Big Idea: Rather than taking vengeance for injustice into our own hands, we can pray that its perpetrators will become victims of their own contrivances.
Understanding the Text
Psalm 35, the first of the imprecatory psalms, deals with the issue of divine justice in a bare-bones way. In one sense, it is an individual lament (Craigie), but in its total effect, it is more a prayer for deliverance (Wilson). The form critics, seeking the cultural context for such prayers, are inclined to view the psalm as a royal or national lament,[1] and based on verses 20 and 27, the speaker is assumed to be the king.
This psalm belongs among the imprecations (“curses”) of the Psalter, and is one of the three psalms designated as the imprecatory psalms (Pss. 35; 69; 109),[2] although they do not hold exclusive rights to imprecations (see the “Additional Insights” that precedes this unit). In fact, there are really no statements in this poem that can be designated “curses” in a strict sense—35:4–8 provides the closest examples—certainly not in the clear sense of Psalm 109.[3] Psalm 35 is a prayer that God will deal out justice to those who, without cause (35:7), have dealt injustice to the psalmist.
In the immediate neighborhood, Psalm 35 appears to be a companion to Psalm 34, the two sharing the only references to the “angel of the Lord” in the Psalter (34:7; 35:5, 6). The gentle admonition of Psalm 34 is that the saints “turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it” (34:14). In contrast, the king’s enemies in Psalm 35 “do not speak peaceably” (v. 20; lit., “they do not speak peace”). The psalm is an enlargement of the portrait of those who reject the admonition of 34:13–14 and a theological treatment of how God should deal with the unjust portrait that their rejection has cultivated.
Among the prophets Jeremiah sometimes assumes a vengeful spirit toward his many and violent enemies, but, like the psalmists, he does not take vengeance into his own hands but leaves it to God. Jeremiah 18:18–23 is such a caustic prayer in which he petitions God to bring personal tragedy on his persecutors (the spirit of Jer. 21–22 especially runs in that vein). Jeremiah’s prayer is introduced with information about how the people have been plotting against him, much like the plot that spawned his earlier prayer (Jer. 11:18–23). His critics have claimed that Jeremiah’s words are certainly no replacement for the words of the priest, the wise, and the prophet (perhaps these three groups were the major source of the charges). Yet Jeremiah’s disposition is not one of total denunciation, for he reminds God of how he has pleaded for their welfare (18:20b), putting a compassionate face on Jeremiah’s preaching. He, like Jonah (Jon. 4:2), knows God’s gracious nature and wants to direct God’s response into the channel of punitive action.
Jesus knows this psalm and quotes 35:19 in one of his discourses in John’s Gospel, in which he speaks to the disciples about his and their undeserved persecution: “But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason’” (John 15:25). It is of interest that Jesus refers to this statement as “written in their Law,” not the Torah as such, but in the Psalms, which was, in a sense, a compendium of the Torah (see the discussion of Ps. 1). In its totality, Psalm 35 may not be messianic, but it certainly has messianic overtones, as do the imprecatory psalms generally (see quotes from Pss. 69 and 109 in Acts 1:20; Rom. 11:10). Some consider these words not so much curses against David’s enemies as prophecies against Christ’s.[4]
Outline/Structure
The psalm is composed of three parts, each ending in praise. The following outline highlights the various elements of the psalm.
1. Part 1 (35:1–10)
a. The scheming (35:1–8)
i. Prayer of petition (35:1–3)
ii. Prayer against enemies (35:4–6)
iii. Explanation of enemies’ behavior (35:7)
iv. Prayer against enemies (35:8)
b. Praise (35:9–10)
2. Part 2 (35:11–18)
a. The mobbing (35:11–17)
i. Explanation of enemies’ behavior (35:11–12)
ii. Psalmist’s behavior compared to theirs (35:13–14)
iii. Enemies’ behavior compared to psalmist’s (35:15–16)
iv. Psalmist’s prayer for mercy (35:17)
b. Praise (35:18)
3. Part 3 (35:19–28)
a. The gloating (35:19–27)
i. Psalmist’s prayer for mercy against evil intent of enemies (35:19–21)
ii. Psalmist’s prayer for God’s actions (35:22–27)
b. Praise (35:28)[5]
Historical and Cultural Background
Delitzsch hints that the “curses” of the imprecatory psalms are reserved largely for Saul and, by prophetic extension, for Jesus’s enemies.[6] This is certainly possible, but unfortunately, in this case, we cannot be so sure that Saul’s persecution of David was the historical context for the “curses.” David had many enemies besides Saul, both inside and outside Israel.
While the “curses” of Psalm 35 hardly come up to the standard of those in Psalms 69 and 109, entreating God to bring curses on one’s enemies was a common practice in ancient Israel, as it was also among Israel’s neighbors.
Interpretive Insights
35:1 Contend, Lord, with those who contend with me. The verb “contend” and the object, “those who contend,” come from the language of the law court. Some form critics insist that this reflects a liturgical/legal use of the psalm, which may also be a hint of its provenance—the law court. That Yahweh should “contend” with “those who contend,” and “fight with those who fight,” is reflective of the same principle in Psalm 18:25–26, where human actions seem to shape divine actions (see “Theological Insights”).
35:2 Take up shield and armor. Two types of shields are in view, the first (magen) being the small shield that could be wielded in the left hand with the sword in the right, and the second (tsinnah, “armor” or “buckler”) referring to the large shield that virtually covered the warrior’s whole body and was probably carried by an infantry aide (see the comments on Ps. 5:12).
35:3 Brandish spear and javelin. The battle gear of the ancient warrior is listed here in terms of the defensive (shield and armor) and offensive (spear and javelin) weapons. The Hebrew word for “javelin” is contested (e.g., the KJV translates the Hebrew segor as a verb, but it probably should be pointed as seger and rendered as the NIV does, “javelin”; see also the NIV footnote).[7]
35:5 chaff. See Psalm 1:4 for a picture of winnowing. The wheat was placed on the threshing floor, where the grain was beaten out of its husk, then tossed into the air, allowing the wind to blow away the lighter chaff, with the heavier grain falling to the threshing floor.
35:7 without cause. The Hebrew word hinnam (“without cause”) occurs twice in 35:7, with 35:8 stipulating the punishment.
35:8 may the net they hid entangle them, may they fall into the pit, to their ruin. This principle of Old Testament ethics, that one’s evil deeds should “entangle” the evildoer, picks up on the same thought as 34:21 and is basic to Old Testament jurisprudence.
35:9 Then my soul will rejoice in the Lord. The Hebrew word for “soul” (nepesh) is not the Greek concept of “soul,” the disembodied spirit, but rather the idea of the human person. The phrase “living being” (nepesh hayyah, Gen. 1:20; NIV: “living creature”) is very close to the Hebrew notion. In view of this, it could be translated as the personal pronoun “I” (the parallel noun in 35:10 is “my whole being”; lit., “all my bones”).
35:10 Who is like you, Lord? This is an allusion to Moses’s words in the Song of the Sea (Exod. 15:11; variations occur in Pss. 71:19; 89:8; Isa. 44:7; Jer. 49:19; 50:44; see the sidebar).8
35:11 Ruthless witnesses. The phrase is literally “witnesses of violence,” the noun “violence” (hamas) connoting violence that involves bloodshed. Wilson sees here “damaging false testimony in a case involving the death penalty.”[9] The legal setting that gives rise to the language of the psalm is again evident in the word “witnesses,”[10] with the nature of the legal conflict dominating 35:11–16.11
35:12 They repay me evil for good. This sets the problem in perspective. David has done them no wrong but, in fact, has done them good.
35:15 when I stumbled, they gathered in glee. The evil intent of David’s persecutors is clearly in evidence here. They are not moved to pity when he stumbles but are prompted all the more to rejoice over his fall.
35:17 my precious life. The imagery of the Hebrew word yehidah, which is feminine (see also 22:20), suggests a dearly beloved only daughter, whereas the masculine noun elsewhere describes Isaac as “your only son [yahid], whom you love” (Gen. 22:2). Here it refers to the psalmist’s life.12
35:19 those who hate me without reason . . . wink the eye. Jesus applies this verse to the hostility of his and his followers’ enemies (John 15:25; see “The Text in Context”). Again the psalmist insists on his innocence. To “wink the eye” is a metaphor that suggests insidious intentions (Prov. 6:13; 10:10; 16:30).
35:21–22 With our own eyes we have seen it. Here we have a wordplay on the idea of seeing. The enemies claim they have seen with their own eyes (ra’atah) the false deeds that they have accused David of, and then the psalmist turns immediately to exclaim that it is the Lord who has seen (v. 22, ra’itah) the falsity of their vision (implied).
35:26–27 exalt . . . be exalted. The contrast is between those “who exalt themselves” and those who proclaim, “The Lord be exalted” (35:27).
Theological Insights
The notion that God’s attitudes and actions are motivated by, or react to, human attitudes and actions is reflected in 35:1 (“Contend, Lord, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me”). This relationship between divine and human actions is also the topic of Psalm 18:25–26:
To the faithful you show yourself faithful,
to the blameless you show yourself blameless,
to the pure you show yourself pure,
but to the devious you show yourself shrewd.
How does one explain this connection? Are God’s attitudes and actions determined by our human ones? Or are they reactions and not actions at all? The mystery of divine/human relationships is written all over the Psalms, and here we have an insight into that mystery, however dense it may at first appear. Even to suggest that God is unaffected by our deeds and attitudes is to obscure a huge part of the theology of the Psalms and, for that matter, the Old Testament as a whole. God is moved to compassion by our repentance (Ps. 51:17) and provoked by our sin (18:26b). Psalm 35:1 describes the second part of this mystery, “Contend with those who contend,” and “fight against those who fight.” Human actions and God’s response have a direct connection. On the other hand, Psalm 18:25–26 depicts both sides of the formula, exhibiting “the device of repeated reciprocity to encourage the faithful to adopt a fruitful relation to Yahweh.”[13] It is in effect an expression of the covenant relationship stated in Psalm 18:24: “The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.” God’s righteousness is the standard by which men’s and women’s righteousness is judged, and in that sense all other good attributes of human character are reflections of God’s character: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). God is favorably responsive to those who reflect his nature and adversely responsive to those who do not.
Another issue that Psalm 35 raises concerns the treatment of our enemies.
Cursing or Loving Our Enemies: Curses against the psalmist’s enemies do and ought to arouse a spirit of resistance inside us, mainly because Jesus has said that we should pray for our enemies, even love them (Matt. 5:43–48).[1] If cursing our enemies provokes a reaction in our minds, loving our enemies elicits a certain kind of resistance as well, since that is so contrary to our sinful nature. How can we possibly love our enemies! While Jesus interprets the curses of the psalms (Pss. 35:19; 69:4) to have been fulfilled in his own suffering (John 15:25; see also Rom. 15:3 [Ps. 69:9]), nowhere in the Gospels does he use an imprecation against his enemies. He both prescribes and practices a new standard of behavior toward one’s enemies, best expressed by his words from the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Mark 23:34).
At the same time we may ask the question whether we should make a distinction between interpersonal relationships, on the one hand (in which we are to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, etc.), and the behavior of those responsible for carrying out justice in society, on the other. It is generally recognized that Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is talking about how we should live as kingdom people, not about how society should function or how governing officials should deal with crime. Surely they are not to turn the other cheek and let crime go unchecked. With this caveat in place we can recognize that God’s actions are those of the one who is responsible to carry out justice. When God is carrying out justice, his interpersonal relationships are not at issue.[2]
The bold metaphors of the Psalms are sometimes shocking, such as that of 35:2–3. The suppliant prays that God will take up the weapons of battle and use them against his enemies. It is essentially a challenge for Yahweh to equip himself for battle. Yahweh as warrior has been a recurring concern of Old Testament theologians.[3] While this is more a metaphor than a virtual description of Yahweh’s battle worthiness, its bold effect is nevertheless notable, and for some readers it is disturbing. It is reminiscent of the audacious metaphor of Yahweh’s striking the psalmist’s enemies on the jaw and breaking their teeth in Psalm 3:7. While this picture of Yahweh as violent opponent may vibrate negatively to our sensitivities, we should remember that it is a measured reaction against his enemies’ violence. The psalmist’s complaint is of a serious nature, for the “ruthless witnesses” (35:11; see comments on that verse) are those who accuse the psalmist of blood-violence (hamas), a crime deserving death.[4]
The first principle of justice that the psalm presents is that evildoers may be ensnared by their own machinations (35:7–8). That, of course, is not to ignore the fact that in the world of Old Testament jurisprudence, as in the phenomenal world, every ethical action has, or ought to have, an equal and opposite reaction (“the punishment fits the crime”). If this ethical law fails in human affairs, then the second principle of justice presented by the psalm comes into effect, that Yahweh may initiate punitive action. In fact—and this is of great significance—the poets of the imprecatory psalms never take vengeance into their own hands but leave it in God’s (“Vengeance is mine . . .”; see Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19). God as initiator of punishment is further confirmed when the suppliant entreats the Lord to make his enemies chaff, “with the angel of the Lord pursuing them” (35:5–6). God as the expediter of punishment in order to establish his justice is a significant idea, and while it does not resolve the ethical dilemma that the imprecatory psalms present, it nevertheless provides one perspective that helps us understand why they are contained in the Psalter.5
Yet, this principle, despite our own vicious age, troubles some people because they, like Marcion of the second Christian century, have extracted judgment from their god profile, regardless of what the Scriptures may teach. But if God does not deal appropriately with injustice, how can we view him as a just God? Some retributive aspect is necessary for a balanced view of justice. The modern Western world is correct to insist on an appropriate measurement of punitive justice, but a total elimination of that aspect would make the system lopsided and essentially “unjust.” By the same analogy, we cannot eliminate the punitive aspect from the biblical profile of God and still maintain the profile of a just God.
The innocence of the suppliant is obvious in his reminder, “They repay me evil for good” (35:12a), while he has done the opposite (35:13–14). This moral code belongs in the upper stratum of Old Testament ethics, in the same category as “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18); and certainly the psalmist exceeds the “eye for an eye” principle by miles and institutes an ethic of love, very close to what Jesus himself has taught. To be sure, it is unnatural for us, because by our sinful nature we tend to return others’ behavior in kind. Yet this position only breeds further resentment and violence. The range of the Old Testament ethic extends upward from the ground-zero code of retaliation, to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “your neighbor as yourself” (e.g., Mark 12:29–31). David’s demeanor illustrates the upper range. Admittedly, however, one may treat another person with consideration and respect without loving him or her, but at least this behavior puts one in closer range of love.
Teaching the Text
Psalm 35 is among the psalms that have long portions omitted in the Liturgy of the Hours (35:3a, 4–8, 20–21, 24–26; also Pss. 59 and 69, while Pss. 58; 83; and 109 are omitted altogether).[14] Even though this psalm, along with the other imprecatory psalms, is included in the standard Psalters for worship, just how often they are used in public worship is anyone’s guess. My personal practice is to use these psalms as teaching instruments, but not for preaching, except as they may yield their messianic dividends (but see “Teaching the Text” in the unit on Ps. 109). The issues require a complex discussion and theological nuancing that do not fit the time frame and the audience-speaker dynamic of the sermon, but they can be useful as instruments of instruction, especially the justice of God and our reaction to it (see “Theological Insights” and the “Additional Insights” that precede and follow this unit).
Illustrating the Text
Spiritual perception sees the world as God intends.
Science: The image perceived by the human eye is thrown upon the retina in an inverted position. The brain knows what to do with that image so that it is perceived right-side up. But what if the brain did not know what it should do with the inverted image? What if the brain read it just as it appears on the retina? In the Gospels, Jesus gives us a picture of the world turned right-side up and instructs us that this is the panorama of the kingdom of God. For example, Jesus says, “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave” (Matt. 20:26–27). That’s the right-side-up version. But what if our spiritual brain did not have the capacity to turn the inverted image right-side up? It might read: “Whoever would be great among you must be rich and powerful, and whoever would be first among you must not allow anyone to get ahead of him.” One of the tragedies of the secularization of the church is that our spiritual brain has sometimes lost its capacity to handle the inverted image that is cast by a sinful world upon the retina of our spiritual eye. The psalmist’s ocular capabilities were quite excellent, and he insists that the world, turned upside down (35:12), is one that he has envisioned turned right-side up (35:13), and one that the Lord himself intends to turn right-side up (35:27).
Evil for good and good for evil
Applying the Text: One strong idea that emerges from Psalm 35 is the psalmist’s innocence, asserted in the phrase “without cause” (vv. 7, 19). His sterling character is further affirmed by his treatment of his enemies, “They repay me evil for good” (v. 12a). He defines the good he did to them when they were in trouble, “I put on sackcloth and humbled myself with fasting. When my prayers returned to me unanswered, I went about mourning” (vv. 13–14a). But something transformed the suppliant’s good thoughts about his enemies somewhere along this journey, for now he is wishing them woe (v. 8). Perhaps it was their reaction to his misfortune, “But when I stumbled, they gathered in glee. . . . They slandered me without ceasing” (vv. 15–16). When our assailants reject our kindness, and even our compassion for them in trouble, that is one thing, but when they then turn on us and mock us when we stumble, that is quite another matter. But that is not to imply that it is morally acceptable at that point to turn on them and pronounce our “curses” against them. Rather it is to point out that when our opponents return evil for good, that is a test of our character. One might conclude that David’s subsequent attitude that led to his prayer for their harm was a character failure. Could he not, should he not, have continued to nurture the “good for evil” principle that he practiced in the first phase of this troubled relationship? If he had achieved the ethical principle of loving one’s neighbor as oneself, the answer is definitely “yes.” But one wonders if the ethical currency of the day was that high a norm, especially when the “good for evil” principle had been rebuffed by its beneficiaries. I suspect that what is missing here is the clear teaching of that Son of David who taught us, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. . . . If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?” (Matt. 5:44, 46). While the psalmist had not achieved that status of ethical behavior, he had nevertheless reached a high plateau, and his enemies could not say, “We have swallowed him up.”