Reflections on the Psalms

In traditional Christian biblical interpretation, texts in the Bible have been considered to contain “a second or hidden meaning, an ‘allegorical’ sense’” (99) in addition to the literal meaning. To get a grasp of this concept, Lewis suggests several historical examples:

First, in an ancient Roman town a fire broke out, thought to have originated in the town’s bathhouse. Earlier that day, an attendant at the bathhouse had made an offhanded remark that seemed to presage the fire. In this case, the prophetic nature of the remark was probably coincidental.

In the next example, the Roman poet Virgil seemed to foretell the birth of Christ in one of his poems. Here too, the similarity may be due to luck, but it is “extraordinary luck,” and thus could be the result of “supernatural prevision.”

A third example is that Plato in the Republic speaks of the hypothetical execution of a totally innocent man in terms that strongly suggest what happened to Jesus. This suggests a third class of previsions, in which “someone says what is truer and more important that he knows” (102), but the second meaning is not arbitrary but intrinsically related to the speaker’s knowledge and insight.

This third example throws light on pagan myths that bear some similarity to Christianity. They are significant in being definitely related to the truth of Christianity, either as “a counterfeit to the real thing” (106) or as an expression of a universal truth that found its fulfillment in the story of Christ. Lewis concludes that “there are good reasons for not throwing away all second meanings as rubbish” (108).

From the considerations in the previous chapter about pantheists’ statements foretelling Christianity, Lewis concludes that the scriptures can do the same thing, and even “more momentously and more often” (109). This is for two reasons:

First, scripture is the inspired Word of God; this is true not in a literal or “fundamentalist” sense, but in the sense that human beings were intrinsically involved in transmitting God’s message and the scripture reflects this human filtering. What seems to us “imperfection” in scripture may be part of the whole package of what God wanted to convey. The “lower,” human elements are “up-graded” by being included within God’s plan. One important conclusion of this is that there may be a multiplicity of hidden meanings in the text. Because they were working under divine inspiration, the biblical authors were “especially likely” to have expressed secondary meanings of which they were unaware.

Second, people must especially accept this principle with regard to the Old Testament because such a view has sanction from Jesus himself. On the road to Emmaus after his resurrection, Jesus faulted the disciples for not seeing the hidden meaning in the writings of the prophets that referred to him and his mission.

Lewis gives some actual and possible examples of Old Testament prophesies taken by Jesus as pointing to himself. They include Isaiah 53 (the prophesy of the Lord’s Suffering Servant), Psalm 22 (a suffering psalm), Psalm 110 (a prophesy of the future kingship of the Messiah), and Psalm 118 (the stone rejected by the builders).

Lewis now applies the considerations in the two previous chapters to the Psalms. The existence of hidden meanings in the scriptures, especially referring to the coming of the Messiah, was taken for granted in the ancient era and was “common ground” between Jesus and his opponents. This does not mean, however, that all applications of this kind of interpretation are correct; scholars can be blinded by self-projection, and the historical process means that different eras interpret texts differently.

In the Psalms, two Messianic characters are implied: the “sufferer”—often identified with the suffering nation of Israel—and the “conquering and liberating king” (120—21), the successor of King David. Because Jesus identified himself with both these characters, Lewis stakes a claim that “the allegorical way of reading the Psalms can claim the highest possible authority” (121). Psalms already interpreted in the New Testament as being Messianic have the first place of authority.

Next, Lewis examines various “Messianic” Psalms in a close literary analysis. Psalm 110, although used in liturgical celebrations for Christmas Day, is a “coronation ode for a new king” (122) that is full of threats and warlike imagery. Jesus identified himself with the “lord” mentioned in the psalm as being superior to David, while the reference to Melchizedek serves to connect the psalm to Jesus as belonging a primordial, pre-Abrahamic priesthood. The psalm thus helps to establish Jesus as both an atoning priest and a conquering king, though one superior to any priest or king from history. It also acts as a corrective to modern readers who tend to stress only one or the other of these roles as applied to Christ.

Used in the liturgy for Whitsunday (Pentecost), Psalm 68 shows how the Psalms adapt themselves to new meanings. It refers to God’s saving actions in the Exodus and to Jewish victories but can also be taken to refer to Jesus’ ascent to heaven after his resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

In contrast to these examples, the psalms traditionally considered to foretell Christ’s Passion have a more obvious connection to their subtext. This is particularly true of Psalm 22, which Jesus quoted while on the cross. For Lewis, “All the sufferings of the righteous speak here” (127), while in Psalm 40, it is the sufferings of the guilty that are reflected. Both apply to Christ, who was innocent yet took on the weight of human sin.

Another Christmas psalm, Psalm 45, is a royal marriage ode that highlights the Incarnation and “restores Christmas to its proper complexity” (130). Like the Song of Songs, it exists on multiple levels and yields a multiplicity of insights. It reconciles the birth of Christ with the arrival of a great warrior, king, and “Lover, the Bridegroom, whose beauty surpasses that of man” (130). In presenting the image of a nervous bride on the eve of her wedding, it also comments on the “terrible” nature of vocation as an exodus from the familiar and natural to a higher, spiritual life.

Psalm 8, for Ascension Day, is an expression of awe at nature and humanity’s place in it. Its Christian meaning is that Jesus, having ascended to heaven, will make all things subject to him—an interpretation already found in 1 Corinthians, thus proving that it was established early. Lewis stakes a claim: Christians today are in danger of forgetting the “continued, never-to-be-abandoned, Humanity of Christ in glory, in eternity” (134), and Psalm 8 acts as a corrective to this.

Acknowledging that “I walk in wonders beyond myself” (134), Lewis concludes on “some simpler things” (134). Passages of “self-righteousness” in the Psalms take on a different meaning if we consider them as spoken by the all-good, all-innocent Christ. When reading the “cursing Psalms,” Christians can reflect on their own sinfulness and form allegories based on the need to uproot evil in our lives. Finally, from Psalm 84 and its counterposing of time and eternity in God, we can learn about our own destiny to transcend the “tyranny, the unilinear poverty, of time” (138) and live in eternity with God.