Since the imprecatory psalms were mentioned recently, I thought that some of you would be interested in these selections from William Binnie’s The Psalms: Their History, Teachings, and Use (1886). Binnie was a Scottish RP minister and theologian, until joining the Free Church toward the end of his life. Here are some of his closing thoughts from the chapter on the imprecations:
It cannot be denied that, like the imprecations of the apostles and of the souls under the altar, the language of the Psalmist has reference not only to judgments already executed, but to judgments which are viewed as still future and in suspense. It brings up the question, What ought to be our sentiment with respect to such judgments?
In reply to this question, I do not hesitate to say that, as a rule, our duty is to deprecate them, and not to imprecate them. Even although we see reason to conclude that they are surely coming, we ought to cry aloud for mercy to be shown to the transgressors. The Lord Jesus prayed for His murderers; and we ought to do likewise. To make the Imprecatory Psalms the vehicle of maledictions against personal enemies is a frightful abuse of God’s holy Word. Calvin mentions, as a fact notorious in his time, that certain monks, the Franciscans especially, made a trade of this detestable sacrilege. If any one had a mortal enemy and wished him destroyed, he would hire one of those wretches to curse him, day by day, in the words of the Hundred-and-ninth Psalm. The Reformer adds that he himself knew a lady of rank in France who hired certain Franciscans to imprecate perdition in this way on her only son (Commentary on Ps. cix. 6). Matthew Henry, after mentioning these shameful facts, makes this reflection, that “greater impiety can scarcely be imagined, than to vent a devilish passion in the language of sacred writ; to kindle strife with coals snatched from God’s altar; and to call for fire from heaven with a tongue set on fire of hell.” Those who are capable of such daring profanity (one may surely trust that it has never shown its head in any Protestant Church) would not be dissuaded by any argument of ours; but it may not be useless to observe that it would be a dangerous and overbold employment of these psalms to recite them even against those who are our enemies in some good and holy work. When James and John proposed to imitate Elijah by commanding fire to come down from heaven and consume certain Samaritans who opposed their passage to Jerusalem, the Lord “turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of” (Luke ix. 55).
This, I repeat, is the rule by which we are to walk. We are to bless them that curse us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us, and persecute us. But there are exceptions even to this rule. One of these is pointed out by the loving disciple, in a quarter where, but for his intimation, we might well have deemed the rule absolute. “If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request” (I John v. 16). And there are other exceptions. It is plain that civil society and its officers are not to walk by the letter of the commandment about forgiving trespasses and rendering to no man evil for evil. The Civil Magistrate is neither obliged, nor at liberty, to forgive those who trespass against him. “He is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil” (Rom. xiii. 4). It is at his peril if he refuse or neglect to perform this office; and all private persons whose minds have not been corrupted by a false sentimentality will concur with him in the execution of his stern duty. When a foul crime has been perpetrated, tender-hearted Christian women, who would not touch a hair of their enemy’s head but would rather feed him, will express keen resentment, and will be disquieted in mind till they hear that the perpetrator has been convicted and duly punished. They will imprecate condign punishment on the offender. It is their hearty desire and prayer that the violated majesty of the law may not remain unrevenged. Facts like these, if they were fairly considered, would be felt to throw much light on the Bible imprecations. If we had more of the Psalmist’s consuming zeal for the cause of God ; if we were as much concerned for the honour of the divine government as every virtuous citizen is for the honour of the national laws, the imprecations would sound less strange and harsh in our ears.
And, then, this final paragraph:
I will not maintain that the Imprecatory Psalms are to be the Christian’s habitual song. Many godly persons, who would be the last to charge them with sin, are accustomed to omit them, for the most part, in the regular consecutive singing of the Psalms. Certainly, they ought never to be sung but with fear and trembling. Nevertheless, at fit seasons, they may and ought to find a place in our service of praise. It has been justly said that “in a deep sense of moral evil, more perhaps than in anything else, abides a saving knowledge of God.” There is “a hatred of them that hate God,” which is the invariable accompaniment and indispensable token of the love of God in the heart. And sin is to be looked upon not only as a disease to be loathed, but as a violation of law which calls for punishment. As powerful witnesses for the truth that sin is hateful to God and deserving of His wrath and everlasting curse, a truth which the world would fain forget, the Imprecatory Psalms must be accounted worthy of their place in the divine Manual of Praise.
But I really like the tune for Psalm 137
It appears that for Binnie the imprecatory psalms should not be directed at personal enemies, but only at heinous criminals deserving of just punishment. I think this is a sound rule, and would add that incorrigible enemies of the Church should also be prayed against.
Blessings should be on our lips much more than cursings. The Litany from the Book of Common Prayer includes this petition:
That it may please thee to forgive our enemies, persecutors,
and slanderers, and to turn their hearts;
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
Bill, I’d like to say I concur with you for once! That tune is definitely one of my favorites.
As to Binnie, there indeed is a yearning within the Christian’s heart to see justice done, but I don’t think that even that is the subject of our imprecation. There is a difference between the time before the canon was closed and now when prophecy has ceased. So, those who wrote the imprecatory psalms could justly call down God’s wrath against God’s enemies, because God, in fact, enlightened the prophets to know that certain people were His enemies. Now, we sing these psalms, indeed calling on God’s wrath upon His enemies, but not specific people, because we are not enlightened to know who God’s enemies are. This is similar to singing about sacrificing, dancing and even praising God with cymbals. We see and glory in the differences between the old and new covenants.
It’s exciting to have a forum like this. I discovered it with Rev. Ken Smith’s help and a recent issues of RP Witness which I haven’t read for a while. I attend Russell RP near Ottawa in Canada. Civil magistracy is my real interest. I have just published a book, “State vs. Church” and have a website called http://www.christiangovernment.ca . Always interested in feedback.
On the topic in question, I’ve heard it said that imprecations are judicial in nature so only elders have the authority to declare them. I don’t know whether I agree with this position, but it would certainly be one means by which to restrict abuse of the practise and principle.
I don’t think one can use the closing of the cannon as a rationale to argue that they aren’t available to us to use today. If we can’t teach, declare or pronounce God’s judgments today, are we not, by implication, only teaching a half-covenant theology?
One can also perhaps get too theoretical on this point. If a person is a terrible blasphemer and idolater, or an enthusiastic abortionist, or what have you, then he is certainly God’s enemy. Perhaps he is one of God’s elect and God will redeem Him in time. But God is not bound by our declarations of His judgment, so if we pronounce God’s judgement or curse on such a person because of the nature of his open wickedness at a given time, that doesn’t stop God from saving him later anyway. Perhaps, in the same way that excommunication of an unrepentant professing Christian is hoped to be a tool by which God will bring the person back to a living faith, a declaration of judgement would do the same. Certainly I think that even in our denomination the pendulum has swung excessively in the direction of attitudes that we label as “grace” or “gracious” which may or may not be, at the expense of confidently declaring God’s judgment against wickedness and the flagrant practioners and advocates of wickedness.
I need to study the history of our church’s work against slavery, but I would suspect, and would hope to discover, that in our opposition to it, our forefathers spoke publicly very forcefully against it, even in fora that included civil magistrates. If so, we could perhaps learn from them in terms of how seriously we take our responsibility to speak before kings on the legislative sanction of such things as abortion, divorce, homosexuality, the usurpation of the husband and father through social welfare policies, etc.