Psalm 38:1, “A Psalm of David, to bring to remembrance. O LORD, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.”

It seems like David really crossed the line this time, now he is really frightened that God is going to burn with His wrath and really whip him this time. Reading this first verse in the English text gives a picture of a frightened David, on his knees, begging for mercy from an angry and wrathful God who is about to let him have it.

One of the greatest seeming contradictions in the Bible is that on the one hand you have a God who is benevolent, merciful, full of love, in fact perfect in love and we learn in I John 4:18 that there is no fear in love, perfect love cast out all fear.  Yet, here is David terrified over God’s anger and wrath.

Look, I am sorry but we cannot have it both ways.  Either we have a God who short tempered, ready to whip us into submission. We have a do as I say not as I do type God who flies off the handle when we push him too far with our sins. Or we have a God of total love, merciful, forgiving who lovingly corrects us or redirects us when we veer down the wrong path.   When we talk of perfection there is no middle ground.

It is very easy to read your own bias and personal world view of God into your translations. I remember watching a movie about students in a boarding school in English. The movie centered on a young thirteen year old student who lived in this boarding school separated from the mother he loved and a Latin teacher who had a wife that was unfaith to him. In the Latin class the young student translated a poem from the Latin to the English.  The poem expressed the relationship between two lovers.  The young child translated the poem as a tender affection between the two lovers almost like that of a mother to a child. The young student was rebuked by his teacher as this student did not interpret the deceit and selfishness between the two lovers in the translation.  In the end we learn that the teacher finally admits that his thirteen year old student may have indeed offered the correct translations as this teacher was only reflecting his own view of love into his translation from the Latin.

I will openly admit that when I translate a passage of Scripture I do read my own bias and prejudice, my own world view of God into my translations.  Yet, I cannot reconcile a God who will grow angry and wrathful over us  if we don’t pay our ten percent tithe or skip church some Sundays with a God who loves the world so much that he allowed his Son to be tortured and crucified.  Maybe you can find some middle ground in that, but I can’t.  Either He is a God like any of the other gods that people worship, one that expects you to pay high tribute to Him lest He turns you into a grease spot and so you live in constant fear of slipping up somewhere and you end up in hell. Or you believe in a God who is loving, benevolent and wants man to spend eternity with Him so bad that he would sacrifice His own Son to ensure that.  Don’t get me wrong, I do believe in a hell, but I do not believe you need to fear going to hell. If you don’t want to go to hell you don’t have to. God has made it your choice, not His. His choice is to keep you out of hell, He sent His Son to die on a cross to provide you with a get out of hell free ticket.  The ticket is in His hand and it is up to you whether to accept it or not.  God does not send you to hell, you send yourself.

So, what do I do with a passage of Scripture like Psalms 38 which obviously speaks of a God who gets angry and wrathful?   Well, I look at this passage in the original Hebrew to see if there are any other alternative renderings.  I mean does the word yakach have to mean rebuke?  There are many cases in the Bible and in extra Biblical literature where yakach is rendered as correction or even as showing how to be right.  This word can express a large range of emotion.  This is in a Hiphal form. If it were a Piel form I would have to agree it should be rendered as rebuke as we understand this word.  As a Hiphal, however, I would have to say it is a much more mild form of yakach which would mean to judge or make a decision.  When we say rebuke in English we sense anger. When we say judge or make a decision we see a judge in a courtroom rendering a verdict, not out of anger but only administering justice.

David does not want a decision to be made in the qetseph (anger) of God.  Sure that word is often used to express anger. But a judge must make a decision based on the law, not his own personal feelings. Thus, to render qetseph as anger would not fit yakach (decision) in the Hiphal.  We need another English word here.  If we trace qetseph to its Semitic origins we find it has its roots in the idea of a chip or splinter. This word originated with the ancient Canaanites who were great builders.  Part of the pay for the laborers was in the wood chips and splinters from the building materials that would accumulate during the day’s construction activities. They could use this to fuel their fires at home. Such fuel was highly prized and as the use of wood was not as extensive as it is today in building, there were usually not a lot of chips or splinters to collect. It was very difficult to give an even distribution of these wood chips and often disputes would break out over someone taking more than his share and of course anger would be displayed over someone who had more than his share. Hence the word anger was associated with qetseph.  But let’s just focus on the wood chips.  David is not asking God to make a decision or judgment based on His anger, but on the distribution of his wood chips or to judge him correctly and justly.

Then David asks not to be chastened in God’s wrath.  Sure the word yasar is often rendered as chastened.  But David puts this in a Piel form where is more properly rendered as correction or teaching.  Chastened sounds more like punishment but correction or teaching sounds more like a learning process than a punishment. David is asking not to be corrected or taught by God in His wrath.  The word wrath is the real trigger here as that sounds like an angry vengeful God.  The word wrath in Hebrew here is very interesting. It is the word chemah.  Some translations say hot displeasure.  Chemah really has its origins from a snake bite.  When a person was bitten by a poisonous snake he becomes feverish or hot. Hence we have the rendering of hot displeasure.  When you are wrathful, you become very hot, red in the face hot. But, soft, is that only reason one becomes hot. Do you not blush and become hot when you are embarrassed. Chemah could mean embarrassment. Perhaps David felt he embarrassed God.  You may enjoy a nice holy reputation at work as that good Christian. Then suddenly you lose your temper and or you are caught stealing. As a Christian do you not feel ashamed that you embarrassed the name of God.  You’re the only Jesus some people will see and what have you done?  Chemah can also be used for feelings of betrayal.  There is a fine line here between anger and hurt.  A wife finds out her husband has been cheating and she lashes out. Is that lashing anger or the expression of a wounded broken heart?

You want to call that anger, then so be it.  Then God is angry with us when we sin. But I prefer to say that God’s heart is broken when we sin and his reaction is only one of pain and hurt. We are made in His image and when you are betrayed, what do you feel. From that feeling you put your own English word to it.  For me, when I am betrayed my heart is broken, I am not anger.  When I cry out it is not anger, but the cry of pain from a deep wound.  Hence my interpretation of chemah is not wrath but the cry of a broken heart.  You look at your own heart, when you are betrayed what do you feel, put an English word to it and you have your own personal definition of chemah.