Don't know about the "revenge" thing Marc, there seems to be a whole different dynamic in the Old Testament when it comes to what God would do against the enemies of Israel. I think David was probably thinking about the nation, not just himself in this situation. I wish I knew how this might apply, because I'm not really sure I understand the purpose of a psalm like this in scripture, but I also think that God draws clear lines when it comes to those who choose to openly rebel against Him. I know that God wants to reconcile all men to Himself, but I also know from scripture that God knows the point when it's too late for that based on the choices a person makes.

nice going Candi... I mean Nate. Yes that was Nate. (and so is this :-))

NATE!!!! I am thinking it's Candi the whole time. What are we going to do with your "alias" commenting?
lol
So that Psalm is really intense. I have often wondered about these kinds of prayers. They trouble me. Break off their teeth and have them melt away like slugs? If I ever prayed anything like this I think I would have some serious guilt. I have the "grace" mentality. Bless them Lord, bless them is the thought in my mind, HOWEVER...sometimes my desire is to pray the OTHER PRAYER!

Well Nate, I get what you're saying, but I still struggle with that idea. I believe in God's justice, but justice never takes gladness in the pain of people who receive punishment. That's the difference between punishment and revenge. Punishment is for the person who violated - it's a consequence and - at least before final judgement - a learning opportunity. Revenge is for the person doing the hurting. It's to satiate some need in me to get back at the person who wronged me. When I read this Psalm, I doesn't sound like justice. It sounds like revenge. It sounds like David crying out in anguish and rage about all the abusers and aggressors that He and his nation have experienced. Even if I grant that the OT portrays a God with different standards than the NT (which I do not believe, by the way, but that's a long theological conversation) this is harsh and vindictive. God's justice will be clear and final and powerful - but it will not be vindictive. I mean by that, it will not be for the purpose of making people hurt for the sake of hurting.

I get that too, but I also think everything in scripture is inspired and has a purpose (stated elsewhere in the Bible, not just me). I mean, God never seems to condemn or chastise David for this kind of behavior, and I'd say that at least 50% of the book of Psalms contains these kinds of thoughts. If God called David a man after His own heart, there must be something more to the connection between what David is writing and the nature of God. I'm not saying I know what that is, but I also can't dismiss this Psalm as simply vengeful and bitter.

I think you're on to something, Nate - even though I still think this is just David being less-than-Jesus-like. I too think that everything in scripture is inspired and came to us just as God wanted it to, and that all of it has the purpose of instructing us. I just think the purpose of these Psalms is to teach us that we can be totally open and honest with God. Even our hardest internal stuff, the stuff that we think God wouldn't be able to stand, is an OK part or our conversation with God. Think about the quote you make. David was a man after God's own heart. God called him that. Yep. So, let's think about David - liar, adulterer, murderer, not to mention violent. So, is that what God meant when he said David is a man after his own heart? Surely not! We know from other parts of scripture that this is not the shape of the heart of God. So it must have been something else that qualified David as a "man after God's own heart?" What would it be?

Well, some have said that it's because David kept coming back to God for forgiveness. That's certainly true, and would be something that would make God happy. But it's not something that is actually "like" God, because God doesn't sin, and therefore doesn't seek out forgiveness. It's my opinion that what God was affirming here is that David was a man who pursued after God's heart above all else. He wanted to align Himself with God's character - even though that wasn't true of him a lot of the time.

(Continued...)
If that's the case, then the content of David's words in the Psalms don't have to be necessarily all holy. Consider Psalms 137:9 where the author applauds the person who will take up the babies of Babylon and murder them by bashing their skulls open against rocks. There is just no possible way that statement is expressing the character of God. Even if we wanted to say it was about judgement, it's not. It's about vindictive hate-filled murder. And whether or not Babylon had it coming, it can't be argued that this is pure justice. So, what does that passage say about the character of God? Not much, I think. But it does say something about the nature of the human heart and the grief and pain we feel when we are taken advantage of and have no hope - and the fact that it, and other passages like it, are in the Psalms are a powerful encouragement to us that God is strong enough to hear our deepest pain - even when it comes out in ways that frankly aren't very holy.

Hey Marc. It seems like it's everyone's consensus that the entire bible is the inspired word of God. Where does that come from? Is there scripture or something that supports that line of thinking?

Thanks...

...rich

Hey Rich, here's what I can add on that conversation. The most direct answer to that is 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 which says: " All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

That's the simple answer. Of course the difficulty arises when we try to understand what "all scripture" means. This is where we begin to get into two very large discussions - the nature of inspiration and the authority of the canon. Just a brief intro to what this is about:

(continued) The nature of inspiration is the question of how God communicated to the people who wrote the Bible. On one end of the scale are Verbal and Plenary Inspiration which believe that the original authors were essentially pens in the hand of God, writing each specific word that God intended them to write. On the other end of the scale is personal inspiration, which believes that God inspired the people and guided them, but that (except for certain visions, or passages like the ten commandments) the people got to choose their own words to express what God was telling them. The bulk of mainstream Christianity is somewhere in the middle.

(Continued) The second issue is the authority and formation of the canon. Canon is an old word and simply refers to the "official" selection of books that make up the Bible. At the time the NT was written there was essentially unanimous agreement about the Jewish scriptures. They included pretty much exactly what we have now. But in the first three centuries the NT came together in the form we have it now. The gospels and a couple of Paul's letters were pretty early (as early as the 60s AD, maybe as late at the 80s AD. The rest of the NT books came shortly later, before we get a hundred years or so past Christ, at the very latest.

(Continued...) But in addition to the books we have in the NT there were a number of other books - many other letters, a couple of other gospels or gospel fragments, etc. Some areas of the church accepted some of these books as scripture and other areas of the church did not. Here's a great article with strong scholarly support that runs through the amazing process of how the NT canon came together. It would be worth a read: http://tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html. You'll also come across the name of a guy you'll like - a man named Marcion who couldn't reconcile the OT and NT gods. Eventually his view was sidelined in the church, and I think for good reason - but it's a good example of how the things you're wrestling with are not new.