers offered under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit of god.

“It is necessary to insist that evil and evil men exist only by the providential permission of God and not by any right of t heir own which they can claim before God. Satan’s entire domain is a kingdom of usurpation. Sinful man does not have the right to a breath of air to inhale, a drop of water to drink, or a particle of food to eat, in God’s world. He has, indeed, a civil right to these things, by God’s common grace, which right must be respected by his fellow men. But life and the things which make it possible come ultimately not from man but from God, and sinful man has no right to these things which he can plead before God. It follows, then, that God may at any time, and in perfect harmony with his righteous nature, take away the life of sinful man, either by means of the forces and laws of nature, or by commands addressed to men, as for example when the children of Israel were commanded to exterminate the inhabitants of Canaan. But if it is right for God to destroy evil and evil men in his universe, or to command his servants to effect that destruction, then it was also right for him to inspire the Psalmist to pray for that same work of destruction, and it was moreover right for the Psalmist to offer such prayers.” “The destruction of evil men . . . prayed for in the Imprecatory Psalms was not motivated by a desire for personal revenge,” but “a judicial vindication of the name of God.” See David’s prayer in Psalm 59:13, “let them know that God ruleth . . . .”

“The total destruction of evil, including the judicial destruction of evil men, is the prerogative of the sovereign God, and it is right not only to pray for the accomplishment of this destruction, but even to assist in effecting it when commanded to do so by God himself.

“Scripture teaches that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), and since every man has sinned, every man is deserving of death, both physical and eternal. Even infants have sinned in Adam, who represented them in the Covenant of Works, and are therefore deserving of eternal death, though they are without actual transgressions.” Before God’s judgment bar every man “stands guilty, a rebel, an outlaw, wholly without rights. Because he is guilty, he deserves to die. It is appointed unto men once to die (Heb. 9:27), and in the end God brings about the death of every human being. Whether this is done by natural causes or in some other way is immaterial, so far as the question of God’s righteousness is concerned. Ordinarily, man’s death occurs as the result of natural causes, such as disease, accident or old age. At other times, man’s death may be caused by murder. . . . Even though man is unjust in committing the murder, God is righteous in permitting it to be committed, for though the person murdered had a civil right to life which should have been respected by his fellow men, he had no moral right to life which he could plead against God. In still other cases, man’s death may be caused by lawful violence on the part of man, according to the provision of Genesis 9:6, and in such cases it is not murder but execution. The extermination of the Canaanites by the children of Israel, for example, was not murder, but execution, because the persons killed had forfeited all right to life, and because the Israelites were not engaged in an ordinary war of conquest but in a divine program in which they were acting by the specially revealed commands of God for the administration of divine justice (compare Gen. 15:16)

“The destruction of the wicked which is prayed for in the Imprecatory Psalms, then, is not murder but execution.” “They are in essence an appeal to the justice of God and prayer for that justice to execute sentence upon the wicked.” “Since the prayers were inspired by the Holy Spirit,” they “must be regarded as free from suspicion of immorality. God is both sovereign and righteous; he possesses the unquestionable right to destroy all evil in his universe; if it is right for God to plan and effect this destruction, then it is also right for the saints to pray for the same.”

Is It Right for Christians to Use These Psalms?

“There remains to be considered the subordinate question whether it is right for Christians to use” these “Psalms in the worship of God, and if so, in what sense they can make the language of these Psalms their own.” It must be recognized that inspiration and special revelation ceased with the completion of . . . the New Testament and “that only by special divine revelation could it be known with absolute certainty that a particular person was a reprobate.” “God has not revealed who the elect are.” “The Biblical account of the transformation of Saul the persecutor, . . . into Paul the Apostle, . . . should serve as a warning against all positive assertions that even the wickedest opponents and persecutors of Christianity in our own day are certainly reprobates.” “Consequently if the Imprecatory Psalms are regarded as prayers for the ETERNAL doom of wicked persons, no Christian could apply these Psalms to any particular persons, or pray other prayers of the nature of” these psalms and pray for the eternal doom of particular persons. “It would be sinful to pray for the eternal doom of an elect person. . . . Such prayers can be offered only with reference to the reprobate, never with reference to the elect.”

But the Imprecatory Psalms are not necessarily “prayers for the ETERNAL doom of the wicked. They may be regarded as prayers for severe temporal judgments upon the enemies of God.” The Christian can pray such prayers, “but . . . he must leave to God the application of such petitions to particular persons because only God can discern between wicked persons who are the objects of reprobation and” those “who are included in the election of grace.”

Conclusion

“The Christian can use the Imprecatory Psalms in the worship of God, and can offer them as prayers to God, for temporal judgments short of death upon those enemies of God who in the divine secret counsel are elect persons, and for judgments including physical death issuing in eternal death upon those enemies of God who in his secret and unrevealed counsel are reprobates. Even the prayer for the death of the wicked person who is a reprobate is only not immoral but is in itself righteous and is, in fact, included in the . . . ‘Lord’s Prayer’ which teaches us to pray: ‘Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven’ (Mat. 6:10). God‘s kingdom cannot come without Satan‘s kingdom being destroyed. God‘s will cannot be done in earth without the destruction of evil. Evil cannot be destroyed without the destruction of men who are permanently identified with it. Instead of being influenced by the sickly sentimentalism of the present day, Christian people should realize that the glory of God demands the destruction of evil. Instead of being insistent upon the assumed, but really nonexistent, rights of men, they should focus t heir attention upon the rights of God. Instead of being ashamed of the Imprecatory Psalms, and attempting to apologize for them and explain them away, Christian people should glory in them and not hesitate to use them in the public and private exercises of the worship of God.”

Note: Our thanks are due to Professor Vos and to the Westminster Theological Journal for making this material available to us and for permission to reprint it. We note with regret that The Blue Banner Faith and Life, to which I called attention in my December article on “The Vos Legacy,” has just ended its 37 year history of publication because of the illness of Professor Vos who began, edited and wrote much of it.