from http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=260
A proper view of the imprecatory Psalms recognizes the following Biblical principles:
1) First, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q. 1) says: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.” Commenting on the imprecatory sections of Psalm 69, John Calvin wrote: “It was a holy zeal for the divine glory which impelled him [the Psalmist] to summon the wicked to God’s judgment seat.”(11) This being the case, the imprecatory Psalmists are to be seen as men who expressed a burning desire that God be glorified. They earnestly sought the vindication of God’s name (Psalm 9:19-20; 83:16-18). As sin is an affront to the holiness of God, states David, it must be judged accordingly (Psalm 139:19-20).
2) The authors of the Book of Psalms were fully aware of the fact that the meting out of vengeance is a divine prerogative. In Deuteronomy 32:35, we read: “Vengeance is Mine [God’s], and recompense.” The imprecations are to be understood as prayers to God, not the intended actions of the Psalmists themselves. This being so, the Psalmist’s cause is identified with the cause of God (Psalm 139:19-22).(12) The Psalmist, then, is duty bound to pray for the overthrow of God’s enemies. Johannes Vos said it this way:
The total destruction of evil, including the judicial destruction of evil men, is the prerogative of the sovereign God, and it is right not only to pray for the accomplishment of this destruction, but even to assist in effecting it when commanded to do so by God Himself…. God is both sovereign and righteous; He possesses the unquestionable right to destroy all evil in His universe; if it is right for God to plan and effect this destruction, then it is right also for the saints to pray for the same.(13)
3) Contrary to the criticism of the skeptics, the attitude of the Psalmists is not one of vindictiveness. David disclaims any such notion in Psalm 109:5, where we read: “Thus they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.” On two occasions, when opportunity availed, David declined to take Saul’s life (2 Samuel 24, 26). Moreover, he even prayed for his enemies when they were in need (Psalm 35:12-14). And in Psalm 83:16-18, we read that the Psalmist sought the ultimate salvation of the wicked: “Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek Your name, O LORD…that men may know that You, whose name alone is the LORD, are the Most High over all the Earth.” Todd Ruddell commented:
The words of the Psalter ought to be understood…not as an expression of an angry author or fulminations of a firebrand, but as the sentiments of God Himself, the thoughts of the Psalmist being raised by that powerful Spirit of prophecy, above mere human vendetta and cursing. The expressions of the Psalmist against sinners are God’s expressions. They are the thoughts of His heart.(14)
4) To pray the imprecatory prayers is to pray for the overthrow of Satan and his minions. If God’s kingdom is to advance, in accordance with the Lord’s Prayer (which believers are enjoined to pray): “Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven” (Matthew 6:10), then the kingdom of the evil one must be destroyed. God’s glory necessitates the destruction of the wicked. Imprecatory prayers aim at just this. The Lord’s Prayer is itself a prayer for the overthrow of evil.
5) Along this same line of thought, the inspired writers recognized that God is the only true defense for the elect, as they are being assaulted by the reprobate. Hence, to pray against the Psalmist’s enemies is to pray for the help of God’s people. In Psalm 7:9-10, for instance, we read: Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end, but establish the just….My defense is of God, who saves the upright in heart.”
Conclusion
A Biblical view of the imprecatory Psalms does not recognize them as problematic. To invoke divine retribution on the enemies of God and His people is to pray in accordance with the revealed will of God. After all, these Psalms are a part of the infallible and inerrant “collection of songs and prayers covering a variety of themes.” And they, being as fully inspired as the rest of Scripture, are “profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
This being so, Vos correctly concluded:
Instead of being influenced by the sickly sentimentalism of the present day, Christian people should realize that the glory of God demands the destruction of evil…[therefore] instead of being ashamed of the imprecatory Psalms, and attempting to apologize for them and explain them away, Christian people should glory in them and not hesitate to use them in the public and private exercises of the worship of God.(15)
- See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=260#sthash.MaAQ1Lw9.dpuffrom http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/Imprecatory-Psalms
D. Imprecatory Psalms (Pss 5, 10, 17, 35, 58, 59, 69, 70, 79, 83, 109, 129, 137, 140)
These “imprecatory psalms” are prayer songs so designated because of their particularly vigorous attitude toward the enemy. The verb “imprecate” means “to pray evil against” or “to invoke curse upon” another, hence the name for these prayers. There is no indication that the editors of the Psalter or the ancient petitioners in the first or second temple would have distinguished these particular prayers from the other tep̱illôṯ, where frequent petition to God for the death and destruction of the foe rises. Their identification itself is a matter of judgment and moral sensitivity. For that reason this commentary includes them in the treatment of the groups to which they best belong, “Prayers for Deliverance From Accusation and Persecution” and “Prayers for Restoration From National Distress and Defeat.” Still, for the Christian reader at least, these poems deserve comment, for they jar the sensitivities of those whose Master taught them to love their enemies and pray for (not against) their persecutors (Mt 5:44).
The Christian reader must begin by accepting these prayers as they are, by and large the cries of God's people for vengeance for unspeakable atrocities against them as God's people and those places sacred to them and to him. The best reading will refrain from spiritualizing the enemy or the petitions or the blessings thereby diminishing the depth of the agony felt and the vehemence of the action sought.
The disciple of Jesus must also realize that any disquiet he or she feels in reading these prayers is due to the redeeming influence of the Lord and his apostles, not to any particular moral sensitivity naturally possessed by the “enlightened” reader. Contemporary readers would have no problem, were it not “given” them by the same Scripture that preserves both these poems and the teachings that call them into question. This sensitivity surely does not rise out of pure Enlightenment refinement or “modern maturity.” Secular humanism can never on its own support values sufficient to impugn these prayers. Thus one will do well to refrain from patronizing or moralizing approaches to these works.
Contemporary readers, particularly those in more affluent societies, can allow these prayers to help them enter the suffering life of the people of God, to transport them from their relative ease into the ghastly suffering and consternation of persons who have been uprooted, mocked, or abused. These prayers awaken the conscience to the human cry for redress, the cosmic demand for moral order and justice. They can lead one to feel as deeply as one ought the horrendous insult to Yahweh and his creation perpetrated by those who lie and cheat and kill and abuse and blaspheme. Made callous by exposure to continual evil, one may lose the sense of outrage these evils deserve, whether done to us or to others or to God. These prayers awaken that outrage, which is to be offered to God and which motivates to redemptive action.
Beyond these instructive appropriations the imprecatory prayers must point the followers of Jesus beyond themselves to a loftier vision of prayer, as noted above, for, not against, “the enemy,” a form of prayer taught by our Master (Mt 5:11, 43-48) and modeled by the earliest church (1 Pe 2:19-25). This vision does not set aside the call for justice and vindication, but places these matters in God's hands for the eschaton (Ro 2; Rev 2:19ff.; 18).
These prayers can also articulate our own disquiet when we are caught in the agony and emotional upheaval of life's incongruities and injustices. When, for whatever reasons, we find ourselves unable to appropriate the mind of the Master for “the enemy,” these prayers can provide a place of prayer from which to start, leading through the desire for vengeance to the prayer for blessing and redemption to which we are called. Further, having begun with their primary point, the forceful response to actual sin and evil against the people of God, one can walk through this door to the larger arena of our own desires for the destruction of evil in our own lives and our disdain for those enemies within.
A reflection of godly thinking
"There is a kind of hate for the sinner (viewed as morally corrupt and hostile to God) that may coexist with pity and even a desire for their salvation... [T]hat there comes a point of such extended, hardened, high-handed lovelessness toward God that it may be appropriate to call down anathema on it."John Piper [1]
"...it is appropriate that we pray that Christ would vindicate his holy name and program by destroying the enemies of righteousness, just as he preserves those who love his name." ^[2]^
Not a matter of personal revenge
The imprecatory Psalms are not a matter of personal revenge; rather, these “harsh” statements reflect the Psalmist's (David’s) awareness of God’s justice and his intolerance for sin. Walter Kaiser has observed:
“They [these hard sayings] are not statements of personal vendetta, but they are utterances of zeal for the kingdom of God and his glory. 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.” [3]
Explanations of what would happen
"...they merely were stating what would happen to the wicked; they were not actually asking God to destroy the wicked." [4]
.................................................................
the many imprecations in the New Testament:
- Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
- Matthew 26:23-24 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
- 1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
- Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
- Galatians 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
- 2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
- Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
end of quote
from http://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/does-the-old-testament-teach-us-to-love-our-enemies-or-hate-them/
from http://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/does-the-old-testament-teach-us-to-love-our-enemies-or-hate-them/
As Christians, all of us have read or heard the famous “Sermon on the Mount” and have most probably read Christ’s teaching on “Loving our enemies as well as our neighbor”. All of us know of “Loving ones Enemy” as a New Testament teaching. So much so, that many believe that the Old Testament taught one to “love ones neighbor” but “hate ones enemy”, while Christ taught that one should love the enemy just like the neighbor. But it is interesting to note that this was not a new teaching, as we see this idea that our Messiah taught clearly stated in the Old Testament.
Let’s look into the idea of “loving your enemy” and the origins of this teaching written in the Old Testament Scriptures.
Exo 23:4,5 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 wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.
Pro 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Pro 24:17 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Pro 29:10 The bloodthirsty hate the upright: but the just seek his soul.
The above verses of Scripture, show how God commands through Moses that everyone should love & help ones enemy not even permitting an enemy to fall into loss. God’s Word is clear that we should not turn away from providing for our enemies in need, and not even be glad when he or she is in trouble. We should even seek to bring him/her to the free Salvation our Heavenly Father provides.
But what was Yeshua(Jesus’ true name) referring to when he said “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy”? Some read Mat 5:43 and conclude that Yeshua is talking about an “old teaching” written in the Old Testament. But nowhere in the Old Testament would we be able to find such a teaching of “hating your enemy”.
Context of the teachings at the Sermon on the Mount
The “you have heard” – “but I say to you” teachings of Messiah start off at Mat 5:21. One needs to read only a few verses before, to understand the context of His teaching.
The “you have heard” – “but I say to you” teachings of Messiah start off at Mat 5:21. One needs to read only a few verses before, to understand the context of His teaching.
Mat 5:17-20 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
So what is the context of His teaching, of “you have heard” – “but I say to you”? Notice the Scribes and the Pharisees mentioned just before His teaching. Notice how He says that whoever breaks the least of the Commandments or “teach” men to break them will be least in God’s Kingdom. Yeshua was talking about the Scribes & Pharisees of His day, who had taught a perverted version of God’s Word/Scripture (Old Testament). We have studied all about the teachings of the Pharisees in depth, in a previous post. But it is sufficient to say that Pharisees were going against God’s Word by their own “Traditions” also known as the “Oral Law”. Yeshua was teaching the crowds that had gathered around at His feet, that “they had heard” (from the teachers of their time – who were the Scribes and Pharisees) it being said “you shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy”. But Yeshua was teaching them the proper Old Testament idea of “Loving even ones enemy”.
Conclusion
The “Sermon on the Mount”, just like all of Yeshua’s other teachings were rooted in God’s Word. He never spoke of Himself, but all that was the Word of God (Joh 7:16,17, 14:24). “Loving ones neighbor” was directly from the Scriptures (Lev 19:18) just as “Loving ones Enemy”. We should stop being biased against the Old Testament Scriptures and start reading it without preconceived notions, so that we can see it for what it is – God’s Word, which was confirmed by, and through, Yeshua – our Messiah.
end of quote
:
(c) Love or Charity, 43–48.
43. Thou shalt love thy neighbour] Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” The second clause does not occur in Levit., but was a Rabbinical inference. Enemies, all who are outside the chosen race, the etymological force of the Greek word. Heathen writers bear testimony to this unsocial characteristic of the Jews. Juvenal says it was their rule—
43. Thou shalt love thy neighbour] Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” The second clause does not occur in Levit., but was a Rabbinical inference. Enemies, all who are outside the chosen race, the etymological force of the Greek word. Heathen writers bear testimony to this unsocial characteristic of the Jews. Juvenal says it was their rule—
from Bengel's
"The Jews abused the precept which had been given in reference to certain accursed nations, as in Deuteronomy 23:7; for they had also been commanded to love even their enemies. Christopher Cartwright[230] cites decrees of the Jews concerning the hatred of enemies.—See Book 2; Mellif. Heb. ch. 1."
[some of the commentators say Israel narrowed the meaning of Neighbor to be fellow Israelite and here Jesus is expanding the meaning to everyone. e.g. the Pulpit commentary: "The meaning of the words "neighbour" and "enemy" has been much discussed. In Leviticus, indeed, the meaning of "neighbour" is clear; it answers to "the children of thy people" in the preceding clause, i.e. it refers to members of the nation; all Israelites are termed "neighbours." The primary sense, therefore, of this whole precept is love to an Israelite, hatred to a non-Israelite (cf. Deuteronomy 25:17-19). As such, the precept was of value in cementing the unity of the nation and preventing greater exposure to the evils, moral and religious, found outside it. "
Introduction
The Bible phrase "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is a common perception of how the Old Testament deals with conflict between two parties. However, in speaking to the people of Israel, Jesus said that we should love even our enemies and do good to them:
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also... You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44)
Was Jesus changing the commands of the Old Testament or was He just restating what had already been commanded?
Love your neighbor
Many people who are unfamiliar with the Bible think that the command to love one's neighbor comes solely from the New Testament:
And He [Jesus] said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' " (Matthew 22:37-39)
However, when Jesus said this, He was quoting directly from Old Testament law:
'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:18)
Not only did the Old Testament command the Hebrews to love their neighbor, but the same command also warned the them not to take vengeance on their own or even bear a grudge (thinking or acting badly against a neighbor). The command applied not only to one's Hebrew neighbors, but also to the foreigner or alien who resided among them:
- 'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:34)
- "So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:19)
So, what Jesus said was not something brand new, but was already a part of Old Testament law. So, why did Jesus have to say it?
Eye for an eye
So, where does this "eye for an eye" idea come from? It also comes from the Old Testament law. In fact, it was the prescribed punishment for crimes committed by one person against another. Previous to Old Testament law, punishment for a crime was usually much more severe than the crime itself (see Are the Old Testament Laws a Copy of the Code of Hammurabi?). However, unlike Jesus' examples of slapping one on the cheek or making one carry a heavy load, these were serious crimes, such as assault against a pregnant woman and murder.1 For these kinds of crimes, judges were given the authority to determine guilt and punishment - no different than we do in modern society. The authority to take an "eye for an eye" was never given to an individual,2 but always reserved for the legal system of the state. In Israel, not only were serious crimes punished, but false accusation of serious crime against an innocent party was to be punished "eye for an eye" so that "the rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you."3
Good vs. evil
Not only were the Hebrews commanded not to take vengeance on their own, and love their neighbors, but they were told to eschew hatred and evil and practice good.4 However, like most people, the Hebrews were susceptible to taking the easy way of "solving" their problems. What is easier than doing payback against your neighbor when he does something against you? And one could cite the "eye for an eye" scripture as justification for one's actions (even though it really only applied to judgments by the legal system). This is why Jesus emphasized not taking one's own vengeance but doing good even to those who slight you. The teaching seemed new only because the people had strayed from God's original instructions.
Love in the Old Testament
Although the New Testament tends to be thought as emphasizing love more than the Old Testament, this is not necessarily true. In fact, there are over 150 verses in the Old Testament that describe the love that God has for people.5 This love is not to be one-way, since the Old Testament tells the people to return this love by loving God.6 So, contrary to popular perception, love is emphasized in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament.
Conclusion 
The common perception that the God of the Old Testament is vastly different than the God of the New Testament is shown to be untrue. In both the Old and New Testaments, God is described as being loving, and love is emphasized as being the most important of God's laws. Both Old and New Testaments command people to love their neighbors, and even those who are different or outsiders to our own group. Both Testaments command people to do only good and not seek vengeance when wronged, but to allow the law to punish those who commit crimes. The Old Testament concept of an "eye for an eye" applied only to punishment for serious crimes, like assault, and was not to be carried out by individuals, but only through the judicial system.
Psalms 7,35,55,58,59,69,109, and139were written by David to ask God to bring judgment upon his enemies. (The other two imprecatory psalms, 79 and 137, were written by Asaph and an unknown psalmist.) These prayers were written not so much to exact revenge upon one’s enemies, but rather to emphasize God’s abhorrence of evil, His sovereignty over all mankind, and His divine protection of His chosen people. Many of these prayers were prophetic and could be seen taking place later in the New Testament in actual historical events.
When David prayed for God to shatter the teeth of his enemies, likening them to young lions pursuing him to his death, he was making the point that God is holy, righteous, and just, and He will ultimately judge the wicked for the evil they do. Jesus quoted some of the imprecatory psalms during His earthly ministry. InJohn 15:25, Jesus quotesPsalm 35:19and69:4, and Paul did so as well inRomans 11:9-10, which is a quote ofPsalm 69:22-23. Since Jesus and Paul quoted verses from these imprecatory psalms, it proves those psalms were inspired by God and removes all doubt that they were sinful or simply selfish prayers of revenge.
Here's a couple explanations, from the Catholic Encyclopedia and Fr. Hardon's Catholic Dictionary.
Quote
The theological ideas of the Psalms are comprehensive; the existence and attributes of God, the soul's yearning for immortality, the economy of grace and the virtues, death, judgement, heaven, hell, hope of resurrection and of glory, fear of punishment — all the main dogmatic truths of Israel's faith appear again and again in her Psalter. These truths are set down not in dogmatic form, but now in the simple and childlike lyric yearning of the ingenuous soul, again in the loftiest and most vehement outbursts of which man's nature is capable. The Psalms are at once most human and most superhuman; they sink to the lowest depths of the human heart and soar to the topmost heights of Divine contemplation. So very human are the imprecatory psalms as to make some to wonder how they can have been inspired of God. Surely Jahweh cannot have inspired the singer who prayed:
"As for them that plan my soul to destroy, Down to the depths of the earth shall they go; To the grasp of the sword shall they be delivered; A prey to the jackals shall they become". — Psalm 83:10-11 (82:10-11)
Such an objection is based upon a misunderstanding. The perfection of the counsels of Christ is one thing, the aim of the good Levite is quite another thing. The ideals of the Sermon on the Mount are of higher spirituality than are the ideals of the imprecatory psalm. Yet the ideals of the imprecatory psalm are not bad — nay, are good, are Divine in their origin and authority. The imprecatory psalms are national anthems; they express a nation's wrath, not an individual's. Humility and meekness and forgiveness of foe are virtues in an individual; not necessarily so of a nation; by no means so of the Chosen Nation of Jahweh, the people who knew by revelation that Jahweh willed they should be a great nation and should put out their enemies from the land which he gave them. Their great national love for their own people postulated a great national love for Jahweh. The love for Jahweh postulated a hatred of the foes of Jahweh, and, in the theocratic economy of the Jewish folk, the foes of Jahweh were the foes of Israel. If we bear this national purpose in mind, and forget not that all poetry, and especially Semitic poetry, is highly coloured and exaggerated, we shall not be shocked at the lack of mercy in the writers of the imprecatory psalms.
"As for them that plan my soul to destroy, Down to the depths of the earth shall they go; To the grasp of the sword shall they be delivered; A prey to the jackals shall they become". — Psalm 83:10-11 (82:10-11)
Such an objection is based upon a misunderstanding. The perfection of the counsels of Christ is one thing, the aim of the good Levite is quite another thing. The ideals of the Sermon on the Mount are of higher spirituality than are the ideals of the imprecatory psalm. Yet the ideals of the imprecatory psalm are not bad — nay, are good, are Divine in their origin and authority. The imprecatory psalms are national anthems; they express a nation's wrath, not an individual's. Humility and meekness and forgiveness of foe are virtues in an individual; not necessarily so of a nation; by no means so of the Chosen Nation of Jahweh, the people who knew by revelation that Jahweh willed they should be a great nation and should put out their enemies from the land which he gave them. Their great national love for their own people postulated a great national love for Jahweh. The love for Jahweh postulated a hatred of the foes of Jahweh, and, in the theocratic economy of the Jewish folk, the foes of Jahweh were the foes of Israel. If we bear this national purpose in mind, and forget not that all poetry, and especially Semitic poetry, is highly coloured and exaggerated, we shall not be shocked at the lack of mercy in the writers of the imprecatory psalms.
