And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off”—thinking, “David cannot come in here.” Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David. And David said on that day, “Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David’s soul” (2 Samuel 5:6-8 ESV).
This passage in the book of 2 Samuel is puzzling at first sight. Did David really hate the lame and the blind? Some translations attempt to smooth out the statement – the NIV, for example, renders the verse “those ‘lame and blind’ who are David’s enemies,” but the translation “‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David’s soul” found in the ESV is an accurate and a quite literal one.
First, we need to ascertain who “the lame and the blind” were. Most modern commentaries presume that the Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem believed that the fortifications of their city were so strong that even those who were mobility or visually impaired would be able to ward off David and his army. While this interpretation might seem very reasonable, it leaves unanswered why David would say his soul hated the lame and the blind. We also see that “the lame and the blind” could not have simply been a verbal taunt as David told his men that because of the situation they should secretly enter the city by way of a hidden watershaft. Finally, we see that David offered a large incentive – the rank of “chief and captain” (1Chronicles 11:6) – to anyone who would lead the way in attacking “the lame and the blind.”
Archaeology may perhaps help us to better understand the situation. There is some evidence that the ancient Jebusites were connected to, and perhaps associated with the Syro-Hittite peoples of the Near East. As a result, in 1963, the renowned Israeli soldier, archaeologist, and scholar, Yigael Yadin (1917–1984), noted that ancient clay tablets that have been found with texts written by these people include instances of a ritual known as the “Soldier’s Oath” that may be relevant to what David said (Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands: In the Light of Archaeological Study Volume 2, pages 268-269). These “oaths” were magical rituals made against enemies in which blind and deaf individuals were paraded before them and it was then said:
“Whoever …. turns his eyes in hostile fashion upon [our] land, let these oaths seize him! Let them blind this man’s army and make it deaf! Let them not see each other, let them not hear each other! Let them make a cruel fate their lot! … Let them make him blind! Let them make him deaf! Let them blind him like a blind man! Let them deafen him like a deaf man! Let them annihilate him, the man himself together with his wife, his children and his kin!” (quoted from James B. Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pages 353-354.)
This kind of sympathetic magic appears to be exactly what the ancient Jebusites were doing – placing a terrible curse on anyone who attacked their city. If this is the case, as Yadin suggested, the biblical text is certainly more understandable. This would perhaps explain why David told his men that because of the situation they should secretly enter the city by way of a hidden watershaft – perhaps to avoid the lame and blind “curse carriers,” and why he needed to offer a large incentive to anyone who would lead the attack under these circumstances. As for “hating” the lame and blind, David’s comments would most likely apply to the lame and blind curse carriers rather than to all people with these disabilities.
This certainly makes sense as the Bible clearly shows David did not hate such people – it documents in detail his love for and help of Saul’s lame son Mephibosheth whom he restored and invited to eat regularly at his table (2 Samuel 9:10-13).
Whatever the precise meaning of David’s words in 2 Samuel 5:6–8, it is clear that the king did not hate the disabled – and Yadin’s suggestion as to the king’s actual meaning is as good as any. In this case, as in many others, passages that seem to contradict what we know of plain biblical teaching are often better understood with historical background to illuminate them.
“My God … do not remain silent …Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy; let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him. May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children. May his descendants be cut off, their names blotted out from the next generation” (Psalm 109:1,6-13).
The so-called imprecatory psalms have a way of getting our attention. Their name comes from the verb “imprecate” which means “to invoke a curse upon,” as these compositions invoke judgement, punishment or curses on – and may even express hatred for – the individuals or groups they are directed against.
The psalms given this label include 5, 10, 17, 28, 31, 35, 40, 58, 59, 69, 70, 79, 83, 109, 129, 137, 139, and 140, though some of these compositions only contain a few verses of an imprecatory nature. But the extreme nature of the curses these psalms call down seems to be at total odds with Christ’s command that we love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). How are we to understand them then, as inspired compositions within the Bible as a whole?
Problematic Explanations
Apologists have tried to explain these psalms in various ways. The most common rationale for the assumed disparity between the curses of the imprecatory psalms and Christian attitudes is that psalms of this type belong to an “Old Covenant” dispensation and that they reflect a sub-Christian ethical standard that was replaced with the teachings of Christ. But this view fails to take into account the fact that Christ himself frequently quoted the imprecatory psalms (for example, Psalm 69 – quoted in Matthew 27:24, John 2:17, John 15:25, etc.) and the apostle Paul states that certain individuals should be “accursed” in a very similar manner (Galatians 1:8-9, etc.).
Another view is that the psalmist was simply stating what would happen to the wicked rather than wishing evil on them, and that these psalms were spoken in the “indicative mood,” explaining the punishment that would occur, and not in the “imperative mood,” commanding or requesting the punishment. But that theory does not fit the wording of a number of the psalms which make clear requests to God to destroy the offending individual or enemy.
Various other approaches suggest that the curses found in these psalms were “cathartic” for emotional or ritual cleansing or for release of frustration (we might say “blowing off steam”), or even just quoting other people’s words, but these and similar explanations are all unconvincing in trying to avoid the simple reality that the imprecatory psalms seem to be in direct contradiction to an attitude of forgiveness.
Ancient Legalities
There are two much more likely possibilities for understanding the imprecatory psalms. The first centers on the fact that in a great many of these compositions, there seems to be a background of some kind of accusation. For example, in Psalm 109 the curses (quoted at the beginning of this article) are preceded with the statement:
“… people who are wicked and deceitful have opened their mouths against me; they have spoken against me with lying tongues. With words of hatred they surround me; they attack me without cause. In return for my friendship they accuse me …” (Psalm 109:2-4 and see vs. 31).
In the same way, after reciting the curses of this psalm, the psalmist exclaims: “May this be the Lord’s payment to my accusers, to those who speak evil of me” (Psalm 109:20).
It is known that in many cultures of the ancient Near East curses were invoked on those who acted as false witnesses. If the imprecatory psalms follow this pattern, we should see their curses as the “legal boilerplate” of the day rather than as personal expressions of hatred or vengeance. This view is an attractive one in that many of the Psalms are known to utilize the specific religious and social vocabulary of their time.
Two Sides of the Same Truth
But although this understanding of the nature of the imprecatory psalms makes very good sense, there is also another and perhaps even better explanation for them – that their curses are exactly what they seem to be and that this need not, in fact, contradict the Christian ethic of forgiveness.
Viewed this way, the curses of the Old Testament reflect the psalmist’s firm belief in both God’s justice and his intolerance for sin. Taking this view, the biblical scholar Walter Kaiser wrote:
“To be sure, the attacks which provoked these prayers were not from personal enemies; rather, they were rightfully seen as attacks against God and especially his representatives in the promised line of the Messiah” (Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, Downers Grove, IL, 1988, p. 172).
This approach certainly fits a great many of the facts we have. In Psalm 109 – the example we have used throughout this article – the psalmist stresses that the attacks on him were not from enemies, but from friends who had falsely turned on him (Psalm 109:3-5). This is a common theme that the attackers who had turned on the anointed king equally displayed wickedness in their rebellion against God:
“Declare them guilty, O God! Let their intrigues be their downfall. Banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against you” (Psalm 5:10).
When we attempt, as Christians, to forgivingly love the sinner while hating the sin, this is very different from the situation in which David is, under inspiration, looking at the sin from the perspective of God’s judgment. That there is nothing “unchristian ” about this is seen in the fact that Christ himself essentially did the same thing in declaring “woe” on the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-39) or on the inhabitants of Capernaum (Matthew 10:15), and that Paul quoted the imprecatory Psalm 69:22-23 in Romans 11:9-10 and he himself also leveled imprecation against certain individuals.
In his book Reflections on the Psalms (London and New York, 1958, p. 33), C. S. Lewis wrote: “The ferocious parts of the Psalms serve as a reminder that there is in the world such a thing as wickedness and that . . . is hateful to God.” This is perhaps the most realistic way to look at the imprecatory psalms – that they describe hatred for extreme sin and its practitioners at the level in which the two are not separated, which is completely different from the Christian approach of looking at individuals from the perspective of God’s love and willingness to forgive and thus separating the sinner from the sin.
Both approaches look at sin from God’s perspective, but one view – seen in the words of Christ and Paul as well as those of David – is based on God’s judgment, and the other (also seen in the words of Christ and Paul as well as those of David) is based on God’s mercy. As has often been said, we must not ever presume that one aspect of God’s character obliterates any other. The imprecatory psalms represent the justice of God’s ways just as the scriptural call to forgiveness represents his mercy.
* You can download a free copy of our e-book Spotlight on the Psalms – available in three versions for reading on computers or e-book readers here.
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13)
It’s a verse we all know, a verse that quarterback Tim Tebow inscribed in his eye black, one that has been engraved on thousands of items of jewelry and printed on countless items of Christian merchandising. But does it mean what most people presume it means? For many people this verse (and its slight variant “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” NKJV, etc.) has become a kind of Christian mantra, a spiritual guarantee that whatever we do will succeed if we act in faith.
The truth is that Philippians 4:13 does not really say or mean anything of the kind. But what it really does say and mean can be infinitely more encouraging.
As with any biblical verse, “context is king.” To understand what Paul had in mind with these words, we must look at the context in which he wrote them: “for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:11-13 ESV).
The context shows us immediately that Paul was not talking about success in doing things, but about success in dealing with things – the ability to accept and enjoy or endure (whichever is appropriate) whatever life may throw at us.
The underlying Greek in which Paul wrote Philippians confirms this meaning. The Greek does not literally say “I can do all things” – the word “do” does not appear in the verse at all. Rather, the words mean “I have strength for all things” – in other words, “I can survive, deal with, handle, be content with, all things.” The apostle tells us that he had fully experienced the positive and negative aspects of life – “every circumstance” – and he had learned that through the strength God gave him, he could successfully live through them all.
This is important. Paul tells us he could not only survive the bad things with God’s help, but also the good things of life. Why would we need help in surviving the good things? Simply put, the scriptures show us that both prosperity and poverty can be snares (Proverbs 30:8-9). Although poverty can leave us bitter and even lead to stealing, prosperity can encourage complacency, self-reliance and pride. But Paul’s words show that with God’s help we can meet whatever circumstances we find ourselves in with a right attitude that does not distance us in some way from God.
As such, Philippians 4:13 has nothing to do with being able to accomplish goals or other things we may want to do in life. God certainly can help us with such things if it is his will, but Paul’s point does not relate to that fact. Far more importantly, Paul tells us that God can help us succeed in things that are far more vital than physical accomplishments – the things Paul was talking about. That is why the NIV translates this verse: “I can do all this through him who gives me strength” (emphasis added). Remember, too, that the apostle penned these words from a prison cell near the end of his life – hardly a position of success and accomplishment in physical terms. Nevertheless, Paul had learned that whether he found himself in a palace or a prison cell, he could be content in the knowledge that God would help him to deal with it. For Paul, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me” was not about performing well or fulfilling goals at the physical level, but about achieving the things in life that matter the most. Philippians 4:13 is not about what we can accomplish with God’s help, but what God, through his help, can accomplish in us.
Two of the Gospel writers – Matthew and Mark – record that near his death Jesus called out with a seemingly strange statement:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46 ESV).
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34 ESV).
While Matthew records Jesus’ words in Hebrew, Mark records them in Aramaic (the language in which they were probably uttered); but the words are almost identical, and the meaning is the same.
These troubling words have long been interpreted as showing at that point in time Jesus symbolically bore the sins of the whole world and God – who cannot look at evil (Habakkuk 1:13) – turned away from his Son who was left in near-despairing isolation. Because sin cuts off from God, the argument is made, and Jesus at that moment represented all sinners – so God totally cut himself off from his perfect Son because of our sins.
But is that what those terrible words really signify? Did God really turn away from his only Son who had lived a life of perfect obedience – obedience all the way to death itself (Philippians 2:8)? Although that may possibly be the case, we do not have a scripture saying that. And how do we mesh that concept with the fact that it was because God loved sinners so much that he sent his Son to die for them (John 3:16)? Or the fact that God looks on and deals personally with every sinner he calls, and that we have it on scriptural authority that “nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ”? (Romans 8:38-39).
But there is another – and far more positive – way to understand those troubling words of Jesus. Jewish rabbis have long utilized the principle of referring to a scriptural passage by means of a few of its words, knowing that their hearers would mentally supply the rest of the passage. This method of teaching and reference (called “remez,” meaning “a hint”) was certainly used in Jesus’ time and we see him employing it frequently – for example, in Matthew 21:15 when the children of Jerusalem shouted praises in his honor and the priests and teachers of the law became indignant. Jesus responded by quoting only a few words from Psalm 8:2: “From the lips of children and infants, you have ordained praise.” But the religious leaders would have fully realized that the rest of that Psalm states the enemies of God would be silenced by children’s praises.
We see Jesus using this technique so often that when we turn to his words spoken on the cross “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” we can see immediately that this is undoubtedly what Jesus was doing. The words are the opening words of Psalm 22 – the great messianic psalm that foretells even the smallest details of the Messiah’s death. Every biblically literate Jew present at the crucifixion would have been reminded of the prophecies made in that psalm – the insults of the mocking crowd (vss. 6-8), his dying thirst (vs. 15), the “dogs”/gentiles (vs. 16) who pierced his hands and feet (vs. 16), the casting of lots for his garments (vs. 18) – simply by the “hint” of Jesus quoting its opening verse.
We should remember, too, that these words were the only ones we are told Jesus spoke “with a loud voice” (the fact is recorded by both Matthew and Luke) on the Cross. These were the words – few though they were – that Jesus spoke in his agony to all present – and all present would have likely recognized the intent of that small remez that referenced the whole of the psalm from which it was taken. Seen this way, we realize that Jesus’ words were his last great teaching. They were the final proof he offered that he was, indeed, the One who was prophesied.
Understanding those words in this way is not to argue that sin cuts off from God, but to suggest that we should not presume that this is why Jesus uttered the words he did. We should perhaps temper that concept with a fuller understanding of God’s love – that God does indeed always love us as his children despite our sins – which means that God still loved his Son also at that awful time of his shouldering of our sins. Jesus himself told his disciples shortly before his crucifixion: “A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me” (John 16: 32-33).
In fact, the very psalm that Jesus quoted contains, near its end, not words of his rejection as he suffered, but words that Jesus knew he could trust completely: “He has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help” (Psalm 22:24).
* For more on the book of Psalms, download our free e-book Spotlight on the Psalms . No registration or email is necessary to download here.
SCRIPTURES IN QUESTION: ANSWERS TO APPARENT BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONSBy R. Herbert
Every year new and even well-established believers are unsettled and in some cases turned from the Christian faith by claims that the Bible contradicts itself and so it cannot be the inspired word of God. Our latest free e-book gives multiple examples of seven basic principles that can be easily applied to explain supposed inconsistencies in the Bible. Scriptures in Question is an important tool for answering your own questions and those others might ask you.
As with all our free e-books, Scriptures in Question is available in multiple formats to read on almost any electronic device and there is no need to register or give an email address to get a copy – just click on the download link and enjoy. You can download your free copy here.
“while I was still searching but not finding – I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all” (Ecclesiastes 7:28).
On the surface of it, the author of the biblical book of wisdom called Ecclesiastes seems to give women a pretty bad rap. While this writer – probably the wise King Solomon (Ecclesiastes 1:12) – admits there are few good men to be found (“I found one upright man in a thousand”), he seems to have been unable to find a good woman at all!
But is that what this verse is really saying? There are actually a number of possibilities that the verse is not putting women down at all, and we will look at three of these individually.
First, we should notice that the writer is referring to himself in the first person in saying “While I was searching … I found …” This is important as the book is giving the writer’s personal experience from its introduction almost to its conclusion. He continually stresses his own personal reactions and feelings – as when he writes: “I also saw under the sun this example of wisdom that greatly impressed me” (Ecclesiastes 9:13). As a result, it is perfectly possible that the writer is simply talking about his own experience rather than making a statement about all women everywhere. The fact that he was a king might make this more likely, as we will see next.
Second, the Hebrew word translated “woman” (ishah) can mean wife as well as woman and the phrase “to find a woman” can mean to look for and find a wife. If that is the meaning in this verse, the king evidently could find an occasional man who made a good friend, but was unable to find a good wife. 1 Kings 11:3 tells us that Solomon had one thousand wives and concubines, but it is entirely possible that most of these women were striving to win position or favor for themselves or their families. As someone who admittedly was primarily seeking pleasure in life (Ecclesiastes 2:1, etc.), he may have cut himself off from women who he would have respected more. From this perspective Ecclesiastes 7:28 is simply applying the fact that money (even kingly riches) cannot buy happiness in the realm of marriage.
Yet another possibility can be seen in the fact that the Hebrew word translated man in this verse (adam) can often mean “human.” If that was the intended meaning, the writer could simply have been stressing that his experience was that only one in a thousand people were good individuals – though admitting that his “sample” consisted entirely of men and no women.
There are even other possibilities for the original meaning of this verse, but we can see from the three mentioned here that whatever the writer of Ecclesiastes meant specifically, he need not have been putting down all women. It is more likely that he was complaining of his own sad experience based on his own particular circumstances. Additionally, if the author of Ecclesiastes was indeed Solomon, we should also compare this verse with the many proverbs of Solomon that do show a high regard for women (Proverbs 12:4; 18:22; 19:14; 31:10; etc.).
Recent Comments