Page images
PDF
EPUB

lence towards enemies? Has not Moses in the law said, "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again; if thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.' Was it not from the Old Testament that the apostle quoted that precept, worthy of a Savior God, 'If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for, in so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head,' to melt him down to love? Has not Christ, in the parable, expounded the grand precept of the law, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;' as enjoining acts of kindness towards Samaritans, whom the Jews considered as their worst enemies?

There is more weight in the observation, that many of the most awful imprecations are in those Psalms, which not only speak expressly of Christ, but in which he himself, is the speaker; so that the denunciations fall upon his enemies, and are predictions of the fate of Judas and the Jews. But this answer seems insufficient; because it will scarcely apply to all the imprecations. The first, which we have mentioned above, is from the 5th Psalm, which cannot, without forcing it to bend to an arbitrary hypothesis, be interpreted to speak of If, then, there is but one imprecation (and there are many) which cannot be accounted for by this observation, we must seek some more comprehensive solution of the difficulty.

For this it has been usual to have recourse to a criticism on the form of the words in the original Hebrew. It is observed, that the Hebrew language employs the same form of speech to express both the imperative VOL. III. * $4

mood and the future tense of the indicative; so that the same words may be translated, 'Let them go down quick into hell;' or, 'They shall go down quick into heil;' thus all the predictions might with equal fidelity to the letter of Scripture, be read as simple prophecies of future events. Hence it has of late been much the vogue to translate in the future, instead of the imperative, all those passages which contain imprecations or denunciations of vengeance.

There is, however, a serious objection to this plausi. ble mode of extricating ourselves from the difficulty. The Holy Spirit has himself, in other parts of Scripture, determined that some of these passages should be read in the imperative, and not in the future. The Greek language has not the same ambiguity in this case as the Hebrew; and, in the New Testament, some of these imprecatory Psalms are quoted by the inspired apostle, in such a way as to overthrow the favorite hypothesis, which renders all these passages in the future tense as simple predictions. Hence Dr. Horne, Bishop of Norwich, in his pious Commentary on the Book of Psalms, deserves some severity of reprehension for translating the 69th Psalm in the future, when the Holy Spirit, in the apostles of the New Testament, has declared that it is to be understood in the imperative. In Acts i. 20, we read, 'It is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no no man dwell therein; and his bishopric let another take;' but the bishop so far differs from the apostle, as to render it, 'Their habitation shall be desolate.' In the same way he treats other verses which are quoted by Paul in Rom. xi. 9, 10.

Now, whatever uncertainty there may be in the Hebrew, the Greek of the New Testament is unquestionably in the imperative and optative; which should have checked the prevalent propensity to translate the Psalms in the future.

But, after all, I ask, with some surprise, How is it that those who believe the Psalms to be not the private suggestions of the writer's own mind, but that 'holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,' should have found any difficulty in these imprecations? So much of the Psalms are evidently beyond any human mind, that they compel every Christian to exclaim, 'The voice of God and not of a man!' This Divine book contains the most minute predictions concerning future events; foretelling what thoughts would arise in men's minds, the dispositions they would feel, the exact words they would speak, and the extraordinary actions they would perform; hundreds of years after the Psalm was penned; so that it is evident the Psalmist was not then uttering his own views and feelings, but was the organ of the Deity to express God's mind and disposition; as, in the simple prophecies, he uttered things which he often could not thoroughly understand, and, of course could not feel all their force, so in those passages, which are imprecatory denunciations, as well as declarations of future events, he did not know upon whom they would fall, and of course could not feel any personal ill-will or revenge; but felt himself carried away by the Divine afflatus, to utter the oracles of God to men. Now, when we read the predictions in the Psalms, no one says, What a penetrating mind David's must have been to tell what `men

would exist, and how they would think, and feel, and speak, and act, hundreds of years to come! No one says, What prescience he must have possessed, to know so long beforehand how Christ would appear on earth, what reception the Jews would give him; to tell exactly what words he would speak on the cross, and what the Jews would throw in his teeth! to discover that they would give him vinegar and gall in his thirst, and part his garments among them, casting lots who should have the whole of his robe. Every one says, This was not David's singular foresight or wisdom, as if he could search the hearts of men, and even know what they would think and feel, speak and act in future ages; but David himself, the sweet Psalmist of Israel, explains the affair when he says, 'The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his words were in my tongue.' Then, why should we say what a revengeful spirit must have dwelt in David's breast, when he uttered the dreadful imprecation? We might as well ascribe the prescience to David's penetrating mind, as the vengeance to his revengeful heart. The same inspiration which furnished him with the one, caused him to utter the other.

The only material objection to this statement is, that many of the Psalms are composed on events in David's own life, and are thought directly to apply to his enemies, Saul, Doeg, or Ahitophel. But it is evident that David's whole character and history were typical, and adapted to convey the Divine mind in various important particulars. Thus, when he was meditating on events relative to himself, his spirit was transported to utter predictions of Christ and his history. Hence,

what some would suppose the thoughts of his heart concerning his enemies, evidently are exact predictions of futurity, though it is the mind of God that they should be delivered as denunciations, and not as mere predictions.

If, then, I heard a person utter such things as proved him elevated above humanity, delivering the mind of the omniscient God, revealing not only my most secret thoughts and wishes, but even ascertaining what they would be years to come, which only God could know; if, in the midst of these, I heard him say, 'Let death seize upon him, and let him go down quick into hell,' I should no more attribute this to the evil disposition of his heart towards me, than I should ascribe the former to his knowledge of my heart, and of futurity; but I should tremble at the denunciations of a righteous God, convinced that the speaker was the mere organ of the Deity, to utter views and determinatious not his J. B.

own.

ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ.

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Acts xvii. 23.

WHAT should we think of an altar thus inscribed at Boston, at Charlestown, at Cambridge, or any of our principal cities? Are there any such in America, whereon merely nominal Christians profess to worship God, without a spiritual knowledge of him? There is an altar to "the unknown God."

« PreviousContinue »