Recently, as a result of my studies, I’ve been spending a lot of time in the Psalms. I have also been wanting to continue through the Gospel of John here in the blogosphere and the two collided in a most unexpected way.
“Psalm [35] is a lament by an individual, like Psalms 17, 22, 28, and 31 (Bratcher and Reyburn 1991, 328).” In a lament the individual passionately pours out their grief and their sorrow to God. What’s interesting is that Bratcher and Rayburn make no indication that this psalm is also an imprecatory psalm. Imprecatory means that in the psalm the psalmist is praying evil against the persecutor (Bullock 2018, 222). An imprecation is an offensive word, curse, or phrase that people say when they are angry. In Psalm 35 the psalmist is passionately pouring out his grief and requesting evil actions and/or curses from God onto the psalmist’s enemies. But to call the prayer the psalmist is praying evil is to assume that the “evil” is unwarranted.
Bratcher and Reyburn divide the psalm into three parts. The first part (Psa 35:1-10) is prayer of justification, an accusation, a plea for vengeance, followed with a promise of praise (Bratcher and Reyburn 1991, 328). While the first part is built on the idea that the psalmist’s enemies had no cause against him (Psa 35:7) the second part (Psa 35:11-18) is a stronger declaration of the psalmist’s innocence in the midst of a description of his enemies and followed again with a plea and a promise (Bratcher and Reyburn 1991, 328). The declaration of innocence is harder to see in the third part (Psa 35:19-28) but it is there none the less. Where the ESV translates “Let not those rejoice over me who are wrongfully my foes… (Psa 35:19)” the NIV translates “Do not let those gloat over me who are my enemies without cause… (Psa 35:19, NIV).” Again, part three contains a statement of innocence followed by a plea and a promise (Bratcher and Reyburn 1991, 328).
The innocence of the psalmist is central to the psalm. But is the psalmist innocent? If he is innocent, then the plea or prayer is that the evil men arrayed against him receive the fruits of their evil. The evil is upon them not the psalmist. But what of Jesus’ words in the gospel of John? “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone… (Joh 8:7).” On face value these words in John’s Gospel are used to remind us that none of us are without sin and that we should not judge lest we be judged (Mat 7:1). However, John is quoting from Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7 to remind the woman’s accusers that the witnesses to the crime was to be the one who initiated the sentence (Carson 1991, 336). Jesus wasn’t saying that the accusers had to be perfect in order to confront a sin but, “rather, that they must not be guilty of this particular sin (Carson 1991, 336)” lest they violate the very law they are trying to use against Him. That was the particular sin Jesus was calling out, not the sin of adultery.
The reality was that those who had brought the woman to Jesus were not interested in justice. The simple fact that they didn’t bring the man who had been caught with the woman indicates at least that they were not interested in a pure justice. They brought the woman to trap Jesus (Carson 1991, 335). “If Jesus disavowed the law of Moses, his credibility would be instantly undermined: he could be dismissed as a lawless person and perhaps be charged in the courts with serious offences. If he upheld the law of Moses, he would not only be supporting a position that was largely unpopular but one that was probably not carried out in public life, and, worse, which would have been hard to square with his well-known compassion for the broken and disreputable, his quickness to forgive and restore, and his announcement of the life-transforming power bound up with the new birth. It is even possible, as Jeremias suggests, that formal agreement with the law of Moses could have been interpreted in such a way as to get him into serious difficulty with the Roman overlord. If in the name of Moses, he pronounced the death sentence on this woman, and it was actually carried out, he would have been infringing the exclusive rights of the Roman prefect, who alone at this period had the authority to impose capital sentences (cf. notes on 18:31–32) (Carson 1991, 335).” These men were guilty of using the law unjustly and not one man among them was free of that guilt.
The psalmist’s innocence then could be built on the idea that he was innocent of that which he was accusing his enemies of being guilty. What were the psalmist’s enemies guilty of? They were seeking after his life and devising evil against him (Psa 35:4), they were attempting to entrap him (Psa 35:7), false witnesses were brought against him (Psa 35:11), they repaid him evil for good (Psa 35:12), they rejoiced at his stumbling and gathered people against him (Psa 35:15), they “gnashed at him with their teeth (Psa 35:16)” and “wink their eyes (Psa 35:19),” they did not seek peace, and they dealt with him deceitfully (Psa 35:20). More succinctly, “They open[ed] wide their mouths against [him]; they [said], “Aha, Aha! Our eyes have seen it (Psa 35:21)!”
What I find at a closer look of the psalmist’s enemies in Psalm 35 is a very accurate description of the scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Wow! Even, the trap that the scribes and Pharisees were attempting to set for Jesus in John 7:53-8:11 could be a specific example of what the psalmist was accusing his enemies of doing. Although no one knows what Jesus was writing in the dirt I’m beginning to think Psalm 35 might be a candidate for discussion.
Would it be evil of God to execute upon the scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees the curses of Psalm 35? No, it would be just! Is the justness of the punishment owed to them due to the perfection of God? No, it was owed because of the unjustness of their actions. I heard a pastor, preaching on this passage in John’s Gospel ask the question, could you defend yourself by demanding that your accuser be without sin? Its rhetorical of course. You could not, but what if Psalm 35 were the prayer of Jesus? Wouldn’t God answer the prayer of His son? One day you will either go to Him or He will come to you and on that day He who is without sin will be casting a stone: a stone of righteous judgment. Would you be able to stand? Can you afford to assume that God’s anger against you is unwarranted?
What is most amazing though, is that these same men who accused the only person who could cast a stone without sin can repent because of the good that Jesus has done for them. Repent today, do not neglect Jesus’ kindness until it is too late. Today, you can obfuscate your guilt by pointing to the guilt of those who would warn you. But one day one who is guiltless will call you to justice.
Thank you for reading. Don’t forget to sign up for my e-mail so you won’t miss that content. I’ve recently been told by Facebook that my content will be made less available so the e-mail list is the surest way to make sure you There is so much detail in every word of the Bible I hope that these words are encouraging you to dig more into God’s Word.
Photo by Tim Wildsmith on Unsplash.
Bratcher, Robert G., and William David Reyburn. A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Psalms. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1991.
Bullock, C. Hassell. Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2018.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.