Imprecatory Psalms

How can we as Christians understand and use the fiery imprecations that we find in the Psalms?

First of all, we need to understand the imprecatory psalms as a plea for justice to be done and for wrongs to be righted. This is certainly a sentiment that even the New Testament expresses (Luke 18:1-8), where not only is there a concern for clearing one’s name but a call for retribution within the context of the legal system. It must be emphasized that the imprecations in the psalms are not expressions of personal vindictiveness but a sincere, heartfelt cry for justice.

Second, we need to realize that the New Testament has a much fuller revelation than what was available to the psalmists. The cross brings in a whole new dynamic in the way that we relate to those who wrong us as well as an assurance that evil will ultimately be dealt with.

Third, we find that the imprecations range all the way from plaintive to ferocious. The intensity of the imprecation reflects the intensity of the evil that has been suffered. The psalmists were responding to having their friends respond to their love with brutality (109:4) or their enemies brutally take advantage of their weakness (137). The greater the offense the more intense the cry for vengeance.

Fourth, imprecations must be interpreted in accordance with the rules of rhetoric that govern this genre. Just as proverbs, parables, epistles, apocalyptic and gospels are separate genres with unique attributes that need to be understood properly in order to interpret them correctly, so too imprecations are a separate genre with peculiar attributes that need special attention when being interpreted. An imprecation is a form of hyperbole, a poetic device that crosses over the line of cautious literalism. Imprecations are designed to elicit an intense emotional response from the reader, not impart cold, rational facts. It seeks to kindle in the reader the same emotional response to injustice as the one suffering it experienced. Thus, it is indirect yet very intimate. There are times when we can calmly discuss evil and injustice, but there are also times when we need to experience the full force of evil and injustice as if it were happening to us. Imprecations can do that while calm discourse cannot.

Fifth, other biblical figures, such as Jeremiah and Job, wrestled with deep emotional responses to severe pain, suffering and injustice. In response to their intense expressions of pain and despair, God listens to the whole man and the whole message, acknowledging both the content and the emotion, rebuking when the line is crossed while agreeing with what is true in their complaints (see Jeremiah 12:5; 11:20-23; 12:7ff; Job 38:2; 42:7). God, then, is able to handle the complaints of his saints and is compassionate enough to listen to our hearts and not simply our words.

Sixth, the New Testament focuses on grace and forgiveness, where the Gospel is preached to all, especially to sinners. However, in championing God’s love it doesn’t eliminate God’s wrath, but both are held in balance by the cross. While some quotations of the psalms in the New Testament stop short of the imprecations, those who reject Christ and his message are said to have earned a fate worse than Sodom’s. In fact, God’s wrath and the iron rod of the Messiah of Psalm 2 are clearly prominent in Revelation, “the day of his wrath” (110:5) is found in Romans 2:5, and the anger called down on those “who do not know” God (79:6) is confirmed in 2 Thessalonians 1:8. In fact, often the punishment meted out in the New Testament is much more severe than the vindication called for in the quoted psalm (compare Matthew 7:23 with Psalm 6:8). Therefore, it is too simplistic to say that the God of the Old Testament is a wrathful God while the God of the New Testament is a God of love. God is loving, merciful and forgiving in both testaments just as he is just, righteous and an avenger of evil in both testaments. Therefore, while the call for forgiveness is much stronger in the New Testament, God’s wrath is still evident for those who reject that forgiveness and persist in their evil.

Seventh, pleas for vindication can sometimes be viewed as the fact of innocent blood “crying” like Abel’s “from the ground to God.” Injustice and bloodshed are evil and must be vindicated. Any moral system that does not call evil “evil” is self-destructive and harmful. Calls for vindication in this sense are never expressions of personal vindictiveness or vigilante justice, but the cry of justice and righteousness to prevail against the forces of evil. Anyone who would deny this cry is on the wrong side.

Eighth, the Christian today can still profit from the imprecatory psalms in several ways. Because we have a fuller revelation we cannot cry out for vindication in the same way as the psalmists, but we can express our pain and suffering to God while at the same time blessing those who persecute us and praying for those who are treating us unjustly. We can also profit from the imprecations if we allow them to hit us with their full emotional force, deepening our appreciation for the pain and suffering of those who are being treated unjustly, moving our hearts to act with compassion to seek justice in our own world. The imprecatory psalms can also remind us that God’s judgment on sin and evil is real and there will be a day when all the evil in the world will be dealt with and all the wrongs will be righted, so that justice and righteousness will reign like the noon-day sun.


While the imprecatory psalms may make us feel uneasy and not seem relevant to our modern world and the age of grace, it should remind us that we must remain on the side of justice and righteousness and not use the weapons of evil to inflict pain and suffering on those around us. While we need to patiently endure injustice, love our enemies, and trust God to right the wrongs done to us, we also need to be reminded that if we are not careful, we may find ourselves on the wrong side of justice as the perpetrators of injustice and the subjects of someone else’s imprecations.


Much of this material was adapted from Derek Kidner’s commentary, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, pages 25-32.

Mercy vs. Justice

God acts mercifully not by contradicting his justice but by doing what is over and above it .... Mercy does not displace justice; rather it is the fullness of justice.
- Thomas Aquinas

The Color of Law

The Color of Law, Mark Gimenez’s first novel, follows in the style of John Grisham. Gimenez has the same grasp of the law and the moral dilemmas faced by lawyers. Gimenez is grittier than Grisham and tends to be a little preachy, yet he has a readable style that balances vivid detail with action and suspense.

Scott Fenny is a wealthy lawyer in the biggest law firm in Dallas. Scott has succeeded by being creative with the law, doing whatever he has to in order to win. He is living the perfect life, living in a $3 million mansion, drives a $200,000 Ferrari, wears thousand dollar suits, dines at the most exclusive dinner clubs, and is envied by many. But Scott is selfish, self-centered, arrogant, uncaring and shallow, just like all the other successful people around him, but he doesn’t know it.

Then into his perfect life falls a bomb. The federal judge appoints him as a public defender for a heroin-addicted prostitute charged in the murder of senator McCall’s son. Senator McCall is one of the most powerful men in Texas and is running for president, and he pressures Scott’s boss to keep his son’s wild and violent past out of the trial. Scott chafes at being told to lose the case and refuses to withhold the evidence.

Within days his perfect life has been completely unraveled. He loses his Ferrari, his mansion, his exclusive club memberships, and his wife, who walks out on him. Finally, he loses his main client and then his job. Completely devastated, Scott is forced to search his soul to find out what is most important. He chooses to defend the prostitute to the best of his ability; to discover the truth and not simply win. As a result, his life is completely changed and Scott becomes a caring, compassionate, man who thinks of other’s needs and not just his own.

Several quotes from the story are profound:

First, Scott’s boss tells him, “The color of the law is not black and white; it’s not about race. The color of law is green; money is what the law is all about. The law is for making and protecting rich men’s money.”

Second, Scott’s boss recounts what his first boss told him about success as a lawyer, in order to convince Scott to lose the case and move on. He said, “Early in your career you must decide whether you want to do ‘good’ or do ‘well.’ If you do ‘good’ you will never do ‘well’; you’ll never be successful. How does a lawyer become successful? By doing his job. Which is making rich people richer. And we get paid very well for doing our job. You have to ask yourself, ‘Do you want to make money or do you want to make the world a better place? Do you want to drive a Cadillac or a Chevrolet? Do you want to send your kids to private schools or public schools? Do you want to be a rich lawyer or a poor lawyer?’ If you want to do good, go work for the legal aid and help the little people battle their landlords, the utility companies and the police, and feel good about it. But don’t have regrets twenty years later when your classmates are driving new cars and taking vacations in Europe. And you will have to tell your kids that they can’t go to an Ivy League school because you did ‘good’.”


Gimenez is very cynical about lawyers and clearly shows the moral dilemma a lawyer must face. A lawyer, according to Gimenez, is merely someone who gets paid to lie. And the better you are at lying the more successful you will be as a lawyer. A lawyer will never be successful if he is concerned about truth and justice. While this may be hyperbole, anyone who desires to become a lawyer should wrestle with this dilemma before he even considers going to law school. For the rest of us, it is important to remember that a lawyer doesn’t have your best interest in mind; all he cares about is the bottom line.


Third, when Scott’s main client drops him, Scott asks him why he isn’t being loyal to him as a friend, since he took him on as a client eleven years ago when he was just a struggling land developer. The client retorts, “I am only loyal to my friends. All you wanted was my money, so that is all I ever gave you. You over billed me and took as much money from me as you could, and I didn’t complain; that was my payment to you in full. You are not my friend because you didn’t want to be my friend. And because you are not my friend, you don’t deserve my loyalty.”

Gimenez portrays the loneliness of a life lived only for success, money, status and all the things that go with it. There is no love, no intimacy, no transparency, no friendship between anyone, not even his wife. The only person Scott even gets close to is his nine-year old daughter. Everyone else is using him and being used by him, making love and true friendship impossible. Everyone needs to consider the cost of such a life and determine if it is truly “success.”

A Darkness More Than Night

Detective Harry Bosch is a key witness in a murder trial seeking to convict a movie producer for the strangulation death of a young actress. While he is testifying he is also being investigated for a gruesome murder of a man who had been arrested by Bosch several years earlier for murdering a prostitute but was released. Bosch becomes the main suspect as the FBI suspects he has crossed the line and has become an avenging angel.

Harry enlists the help of a retired FBI profiler, Terry McCaleb, who actually was helping the Sheriff’s department with the stalled investigation. While McCaleb was the one who initially identified Bosch as the most likely suspect, he is kicked off the case and then persuaded by Bosch to help him find the real killer before the news breaks and destroys his credibility in the murder trial for which he is the key witness. Pressed for time, McCaleb looks at the evidence from a new perspective and begins to track down the real killer.

I won’t reveal any more because it will ruin the suspense of the story. What I found interesting about this story was watching McCaleb, as a topnotch profiler, tease valuable information out of seemingly useless clues. It was also interesting to see that McCaleb’s initial conclusions were wrong, showing that psychological profiling is not an exact science.

Much of the evidence in the case revolves around the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch, a 15th century Dutch painter known for his dark portrayals of judgment and damnation. McCabe makes the link to Detective Harry Bosch, whose first name is actually Hieronymus as well, because the crime scene was set up to resemble Bosch’s paintings. Connelly gives us some good art history and appreciation as McCabe investigates the connection between the paintings and the murder.

Michael Connelly is a good writer and knows how to keep the pace moving, revealing important clues at just the right time while adding enough twists to keep you guessing. The heroes are also very human, well rounded and believable. Harry Bosch has enough dark tendencies to keep his halo from glowing too brightly. Connelly clearly shows the demands of police work and how they can destroy relationships, especially marriages. When an officer becomes consumed by his work, those closest to him, especially his family, suffer.

It is easy to see how police and those who deal in the dark underside of society can become jaded, disillusioned and bitter. It is not easy living half of your life in the “darkness” of the streets of our cities and the criminal justice system, so we shouldn’t take what our public defenders do for granted. Nor should we vilify then or put them on pedestals since they are regular human beings like us thrust into extraordinary circumstances that most of us would not put up with.



This is the seventh novel in the Harry Bosch series which includes the following books(“x” indicates those I have read so far):
The Black Echo (1992) (x)
The Black Ice (1993)
The Concrete Blonde (1994)
The Last Coyote (1995)
Trunk Music (1997)
Angels Flight (1999)
A Darkness More Than Night (2001) (x)
City Of Bones (2002)
Lost Light (2003)
The Narrows (2004)
The Closers (2005)
Echo Park (2006)
The Overlook (2007)

Is Ending the War a Matter of Faith

In his blog on Friday, March 16, 2007, Jim Wallis wrote an article entitled: “Ending the War is a Matter of Faith” in which he argued that the War in Iraq is morally wrong and cannot be justified. He says that it cannot be justified by the teachings of Jesus or by Augustine’s just war doctrine. He feels that not only is the war un-Christian, but it is an offense to all the young men who have been sent to fight, to the Iraqis, and to all who have been shortchanged by the diversion of funds from more important projects and concerns. Jim calls for all Christians to pray and seek the end of the war by mobilizing the faith community in our country to change the current wind of public opinion.

St. Augustine said that protection of one’s own life or property is never a just reason for killing one’s neighbor. However, this applies only to individuals and not to the leaders of nations who have the obligation to maintain peace and order. He states, “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.” He continues, “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” The intention of the war is very important for St. Augustine. He says, “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such things, all these are rightly condemned in war.” St. Augustine emphasizes the idea of restoration of peace as the main motive of war. He says, “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” So in St. Augustine's thinking a war "was limited by its purpose, its authority and its conduct.”

Preemptive strikes are not considered justified by this doctrine. Iraq never attacked the United States or threatened our security. However, President Bush claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction that he intended to give to terrorists to use against the United States and its allies. The prospect of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons being used against American civilians is a scary prospect, and unfortunately it is very likely to happen in the near future. It is debatable whether the war in Iraq has reduced or increased the chances of this kind of attack happening, but the ends don’t justify the means.

With such a real and imminent threat our government has the moral obligation to act to deter such an attack to protect its citizens. Attacking Iraq was put forth as an essential element in our government’s plan to end global terrorism. The questions that needs to be asked are: Is ending global terrorism within the moral and legal rights of the United States and is it just to pursue military action to secure that objective? Is attacking another sovereign nation justified if it harbors and aids global terrorists that have clearly declared war on the United States? Is military action the best course of action to secure these objectives? Can diplomacy, sanctions and other nonviolent means be used effectively to stop global terrorism?

While I agree with Jim Wallis that indiscriminate war is unchristian and unjustifiable, I am not sure that the war on global terrorism fits that label. International terrorist organizations have clearly and repeatedly declared war on the United States. These organizations have carried out numerous deadly attacks on U.S. citizens, military and civilian, around the world. These organizations have attacked and killed thousands of civilians and military personnel on our own soil. These organizations have publicly vowed to carry out more of such attacks in the future. These organizations are actively seeking out nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to use against civilian and military targets overseas and within our own borders. Whether we like it or not, we are at war. Even if we do not strike back, we are still at war.

The difficulty comes not in determining whether we are at war and if we should defend ourselves, but how doe we defend ourselves against attacks against our civilians that come not from other nation states with clearly defined borders, armies, and governments but are transnational and often are indistinguishable from the civilian populations around them. There are not clear military targets, definitive armies or simple borders as in the past. Our understanding of warfare needs to be updated and changed to reflect the new realities. We cannot evaluate wars in the same way as we have in the past. As Christians, we need to spend more time studying these realities and evaluating what biblical responsibilities a government has towards its citizens and how Christian principles should guide decision-making in this new situation.

I agree with most of what Jim Wallis says, yet I feel that his evaluation of the current situation is too limited. I agree that Jesus has clearly laid down principles of non-violence and Christians must not strike back at those who strike them. However, governments have the moral obligation to protect their citizens and to maintain order. The Apostle Paul says, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3-4). The context is concerned about Christians obeying the government, yet there are some principles in this passage that are applicable to war. Governments are divinely appointed to maintain order and peace and have been invested with the authority to punish wrongdoers. It would be immoral for a government to not punish crime or to allow wrongdoers to continue to hurting citizens. The government has been given divine authority to “bear the sword” both in civil and international affairs. Therefore, it is not always wrong to go to war. In fact, there are times it is wrong to not go to war.

Therefore, the question we should be asking is whether the war in Iraq is essential to bringing criminals to justice and to prevent these criminals from committing future crimes against our citizens. Jim Wallis doesn’t believe that the war in Iraq meets these criteria and therefore should be stopped. I am very sympathetic to his call to peace, but I am still doing more research on the current situation before I make a final decision about the legitimacy of the war. Since I am coming at this years later that Jim, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hold my judgment in humility. However, I must still do my own research and make my own decision based upon as much correct information that I can obtain.

So, is the war in Iraq a matter of faith? Definitely. Should we pray for it to end? Yes. Was it a political and military blunder? Maybe. Is it a just war?

You can read Jim Wallis' article at: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/03/jim-wallis-ending-war-is-matter-of.html

Electra

Euripides’ version of the Electra story differs from Sophocles’ in both setting and focus. The story tells the revenge Electra and her brother Orestes take on their mother and step-father for murdering their father, Agamemnon. Clytemnestra, and her lover Aegisthus, murdered Agamemnon on his return from the Trojan war, and then plotted to kill both Electra and Orestes. The head servant hid Orestes and took him to safety where he lived as an exile. Clytemnestra pleaded with Aegisthus not to kill Electra, so he forced her to marry an old peasant so that any children she might bear would be poor and of ignoble birth, making it unlikely that they would threaten his usurped throne.

Orestes now returns in disguise to avenge his father’s death. He reveals himself to his sister, Electra, and they plot to kill Aegisthus and their mother. Orestes hacks down Aegisthus with a meat cleaver while he is offering a sacrifice to the nymphs. He hides the body in Electra’s house and they wait for their mother to complete their task. Clytemnestra comes and tries to justify her murder of Agamemnon by claiming it was revenge for his offering their daughter as a sacrifice before leaving for Troy, as well as for bringing back Cassandra as a concubine from Troy. The dialogue between Electra and her mother highlights the differences in their values; Electra values justice while Clytemnestra values expediency.

Electra then invites her mother into the house and is slaughtered by Orestes who is waiting for her. She cries out for mercy and tries to play on Orestes’ instincts for loving his mother, but he refuses to listen to her desperate cries for mercy. Orestes and Electra emerge from the house, covered in blood and gore, shocked at the horror of their deed.

Electra must atone for her deed by marrying Orestes’ companion and Orestes must go to Athens to stand trial, most likely to be acquitted. Euripides clearly sees the two as innocent for seeking vengeance but still realizes the horror of killing one’s mother. The end of the play is a graphic description of how revenge wreaks havoc on those who pursue it. While contemplating revenge, Electra and Orestes are convinced of the justice of their actions, but after the deed is done, they are forever changed by the horror of their actions. You cannot get revenge without affecting the core of your being.

One quote from the play that I found profound was the line Electra speaks to Aegisthus, condemning him for marrying her mother: “Who so fixes his gaze on wealth or noble birth and weds a wicked woman, is a fool; better is a humble partner in his home, if she be virtuous than a proud one.” Great advice.

The Innocent Man

The Innocent Man, by John Grisham, is an excellent book based on a true story. This is Grisham’s first non-fiction work, and it is on the same level as his novels. I have greatly enjoyed every Grisham novel I have read, and this true life tale is no exception. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the criminal justice system in general and the death penalty in particular. Grisham has done extensive research and it shows on every page.

The Innocent Man chronicles the life and trial of Ron Williamson, accused of raping and murdering a young woman in Ada, Oklahoma. Ron signed with the Oakland A’s in 1971 and dreamed of making it in the big leagues. But an arm injury and bad habits destroyed his dreams and he returned home to live with his mother in Ada, depressed and isolated. His life consisted of drinking, bar-hopping, womanizing and sleeping twenty hours a day.

When Debra Sue Carter was raped in murdered in 1982, the police eventually put Ron on the top of their suspect list. For five years they looked for evidence against Ron and his friend Dennis Fritz, and ended up putting together a case against them based on bad forensic science, lazy police work, forced confessions, and questionable testimony from jailhouse snitches. Since Ron and Dennis were poor, they could not afford counsel and were assigned public defenders who were incompetent, overworked, underpaid, and unconcerned. As a result, Dennis received life in prison and Ron was given the death sentence.

Ron constantly professed his innocence and couldn’t understand why the police and the prosecutor were out to get him. Hard drinking, drugs and the stress of the trial and life on death row slowly eroded Ron’s sanity and his health. Just days before his execution he received a stay of execution and a new trial. His and Dennis’ convictions were overturned based upon new DNA evidence that clearly excluded them from the crime. The real criminal was finally brought to justice nearly twenty years after the crime.

Ron lost over a decade of his life by being falsely accused and condemned, along with his sanity and health. After being exonerated, Ron was so scarred that it was nearly impossible for him to live a normal life. He finally died in 2004.

This book challenged me in several ways. First, it made the problems in our judicial system real and tangible. It is one thing to see corruption and incompetence portrayed in movies and on TV, but it is quite another to see it in real life. It makes me pause and consider how widespread corruption and incompetence have infiltrated our judicial system. While I believe there are a lot of good people in the system doing incredible work, there needs to be some major changes made to weed out the bad and repair the damaged systems that do exist.

Second, one statement made in the book summarizes one of these problems: “Once a poor person gets sucked into the judicial system, it is almost impossible for him to get out.” [Not an exact quote.] Wealthy people rarely get the death penalty, and race probably has a large influence, though this book didn’t address it since most of the characters were white. The main factor is poverty, since those who can’t afford a lawyer tend are at the mercy of the system, which has very little mercy. When police and prosecutors are pressured to “solve” high profile cases, the poor often can’t defend themselves against false accusations and bad police work. And once a poor person is “marked” as a criminal, he will always be a criminal in the law’s eyes.

Third, the problems with the death penalty are powerfully portrayed in this story and they must be dealt with. Many death row inmates are mistreated, as Ron was, often in the form of taunting from guards, denial of medical services, and poor living conditions. One might have little sympathy for the suffering of hardened criminals, most of them murderers, but when innocent people get sent to death row, then it becomes massive injustice. Christians should be deeply concerned about these issues and not let prejudice and fear keep us from seeking and demanding justice.

Finally, some of the key characters in this real life story relied upon their Christian faith to make it through this ordeal. While many view “jailhouse conversions” with suspicion, we can’t rule out all professions of faith as spurious. While Ron’s faith was weak and insincere in his early life, the testing of his faith made it real and sincere. The faith of his sisters was also instrumental in their ability to weather the many ordeals and continue to be a source of help and support for Ron. Ron also had support from other Christians and he was able to help and support other prisoners as well. When Ron was exonerated, the church in which he grew up refused to acknowledge and support him. While it is understandable that many in the community and the church still felt Ron was guilty, it was unchristian to snub him and refuse to support him.

I highly recommend that you read this book and think about its implications. You can also check out a lot of this information on the web by searching for “Ron Williamson”, “The Innocence Project”, and “Dennis Fritz”. Check out this website: http://www.innocenceproject.org/.