Violence Worthy of Worship: How Divine Wrath Prevents Personal Vengeance

Violence Worthy of Worship: How Divine Wrath Prevents Personal Vengeance Tyler Vela 0OT512: Poets October 7, 2015 Reformed Theological Seminary Introduction In his book Exclusion and Embrace, Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf speaks of his experiences of violence and vengeance in the Balkans and how they relate to the Christian world and life view. Volf states something that likely will sound foreign to most of his Western readers when he writes, “My thesis is that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine vengeance... the only means of prohibiting violence by us is to insist that violence is only legitimate when it comes from God.”1 He then goes on to say that this sentiment, that violence is only permissible when it is carried out or commanded by God and that we must believe it to be the case for real human non-violence to take hold of a society, does not play well with our pedestrian liberal Western sentimentality. And yet, declares Volf, it is this belief that is at the very core of the Christian hope for a final reconciliation. This tension between the Christian ethic of love and self-sacrificial forgiveness on the one hand and the all too conspicuous cry for brutal vengeance and bloody retribution on the other has been a perennial predicament for the church in dealing with certain passages of the Bible. This problem is nowhere more poignant than in the maledictions found in the 137th Psalm and the other so called Imprecatory Psalms. In this paper, the theme of divine violence and its legitimacy for the church will be addressed as we explore the setting and theology of Psalm 137 to discover why this psalm still has a place within he Christian canon. Psalm 137 is clearly related to the exile of the children of Israel after the Babylonian conquest of Israel. There is little doubt that its composition falls sometime after Jerusalem fell and the Israelites were carried off into captivity. The question is how long after the captivity until its composition. Was the author in the first generation that was dispossessed of their homeland, writing while in a foreign land? Or was he writing after returning home to find the land of his father in shambles? And what does the text tell us about the historical context and cultural milieu within which it was composed? Violence of Warfare One of the many horrors that resulted from ANE siege warfare was the destitution and starvation of the besieged people that would often result in the cannibalism of one’s own family members or neighbors. In the Vassel treaties of Esarhaddon, we read: 1 Mirosalv Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness and Reconciliation. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996) 303-304. 1  Just as the ewe is cut open and the flesh of its young placed in its mouth, so may he [Shamash?] make you eat in your hunger the flesh of your brothers, your sons, and your daughters. ------------------------------------------- Just as honey is sweet, so may the blood of your women, your sons and daughters taste sweet in your mouths. ------------------------------------------- Just as honeycomb is pierced through and through with holes, so may holes be pierced through and through in your flesh, the flesh of your women, your brothers, your sons and daughters while you are alive.2 Yet there is more to the barbarism of ancient warfare than is often imagined. The practice of using infants as a tool to devastate an opposing nation or tribe was seemingly ubiquitous in the ANE. The “slaughter of the innocents” was a means to effect total destruction on a people such that they would not even have descendents to follow after them. This practice can be observed to some extent in Pharaoh’s killing of the first born of Israel prior to the Exodus (Ex. 1μ16, 27). This however was not to effect total annihilation but was a means of large scale population control and was directed at only males. However it does shed light on the established tactic of terminating the next generation to exert power over the current one. This practice was like an herbicide meant to direct and act of warfare against the root. Other examples from Israelite warfare can be seen in passages such as Hos. 13:16: “Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open. Hosea here foretells the destruction that will befall Samaria and is not just speaking allegorically. Hosea was aware that in the combat tactics of the day, the killing of infants within the womb or without was something to be expected.3 2 Day, Crying for Justice, p 65 3 For more examples of the dashing of infants as a military tactic, see 2 Kgs. 8:12, Isa. 13:16, Nah. 3:10 and Luke 19:44. 2 Setting of Composition Allen, following the lead of numerous scholars, places the composition of the psalm not merely after the start of the Babylonian captivity but well after it, likely after some of the Jews had already been permitted by Cyrus to repopulate Israel.4 This position is partially based on the usage of the term ‫“( ש‬there”) to describe his time in Babylon.5 For Allen and others, referring to the time in Babylon as ‫ ש‬sets a measure of distance best understood as the psalmist not being ‫ ש‬anymore.6 Allen also sees the fact that the psalmist can address Zion/Jerusalem directly as evidence that the city was a present reality for him and thus he had to dwell in or around Jerusalem at the time that the rebuilding had begun or would soon begin under Nehemiah. VanGemeren also seems to agree and places its composition between the return to the land and the rebuilding of the temple, sometime between 520 and 445 BCE.7 This view may also be supported by the use of perfect verbs in 1-3 (“we sat, wept, remembered, hung”ν “they required”). This position seems unconvincing however as the evidence used to support it is ambiguous at best. The use of ‫ ש‬will be explored shortly as a literary device to show an inversion of a normal song of Zion motif and thus fits better in that literary purposive framework. The action of the taunting may have been in the past even if the exile was still in effect so the use of perfect tense verbs may also not be as helpful as one might think. In addition, the direct address to Zion in no way means that the psalmist is in the vicinity of Jerusalem. One could ask why the psalmist could be in Israel and address the rubble of Jerusalem before it was rebuilt but not do the same while in exile in Babylon. It will also be demonstrated that the direct address of Zion/Jerusalem is a motif of songs of Zion and so better serves that function over its use as an indicator of location. In fact, there seems to be good reasons to place the composition of the psalm sometime during the Babylonian captivity prior to a return to the land. As has been mentioned, most of the reasons for a post-return composition are better explained as literary features based on the kind of psalm it is but there are also some conceptual features of the psalm that support the position as well. One aspect that all commentators perceive is the vividness of this psalm. In truth it is 4 Leslie Allen, “Psalms 101-150” in Word Biblical Commentary, vol 21 (Word Books Publishers, Waco, TX: 1983) 239. 5 Though we will see shortly that this may be more a literary tool to add to the motif than a time marker. 6 Presumably if he had still been in Babylon he would have used a proximally closer adverb such as “here”. 7 Willem VanGemeren, “Psalms” in The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 5 (ed. Frank Gæbelein; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI: 1991) 826 3 precisely the level of vibrancy that has led so many commentators to protest to just how violent and possibly hateful it is.8 For these scholars, the intensity of the psalm is exactly what has led them to a negative evaluation of it. When we compare this psalm to other passages that deal with the promised destruction of Babylon (e.g. Is. 13:16; Jer. 51), there is a stark contrast between their tones. Jeremiah has an intensity looking forward to the destruction and recompense due to Babylon in the future, but it is only the first hand experience of violation and captivity, of violence and oppression that can muster the fury that drips from the pen of the psalmist who blesses the one who will smash Babylonian infants against stones. It is hard to imagine someone a generation or more removed from the events still maintaining such vividness and animosity. One can also observe that the psalmist includes himself in the company of Israel who was taken out of captivity and then whose captors taunted them with demands for songs praising the once mighty Jerusalem. Likely the psalmist was known for his musical aptitude, as well as those with him, and so a song was demanded of them.9 This would mean that he would have had to been of such an age that his talents had not only developed10 but also were known. It is possible then that he was in some kind of service to the temple prior to its demise and composed this song after having experienced the collapse of Jerusalem, the conquest of his people, and his own captivity into a foreign land. Finally there is the question of why the prospect of forgetting Jerusalem would even be a possibility for him if he was already back in the land. The concern about forgetting the holy city and the temple of Yahweh looms large for a people in captivity in Babylon,11 yet why would he need to vow to never forget if he was already back in the land? Notice that the psalmist does not vow to never forget again, that is, to not make the same mistake twice now that they have a fresh start back in Israel. He vows to never forget. The plausible answer to this is that he was experiencing life away from the home he knew and the city/temple he loved and though it lay in ruins hundreds of miles away, he called down curses upon himself should he forget it while he was estranged from it. The means that the most likely time and location for the composition of the psalm is sometime during the Babylonian captivity. 8 In the evaluation of interpretative views to follow, one view explored will be that the psalms are not fit for the church and merely serve to teach us about the savagery of the ANE man and to look at Christ as an improvement. 9 His skills as a musician are supported by his self-cursing in which his fingers would lose their skill in v5 – likely a reference to their skill in playing the harp mentioned in v2. 10 He apparently was trained in how to play the lyre/harp (Ps. 137:5). 11 This is in large part due to the fact that as a nation they had already forgotten Yahweh and whored themselves out after other gods which brought about their overthrow and exile in the first place. 4 Form A challenge related to the classification of Psalm 137 is discovered immediately upon reading the psalm. While much ink has been spilt trying to categorize the kind of psalm that it is, a neat and tidy taxonomical label for it appears unattainable. Gunkel remarked that it begins like a communal lament, progresses as a hymn and then wraps up with a curse. 12 However, what may appear prima facie to be an unruly structure which refuses to fit any known mold may actually be part of the psalmist’s broader theological tenacity within which he uses unconventional methods to reinforce a theology of an unparalleled circumstance. Day argues that the psalm is a Communal Lament that was “sung from the context of the Babylonian exile,” though no justification is given for his view.13 VanGemeren, following A.A. Anderson, agrees with Day however nuances his position by explaining that while the whole psalm does not fit the structure of a communal lament, because vv1-4 do that it can be classified as such.14 There are features of the psalm as a whole that would support this such as the description of the psalmist’s despair in vv1-3, but also vv5-6 can be read as an implicit pronouncement of trust and v7 is obviously the beginning of an appeal for justice on any view,15 all features common to a communal lament. However while classifying the psalm as a communal lament appears to be the most widely accepted position, it is not the only one. Rodriguez agrees with Krauss and Allen that it is likely a song of Zion.16 This view is also defended by Schottroff and Kellermann, though there is still some discussion if it is a communal or individual song of Zion.17 Evidence for this position is plenty with a major featuring being its mention of Zion/Jerusalem in five of the nine verses (1, 3, 5, 6, 7) and its direct address to the holy city in vv5-6. However, this particular song to Zion is peculiar because it is almost an exact contrast to the typical structure of a song of Zion. While the rest of the songs of Zion follow a loose outline of describing the sure foundations of Zion/Jerusalem (Ps. 46:4, 6- 12 Leslie Allen, “Psalms 101-150,” 237. Could be Gunkel’s way of admitting defeat in trying to fit it in a set category. 13 Day, Crying for Justice, p 64. Shepherd, drawing on Day, agrees that Psalm 137 is a communal lament looking back on the fall of Jerusalem and the exile of her childrenμ John Shepherd, “The Place of the Imprecatory Psalms in the Canon of Scripture,” The Churchman 111 (1997) 40. 14 Willem VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 826. VanGemeren also defends here against those who would apparently object to such a classification by saying that cursing does not appear regularly in lament. 15 Allen, “Psalms 101-150,” 238. 16 Angel Rodriguez, “Inspiration and the imprecatory Psalms,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 5 no 1 Spr 1994, p 55 17 Allen, “Psalms 101-150,” 238. For communal songs of Zion see Pss. 46, 48, 76 and 87. For individual ones, see Pss. 84 and 122. Allen allows for a flavor of a mourning or funeral lament in a non-cultic setting due to the mention of weeping and the non- use of a lyre, an instrument typically used for joyful occasions. 5 8, 12; 48:9, 13-15; 87:3; 122:2, 6-9), followed by statements about the Psalmist praising the city or calling on the reader to do so (Ps. 84:3; 12:9) and then ending with a beatitude for the righteous ones who worship there (Ps. 84:5, 6, 13), Psalm 137 inverts the structure. Firstly, rather than describing the sure foundation of Zion, the psalm begins with the destruction of the city already having occurred and her people languishing under tormentors in exile. Secondly, instead of singing praises to Zion, the psalmist addresses Jerusalem only to say that he cannot sing a song to Zion because he is in a foreign land - though he vows not to forget Jerusalem. Finally, in the place of the blessings for the child of God who praises Yahweh and his holy city, there is an imprecation against those who have devastated her. In fact the beatitude that is given is not to the faithful Israelite who worships in Jerusalem, but rather for the ones who mete out God’s vengeance upon Babylon for her destruction of Israel.18 Allen sees another possible reversal of the motif in that while songs of Zion normally describe with imperfect verbs the Lord’s victories over the enemies of Jerusalem (usually described with the adverb “there,” ‫ ש‬48:7, and ‫ ש‬76:4), in Ps 137, ‫ ש‬is in Babylon after a brutal defeat where the psalmist can only “[remember] Zion,” (v1).19 Kellerman sees a further reversal of the motif of the typical plea of self-innocence being inverted into a self-cursing formulae should the psalmist forget Jerusalem in 5-620 however Allen is critical of as a piece of evidence for the view. The psalmist then was writing sometime following the fall of the holy city – an assault not just on his nation, his culture, his economy, and his own homeland (for he is now living in captivity in a foreign land unable to properly worship Yahweh) but most importantly it is a direct assault on Yahweh himself. The degree of tragedy of this state of affairs is hard to describe. It is possibly akin to walking out of a bunker after a nuclear strike to find one’s homeland in ruins just before being carted off as a prisoner of war across the border into a foreign county. The utter backwardness and chaos for the children of Abraham living in Babylon after the fall of Israel is perhaps being exemplified by the inversed structure of flipped motifs of the psalm itself. This would add to the overall gravity and severity with which the psalmist was writing. Therefore the reversal or deconstruction of the typical Song of Zion structure then seems to be an intentional 18 From history we know that God will actually use the Medes and not Israel to punish Babylon. 19 Allen, “Psalms 101-150,” 238. We can now also see why using ‫ ש‬may not actually tell us that the psalmist is no long in Babylon. 20 Allen, “Psalms 101-150,” 238. 6 decision by the psalmist despite it causing a clear classification of the psalm to be somewhat elusive. It may be more proper, or at least adequate, to think of this as a Dirge of Zion where the normal song extolling the indefatigable foundation of Jerusalem has given way to grieving its fall while captive in a foreign land.21 Cultic Use Allen notes that the psalm would take on later cultic significance as it closed out the supplement to the Songs of Ascents and thus may have found use as a processional song as a Jew started their climb up the mountain to Jerusalem.22 Allen here also observes that it was used in later Jewish traditions on the ninth of Ab in a service to memorialize the destruction of Jerusalem and thus may have originally been composed for such a cultic function. Given the considerations above, it is unlikely that it was composed after the return to the land to commemorate the events but it may have been brought back home after the exile only to find its proper use in the cultic calendar. Structure The organization of the psalm is also somewhat disputed though overall the three sections of four lines are easily identified.23 Kidner titles them Pathos (1-3), Defiance (4-6) and Imprecation (7-9).24 VanGemeren calls them the Lament, the Confession of Confidence and the Prayer for Divine Intervention25 but divides them in exactly the same way. What are noteworthy for this current paper are two features that help to develop the theme of this Dirge of Zion. First of all what should be noticed is that along with each of the three sections there is a distinctive shift in the subject of the verses. The reader should take note of this by tracking the personal pronouns. In 1-3 the action is experienced as a communal distress26 and all the pronouns are in the first person plural. 1-4 is all experienced by “us/we.” Following this the action moves 21 This may also explain why the Psalmist was unable to sing the song in Babylon at the behest of his tormenters. As Bruggeman writes, “Such songs of Zion are not for public review. Indeed the songs of Zion are pornographic when they are sung among those who do not hope in Zion. But the resolve of verses 4-6 is that there will not be such a raid on our memory.” Walter Bruggeman, The Message of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984) 75. 22 Leslie Allen, “Psalms 101-150,” 239. 23 Shepherd, “The Place of the Imprecatory Psalms in the Canon of Scripture,” 40. 24 Derek Kider, Psalms 73-150 (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL:1975) 459. 25 VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 826-829. 26 As stated above, the first section is one of the major reasons for many scholars to classify this psalm as a communal lament so the communal status and plural personal pronouns should not be surprising on their own. 7 to the first person singular for the second section with the psalmist calling down curses upon himself should he forget or fail to exalt Jerusalem. This section uses “I/me” throughout. The final section contains hardly any pronouns27 but all of the action and participles are in reference to a third person being spoken about.28 Of importance to our purposes here is that the imprecation does not take on a tone of personal vendetta with the blessing for vengeance falling on “I/We”. Rather, in the imprecation the blessed one who metes out Yahweh’s vengeance on Babylon is left vague and the psalmist does not make a “we will avenge ourselves!” manner of statement. The importance of this will be explored further on. The other significant feature to notice is the lexical similarity between Psalm 137 and Jeremiah 51. In Ps. 137 the psalmist seems to have the utmost confidence that Yahweh will in fact bring destruction upon Babylon for what she has done to Israel and her people. Why can the psalmist be so sure of such a destructive end? The answer is found when we compare this psalm with Jeremiah’s prophecies against Babylon and notice that the psalmist seems intimately aware of them. In Jeremiah 51:35 the people pronounce an imprecation on Babylon saying, “May the violence done to our flesh be upon Babylon...” and Yahweh responds by saying, “I will defend your cause and avenge you.” This promise is rooted in his own wrathful statement in 51:22 where he says, “I shatter young man and maiden...” which is likely one of the reasons for the psalmist’s mention of dashing infants to the rocks29, though we will shortly see a more complete reason for such a statement. In fact, what is even more surprising is that almost every noun and verb found in Ps. 137:8 is used first in Jeremiah 51.30 Once the psalmist is steeped in the promises given through Jeremiah, he then could be confident that Yahweh would bring a violent end to violent Babylon because God had already vowed that he would. Jeremiah 51 also shows the irony that Babylon the destroyer would be destroyed and so the psalmist does not merely say that Babylon will be devastated, but can speak of it with such confidence that he can title them as “Babylon, you devastated one,” in v8 as if it 27 Possible exceptions may be seen in a participle describing Babylon (“you devastated one”) in 8, as well as Babylon being addressed as “you,” also in 8. 28 The sons of Edom who said, “Raze it, raze it to its very foundation,” are spoken of, as is the one who repays and the one who dashes the little ones to the rock. 29 The psalmist may also be combining the prophecy in Jer. 51 with the prophecy found in Is. 13:16 in which the Lord says to Isaiah concerning Babylon, “Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes,” and uses the same term for child/infant though it uses a synonym for how the psalmist describes the “dashing”. 30 Rodriguez gives examples such as “daughter of Babylon” (Jer. 51μ33), “the destroyer” (Jer. 51μ48), “to repay” (Jer. 51μ6), “reward” (Jer. 51μ6), “to smash” (Jer. 51μ20-22) and “rock” (Jer. 51μ25). Angel Rodriguez, “Inspiration and the imprecatory Psalms,” 56. 8 has already occurred. For him, the destruction of Babylon is just as certain as if it had already transpired. Yet the abiding problem for this Psalm is clearly the final line of the imprecation – that there is glory or blessing to be found in what appears to be a cruel and unjust brutality toward the most innocent of any people, its infants. While other Imprecatory Psalms appear to call down violence and seek revenge, they do so against violent men who are actively harming and oppressing the people of God. For many, that helpless infants are the subject of such wanton violence appears to place this psalm in a class of its own. The challenge is ornamented and made more cutting by its connection with other theological concepts such as the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures and indeed the omnibenevolence of God himself, for how can an all good and all loving God take any delight or see any cause as meritorious of the bashing of infants against the rocks? While the sentiment would be understandable (though some argue hardly decent or dignified) if we understand the text as the product of thoroughly human authorship and experience merely expressing a human response to evil, what place does it have in the canon of a holy and loving God? After all, are we not to turn the other cheek and forgive seven times seventy times for they know not what they do? Evaluation of Interpretive Views31 Numerous patterns of interpretation and application have arisen through the centuries as the church has struggled to understand the role of imprecation in the canon. The views range from all out denial of their inspiration to a full endorsement of their use in the worship of the church today. Several of these views will not be examined due to space and as they are considered simply too far afield. However, the prominent views will be given consideration: a. Denial of the inspiration of the imprecations as mere human vindictiveness. According to this view the psalmist may be personally committed to God and the defense of his name but is in fact estranged from his Spirit and thus not worthy of a Christian ethic. 32 This view is simply unacceptable to the Christian church as a possibility unless there is a desire to simply excise 31 One view that will not be considered here is that imprecation in the OT should be viewed as effective magical spells and that the mention of the curse directly brought about the outcome. Here most scholars seem to agree that this was not the conception present in Israel and that such curses would be better employed using execration pottery. The interpretations of the Imprecatory Psalms that root themselves in issues surrounding Davidic authorship are also not helpful for the purposes of this paper as Psalm 137 is not a psalm attributed to David. 32 John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Abington, 1967), 238. 9 whatever passages of scripture do not decorously and without protest submit to the whims of an ever changing sinful society. If this option is on the table, then one is left wondering why we should desire to leave any negative statement (sin?) within the pages of a redacted twenty-first century canon. How soon would the Song of Moses, the Song of Deborah, the curses of the prophets and of Lamentations, and even the woes of Jesus fall to the cutting room floor? b. Imprecations are inspired but only to show authentic human emotion. This is the view of the Christian darling of scholarship C.S Lewis. He writes that these poems of cursing were written by “ferocious, self-pitying, barbaric men.”33 This view is pushed further by Webster who writes, “were these imprecatory psalms the language of more personal animosity to his foes, they would mark David as one of the most savage, profane and cruel among men.”34 However, besides the precariously diminished view of inspiration and canonicity this position also misses the overall covenantal thrust of redemptive history which will be explored below. c. Dispensational views of the Psalms as belonging to Israel and not the church.35 Maclaren writes of the curses of the psalms that “the form of these maledictions belongs to a lower stage of revelation...”36 Besides the problem with the dispensational schema overall and the bifurcation of the ethics of God between the dispensations, the failure of this view is to be found within the pages of Pentateuch. It cannot be said that the Old Testament saint was living under a different ethic than the Christian when they were equally commanded, “If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there, be sure to help him with it,” (Ex. 23μ4-5), or later, “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord,” (Lev. 19μ18). In fact the same Old Testament with the imprecation also has the endorsement of the ethics of Job when he says,37 “If I have rejoiced at my enemy’s misfortune or gloated over the trouble that came to him— 33 C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (London: Geoffrey Bliss, 1958) 26. 34 J.H. Webster, “The Imprecatory Psalms,” in John McNaughter, editor, The Psalms in Worship (Pittsburg: The United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1907) 300. 35 Carl Laney, “A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms,” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (1981) 38. 36 Alexander McClaren, The Psalms, Vol. 3 (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1901) 706. 37 Raymond Surburg, “The Interpretation of the Imprecatory Psalms,” The Springfielder, 39 (December 1975)μ 98. 10  30 I have not allowed my mouth to sin by invoking a curse against their life The psalmist would surely be familiar with the ethic of turning the other cheek and seeking the good of one’s enemies endorsed throughout the Old Testament and so these curses cannot simply be written off as a bygone ethic. d. The psalmist is using poetical exaggeration. This view has multiple components with one of the more inventive being that the received text is at many places missing a transitional verb which would entail that the imprecation were actually on the lips of the enemy and not the psalmist himself. deClaissé-Walford also affirms a version of this view when she writes, “Poetry is evocative, emotional, image-filled, and replete with hyperbole, and it cannot, must not, be read literally.”38 For deClaissé-Walford the purpose of the imprecations is not to give a final appeal to a wrathful God but rather is to lead us to introspection about the wrath and hatred in our own hearts and to “suppress the primitive lust for violence in one’s own heart by surrendering everything to God.”39 As we will see presently this view does not take into account the themes of covenant and lex talionis in the Bible, but here it should also be asked what exactly is being said then by the curses. If the curse of swift and complete justice is not meant to be literal but symbolical or allegorical, what is it allegorical about? This view appears to be guilty of splitting hairs while endorsing a distinction with no real difference and if retribution does not entail real retribution, then this view may just be subsumed under the previous emotional one. e. Enemies are impersonal forces and not persons. Mowinckel seems to have adopted this view to some extent when he listed the modern equivalents of the evil spirits not as oppressive dictators or wicked men but rather as “Dishonesty, Impurity, Selfishness, Lovelessness, Fear, Bitterness, Hatred and the like...”40 It has recently been endorsed by Ringgren who pointed out that many laments41 describe the enemies being verbally assaulted as “wildbeasts, demons, or mythological monsters.”42 For Ringgren this means that the psalmist had forces that were more than human in mind. Like the others, this view may be possible in the case of some of the psalms 38 Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, “The Theology of the Imprecatory Psalms,” Rolf Jacobson, editor, Soundings in the Theology of Psalms (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011) 90. 39 Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, “The Theology of the Imprecatory Psalms,” 91. 40 Sigmund Mowinckel, The Old Testament as Word of God, trans, Reidar B. Bjornard (New York; Abingdon Press, 1959) 59. 41 Notably 22:12, 13, 16 and 73:6-9. 42 Page H.Kelley, “Prayers of Troubled Saints”, Review & Expositor, 81 (1984), no. 3, 378. 11 but it is hard to imagine how it would work with Psalm 137 considering the all too human infants included in the imprecation. So which of these views, if any, should the Christian accept as the most in line with the Jesus ethic taught to us in the Gospels? It will be helpful at this point to address three factors that that assist in the interpretation and application of this passage for the church: a) covenant, b) lex tallionis and c) divine vengeance. Covenant When God entered into covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses he did so under the typical covenantal conventions of the time. This included all of the structures of blessings and curses. Often we rejoice in the promise given to Abraham and what that means for the believer in Christ, indeed Paul expressly draws on the beauty of the promise and the assurance it provides for the one who trusts in Jesus. However what thought is given to the equally certain promise that Yahweh would curse those who curse you? For Workshop, the Psalms are actually literary expressions of the previous legal texts. He writes, “The curses are reflections of liturgical formulasμ they pertain to the ritual of the covenant as it appears from the ancient litany of twelve curses in Dt. 27.”43 The imprecations then can be seen as the response of the people to God via an appeal to his covenant fidelity. Yahweh promised that he would curse any people who cursed his people. That was not something that Israel invented for themselves to feel special but was the direct revealed promise of God in his own words. It was his statement. Israel then was playing the vassal as they appealed to their suzerain to keep good on his pledge. Kline writes, “The Psalter’s function in covenantal confession suggests that it may be regarded as an extension of the vassal’s ratifications response, which is found in certain biblical as well as extra-biblical covenants as part of the treaty text.”44 This is also supported by the fact that the blessings of the covenant are repeatedly celebrated in Psalms. “The cultic community expects and prays for blessing from Yahweh.”45 We see the psalmists calling on God to bless his people (3:8; 28:9; 29:11; 67:1, 6, 7; 118:26; 128μ5ν 129μ8 and 134μ3) in addition to praising God for his “loving kindness” – a way of 43 A. Workshop, “The Psalms of Imprecation,” Indian Theological Studies, 21 (3-4), Sept. – Dec. 1984. 343. An interesting point about Dt. 27 is that after each of the curses declared by the Levites, the people respond with a communal “amen.” 44 Meredith G. Kline, The Structures of Biblical Atuhority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 63. 45 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (Minneapolis; First Fortress Press, 1992) 70. 12 expressing is his covenant fidelity (105:7-10; 117:2; 119:90 and the repeated refrain in 136). So the psalmists are seen repeatedly appealing to the blessings and the curses associated with Yahweh’s covenant promises for Israel. Lex Tallionis The principle on which the psalmist makes his appeals is not some violent or blood thirsty need for revenge but was rather the very marked and measured standard of retribution found throughout the Old Testament and formalized in the law (Ex. 21:22-25; Lev. 24:17-2; and Dt. 19:16-21). This principle was not intended to provide justification for flights of fury and personal vendettas but was actually put in place specifically to curb such excesses. It was established to set a standard of recompense where the punishment must fit the crime. While the principle of LT was likely not applied literally in Israel in all cases,46 where the loss of life was involved there is little doubt that a life for life system of justice was in operation. For the psalmist then, the bloodshed caused by Babylon on such a large scale could only be rectified by the shedding of her own blood to the same degree – she bashed the Israeli infants to the stones and so the same must be done to them when they are overthrown. This was not revenge. This was justice. Thus the law of even and equal recompense underlies the whole psalm. Babylon will be scourged with her own whip and will suffer with the same horrors that she caused other to suffer under. One can think of the Lord’s statement that those who live by the sword will die by the sword – a statement of the LT if there ever was one. As revelation progressed the tightening of the regulations away from personal vendetta toward more judicial or governmental settings can be observed. Retaliation became more explicitly condemned and prohibited. For example, in Proverbs we find, “Do not say, ‘Just as he did to me, so I will do to himν I will pay that man back for what he has done’,” (24μ29ν cf. 20μ22). For the psalmist the cry for vengeance against Babylon and Edom were not wanting evil to befall her neighbors such that Israel could prosper and gain land or power or some other benefit. Rather it was that justice must be turned back on Babylon for her violent ways and to Edom for encouraging her to go even further. This would have been viewed as a punishment commensurate with the crime that was perpetrated meted out by a rightful authority – Yahweh 46 Wenham notes that it would be used as a formula and allowed for a slave who was harmed to receive his freedom (not harm back) in Ex. 21:26, and the man who killed an ox was charged a fine rather than have his own ox killed in Lev. 24:28. Gordon Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1979) 312. 13 himself. Such views of justice should cause the church to pause and wonder what the proper response is to the manifestations of the evil experienced in the Sudan for example, where Christians experience widespread rape, murder, mutilation, and enslavement.47 Do we think that our human sense of justice is somehow more elevated than Yahweh’s? Divine Vengeance Ancient Near Eastern views of recompense were also very this worldly in that they held that if justice was going to happen, it would happen within this life.48 If God was going to deal with Babylon he would not do so in the courts of heaven but by toppling them through the might of another nation. For the Israelite then it was not even questioned that when God redressed the wrongs done to his people that he would do so in this life.49 For what other weapon is to be found in the arsenal of the oppressed against his oppressor when revolt is not an option? An appeal to divine vengeance was the final court of appeals for the Israelite suffering under the boot of a seemingly all powerful oppressive force. What could possibly move the ostensibly immovable rock of Babylon except the unstoppable force of the living God who created the world and all powers therein? What is implicit by these curses is the appeal to the other to act. This is no small point of theology. Indeed this is the heart of Volf’s view that a belief in divine vengeance is the only hope for a world free of personal revenge. It has been observed that these imprecations are never accompanied by personal acts of violence or revenge against one’s enemies.50 Moreover they demonstrably assume that retaliation and recompense are solely under the authority and are the duty of Yahweh alone. As LeMon writes, “Rather than portraying a picture of Israel’s God as a vindictive deity, the psalmists picture God as profoundly and unflinchingly just, a status that necessitates some form of punishment for those who upset the right order that God has established. Thus pleas for God to act violently are essentially faithful statements about the ultimate outcomes of God’s righteousness... The psalmists leave the judgment up to God, putting 47 John Day, “The Imprecatory Psalms and Christian Ethics,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 159 (2002) 176. Examples could be multiplied especially following the horrors of the 20th century. 48 Page H.Kelley, “Prayers of Troubled Saints,” 379. 49 Spurgeon reminds us, “The revenges of providence may be slow, but they are ever sure...” C.H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (Peabody: Henrickson Publishers; 1989) 229. 50 Page H.Kelley, “Prayers of Troubled Saints,” 380. 14 down the swords, nets, and clubs and lifting up their voices in prayer.”51 There is no instance in the psalms where the psalmist prayed for permission to take revenge on his own enemies by his own hand but rather God is always appealed to as the avenger against the unjust.52 There are other grammatical reasons to adopt this view of divine judgment as well. Lessing observes that the statement “I will curse” in the promises of Yahweh to his people come from the Hebrew word ‫ אא‬and when used in that context is always found in an imperfect qal verb form but when the same verb is used in the context of Israel’s cursing texts (e.g. Dt. 28) it appears as a qal, passive participle.53 This is important for Lessing who sees Yahweh as an active performer in vengeance while Israel is passive, only acting through petition. Imprecation in the New Testament For those concerned with the curses found in the Old Testament and who have been convinced that no such execrations are to be found in the New Testament, a brief comment shall be made to disabuse them of such a conviction. Not only does the New Testament not denounce such malediction, but it actually endorses and repeats some of them. In Acts 1:20 Peter combines curses found in Psalm 69:25 of Psalm 109:8 when he explains why the brutal death of Judas the betrayer was assured and then later curses Simon Magus by saying that his money will perish with him (Acts 8:20). In Acts 23:3 Paul asks God to smite the chief priest. In fact he appears to take it even further when he pronounces those who present another gospel (Gal. 1:9) and who do not love the Lord (1 Cor. 16:22) as anathema (ἀ άθε α). This is the same word used by the LXX to describe those put under the ban during the conquest of the land – a statement of utter annihilation and destruction. They are those who are to be cut off from the land of the living, thus Paul is quite literally saying that he wishes them to be cursed to death for their sin. 54 More relevant for the discussion here is the vision of the destruction and fall of the eschatological Babylon in Revelation where John seems to have no issue showing that God is still in the 51 Joel M. LeMon, “Saying Amen to Violent Psalms,” Rolf Jacobson, editor, Soundings in the Theology of Psalms (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011) 101. Bullock agrees when he writes, “The psalmist consigned the matter to God. There was absolutely no effort on his part to take personal revenge. He seemed aware of the Mosaic principle, ‘Vengeance is mine’ (Deut 32μ35).” C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books (Chicago; Moody Press, 1979) 140. 52 J. Carl Laney, “A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 138 (1981) 42. 53 Reed Lessing, “Broken Teth, Bloody Baths, and Baby Bashingsμ Is There Any Place in the Church for Imprecatory Psalms?” Concordia Journal 32, no. 4 (2006) 369. 54 This is also the same word that Paul says he would gladly take upon himself if it would save his brethren in Romans 9:3, showing that Paul likely also agreed that vengeance was the sole prerogative of God and that Paul would not kill to redeem people but would be killed to spread the gospel himself. 15 business of judging with violence those who use violence to oppress and harm the church (Rev. 18:6, 20; cf. Jer. 51:48). In fact Jesus himself did not shrink in the face of evil but cursed cities for their lack of repentance (Mt. 11:20-24), pronounced woes on all manner of religious hypocrisy (Mt. 23) and overturned the money changing tables that were preventing true worship in the temple (Mt. 25; John 2). So far from the New Testament maturing beyond the brutish Old Testament ethic of divine vengeance, it is still a vital part of the canon of the early church. Application for the Church Throughout the history of Psalter, the Imprecatory Psalms have always been included within the canon. Not only do the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible include them, they were included in the Septuagint Psalter, as well as all of the Psalters found within the DDS. 55 It is only in modern times that some of them have been left out.56 That the body of believers down throughout the centuries have found value in these psalms and included them in their scriptures should cause pause to any who wish to jettison them or relegate them to a subordinate canon within the canon. “Christian worship tends to be all triumph, all good news (even the confession of sin is not a very awesome experience because we know the assurance of pardon is comingν it’s printed in the bulletin). And what does that say to those who, at the moment, know nothing of triumph? That they muffed it, somehow? That their faith hasn’t been strong enough to grant them success? That the whole business is a fraud?”57 We must remember that the cries of lament and the imprecations are not from the lips of the untroubled saint living in the lap of luxury but the poor, the needy, and the oppressed. deClaissé-Walford asks even more pointedly, “What if a church member has been gang raped...?”58 Surely the simplicity and clarity of the question is enough to shock the church into imprecation – not to personal vendetta but a calling on the covenant God to stand with his people, to justify them and to mete out justice for the horrors of such real and unabashed malevolence. McCann writes, “In the face of monstrous evil, the worst possible response is to feel nothing. What must be felt is grief, rage and outrage. In their absence, evil 55 Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, “The Theology of the Imprecatory Psalms,” 80. 56 Even the conservative based Trinity Hymnal leaves out Psalm 109 and 137. 57 Donald E. Gowan, The Triumph of Faith in Habakkuk, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976) 38. 58 Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, “The Theology of the Imprecatory Psalms,” 83. 16 becomes acceptable and common place.”59 Bruggeman wonders if these psalms will only find a home among those who have been personally brutalized60 but surely the church can grieve together as our brothers and sisters are raped, tortured, and killed around the world and call out to God for justice and to throw off the shackles of oppression. As Babylon was portrayed as a destroyer because of her blood thirst and willingness to brutalize infants in the womb and without, surely the church can sing the praises of God that he will mete out justice on those who would still seek to do the same to our children under the deceptive moniker of choice and personal liberty – for is this not a more vile evil than performing such carnage in the heat of battle? Yet what would an average American Christian think if their pastor stood in the pulpit with their hand on the Bible and called on the violent vengeance of God against the abortion clinic, the human traffickers and the jihadists who hunt down and kill our brothers and sisters? Would we shudder to think we were reverting to the inquisitorial days and times of religious intolerance and war gone by? However, Bruggeman goes so far as to wonder if true forgiveness is even possible without a genuinely articulated hatred of evil. For it is only when we give over our hatred to God, to allow him to judge for us, that we are freed from the cycle of violence and revenge and are able to forgive in the face of oppression. There is a price to forgiveness however – a weighty and troubling cost. The cost is dying to ourselves to live in Jesus – to leave the problems of evil and sin, vengeance and hatred at the very foot of the cross of Christ. It is there that our sins, the dictators’ and mine, are addressed by the wrath of God61 and only after by his grace. The price is the creature recognizing the Creator as the only holy and righteous Judge and to agree when the Lord says, “Vengeance is mine” and to leave it at that. God has promised to bless and God has promised to curse. Who are we to try and usurp his prerogative in either? This balance is seen in the reaction of Peter to Simon Magus mentioned above. Although Peter effectively called down the wrath of God to end the earthly life of Simon, he only expected it in the case of continued sin. Peter followed the curse with a call to repent and turn to the Lord, “Repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you,” (Acts 1μ22). Peter gives us a case study in how the church can innocently but effectively use imprecation to call out the sin and evil of the world which seeks to 59 J. Clinton McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 119. 60 Bruggeman, The Message of the Psalms, 77. 61 There may even be possible applications to a Christian counseling method for patients coming through times of agony. See Dominick D. Hankle, “The Therapeutic Implications of The Imprecatory Psalms in the Christian Counseling Setting,” Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38:4 (2010) 275-280. 17 assault the name of God and oppress his people, while handing over all vengeful action to God alone. Peter’s role is not executioner but evangelist. We are to call down God’s justice on the evils of the world62 but to, in love warn people to flee the coming wrath and to gain new life by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. An Israelite could call for the bashing of an infant of Babylon as a sign of God’s judgment for the horrendous oppression of God’s people but should that same Israelite ever come across such a child in need, he was to tenderly wrap him, bandage any wounds, and sing him sweet songs of the gracious work of God while delivering him home as safely as possible. Conclusion The problem of imprecation in the Scriptures is not a new problem and will need special attention from the church as long as there are wicked and violent men in the world. Yet rather than suppress them into the shadows or dismiss them as ethics of a bygone age, the church should rejoice in what they tell us about the God that we worship. God is not dispassionate to the pleas of his oppressed people. He does not turn a blind eye to injustice and tyranny nor does he ever take sides against the poor and the needy. He will act in judgment and wrath, for these are the “dark side of his mercy and compassion.”63 He is not only a God who blesses his people but will judge in righteousness and yes, sometimes even violence, to rescue them from the clutches of evil men. Volf’s complete statement is a helpful corrective to the docile and entitled church of the Western world: My thesis is that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine vengeance…My thesis will be unpopular with man in the West…But imagine speaking to people (as I have) whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned, and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers have had their throats slit…Your point to them– we should not retaliate? Why not? I say–the only means of prohibiting violence by us is to insist that violence is only legitimate when it comes from God…Violence thrives today, secretly nourished by the belief that God refuses to take the sword…It takes the quiet of a suburb for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence is a result of a God who refuses to judge. In a scorched land–soaked in the blood of the innocent, the idea will invariably die, like other pleasant captivities 62 Though it is beyond the scope of the present work, Vos gives helpful arguments defending the prerogative of God to give and take life based on his own good will and that humans do not stand before God with a list of demands and just desserts. Johannes Vos, “The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms,” Westminster Theological Journal, 04:2 (1942) 123-138. 63 Page H.Kelley, “Prayers of Troubled Saints”, 380 18  of the liberal mind…if God were NOT angry at injustice and deception and did NOT make a final end of violence, that God would not be worthy of our worship.64 Truly, there is a species of violence which is entirely worthy of worship. It just does not, indeed must not, originate from us. The Apostle John records one of the choruses in heaven in Revelation, 1. “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, 2 for true and just are his judgments. He has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. He has avenged on her the blood of his servants.” 3 And again they shouted: “Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.” (Rev. 19:1b-3) If perfected saints in heaven are just in their praise of God for his just wrath and destruction of the wicked, why would it be inappropriate for the church today? Let us rejoice that our God is holy, righteous and mighty to save and will rescue his people from all bondage, especially the bondage of sin and death. “Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”” (Dt. 27μ15c). 64 Mirosalv Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 303-304. 19