Toward a Theological and Practical
Understanding of the Psalms
by Tim Clark

SEND TIM A COMMENT OR QUESTION

Download and print:
this page

I believe that we would do well to re-think our view of the Psalms. I would not go so far as to say that Lewis is utterly wrong in his statement-surely different genres require different ways of reading. Yet we nonetheless must be careful how we apply Lewis's insight as we approach the Psalms. Surely "reading the Psalms as poems" does not mean that they are without truth-value.^[1]  On the contrary, while the Psalms may not be in the "form" of doctrinal treatise or sermon, their content is utterly theological. Indeed, Tremper Longman notes (p. 52) that the Psalms are a microcosm or summary of the rest of the Old Testament. And J. Clinton McCann asserts that "...the Psalter is not merely a collection of liturgical resources but is to be read and heard as a source of torah, 'instruction'..." (p. 18). He says that the purpose of the Psalms is to teach, to instruct about the nature of God and man, about relating to God, about theology (p. 19). "In short, the Psalter is to be read and heard as God's instruction to the faithful" (p. 27).^[2]  In this ^[3] paper, then, I will suggest that the Psalms are indeed a theological work, that we can in fact discern a theological center to the Psalter, and that this center has implications not only for our hermeneutic of the Psalms, but in fact for our daily lives.

Before we can move toward an understanding of the theological nature of the Psalms, we must first consider the nature of poetry. I would suggest that one barrier to reading the Psalms for their theological content which is faced by the average is, the problem of being intimidated by poetry.^[4]  Many people believe that poetic utterances cannot really be understood, that they must merely be "felt" or "experienced." To the extent that any understanding is to be gained, it must come via an appointed "priest"-usually the high school English teacher or college English professor. While I have no desire or intention of trying to fully discuss how one reads poetry for understanding, I do think it is important to de-mystify the process somewhat. A careful reading of poetry-actually, just about any type of poetry-usually will produce the same level of understanding as a careful reading of a prose work. Granted, there are conventions of different types of poetry which it is helpful to understand.^[5]  Of course, poetry tends to use more dramatic and picturesque language, but this should lend itself to greater understanding, rather than less.^[6]  Indeed, the happy result of such use of language typically is not less understanding, but rather more.

Alexander Pope, an 18th-century British poet, gives us an-appropriately poetic-description not only of this phenomenon, but a good description of poetry in general. In his poem "An Essay on Criticism," he describes what it is the poet does:

True wit is Nature to advantage dressed,
What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed;
Something whose truth convinced at sight we find,
That gives us back the image of our mind.

(ll.297-300)

In other words, the poet says things that others have thought, but have not expressed so well or so fully (line 298). What is more, poetry does not merely say the same thing that we have been thinking, only in a different way; rather, it often says things that we didn't even realize we believed.. In other words, the reader sees the poet's beautiful way of expressing something, and says, "I have never seen this before, but I have always believed it." Similarly, when we approach the Psalms, we are not reading works which must be only "felt" or "experienced." Rather, we see the exact same theological and historical ideas which we see throughout the rest of the Bible. Yet, they have never been "so well expressed" as they are by the psalmists. Furthermore, because of the language and descriptions used, we see, not things that we have not seen before, but things that we have seen many times (if we are students of the Bible), yet have never really understood. In this sense, then, we should not be intimidated by the poetry of the Psalms, or assume that we are not able to gain true theological insight and understanding from them. Rather, we should read them carefully, and fully expect to gain insight into the nature and ways of God which is richer than any we've known before.

We are now prepared to examine the overall context of biblical theology through which we must understand the Psalms. From there we will be able to read and understand some specific Psalms. We make a mistake if we attempt to interpret the Psalms as independent poems, to be read and understood on their own. The Psalms can be rightly understood only in context of an accurate biblical theology of the rest of the Old Testament. This is true both of individual psalms and the Psalter as a whole. For the most part that biblical theological context would be that which we see from the Torah through 2 Samuel (especially for psalms written by David), but of course many also are exilic or post-exilic, and therefore would be understood in that context as well.

It is, unfortunately, a widely held notion that there is no such thing as a single biblical theology of the Old Testament. I believe that Walter C. Kaiser, in his Toward an Old Testament Theology, has successfully argued otherwise. Because I believe that the unified picture of OT theology which Kaiser presents is crucial to understanding how to read the Psalms, it is necessary to present a summary of his ideas. According to Kaiser, the canonical center of Old Testament theology is the Promise. He supports this claim by examining several periods and events throughout Old Testament history and theology. The key points in the OT, according the Kaiser's analysis, are the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the new covenant of Jeremiah 31. But we can see this theme of God as the Promise-maker throughout the entire OT.

In the prepatriarchal period, we can see the theme of blessing immediately following the fall, in Genesis 3.15: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel." The emphasis here, of course, is on the "seed" of Eve; clearly God is giving them reason to focus on the seed and look forward to some sort of redemption through it. This if followed by the special blessing of Shem in Genesis 9:26-27. Kaiser suggests that the promise here is that God will dwell in the tents of Shem; i.e., "He would dwell with the Semitic peoples" (82).

This leads into the crucial blessing bestowed on Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, which was threefold: a seed, a land, and a blessing to all the nations of the earth (86). Kaiser lists five distinct aspects of this promise:

1. "I will make you a great nation."
2. "I will bless you."
3. "I will make your name great."
4. "I will bless those who bless you."
5. "I will curse those who curse you."

The purpose of, or result from, all of these aspects lies in the great promise: "So that in you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." As Kaiser emphasizes: "Indeed, world-wide blessing was the whole purpose of the very first statement of the promise in 12:2-3" (86). Of course all of this was accompanied by God's word of promise to Abraham, as well as to Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Thus Kaiser is able to summarize the theology of the patriarchs in this way: "The theology of this section was intertwined around that word from on high, its blessing to a chosen seed, and the assurance of the divine presence that guaranteed the certainty of the promised heir, inheritance, and heritage or even the present success of the patriarchs. It was all God's word of encouragement" (98, his emphasis).

In the Mosaic Era, the key aspect of the Promise is the setting apart of a people unto God, which can be seen in Exodus 19:5-6. The people of Israel are called out by God to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation," and in this sense the Law is then "the moral, ceremonial, and civil means of accomplishing such a high calling" (p. 44). In the Premonarchical Era, the key aspect of Promise lies in the inheriting of the land promised in Genesis.

This brings us to another crucial point in OT history, the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7. This covenant is especially important for the psalmists, who frequently refer to it explicitly. There are four key aspects to God's promise/covenant with David, the first three of which can be seen in verse 16 of 2 Samuel 7: "And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever." First, there is the promise of a "House". Kaiser makes the point that this is referring to the fact that David's dynasty will rule forever (p. 150). It was not only a promise for the present or the immediate future, but a promise that for the long term, his dynasty will continue to rule: they will "endure...forever." The second promise is that of a "Seed". This is implied in the previous promise; if one from David's dynasty or line will always sit upon the throne, the implication is that his seed will continue from generation to generation. The third aspect of the promise is the "Kingdom". Once again, closely aligned with the idea of David's dynasty continuing is the implication that God has conferred a kingdom upon David and his descendants. A final aspect in the promise can be seen in verse 14: "I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me..." Kaiser says that what is unique here is that God will now treat David's son in the same way that he has treated the patriarchs and Moses. Furthermore, "in a totally unique way David could now call Him 'my Father'" (p. 152). This covenant with David is a continuation of the covenant God had already made with Abraham centuries before: again, the land and seed and a name are promised. Kaiser summarizes: "Thus the ancient plan of God would continue, only now it would involve a king and a kingdom. Such a blessing would also involve the future of all mankind" (p. 155).^[7] 

In the Eighth Century, Kaiser places special emphasis on Isaiah, and especially the "magnificent mini-OT theology of Isaiah 40-66 with its key personage the Servant of the Lord from the seed of Abraham and David" (p. 48). In the Seventh Century, Kaiser addresses the "New Covenant" of Jeremiah 31:31-34, which he calls "the heart of Old Testament theology" (p. 231). Kaiser claims that this covenant "was the old Abrahamic-Davidic promise renewed and enlarged" (p. 234). The writers of the exilic period, Ezekiel and Daniel, brought into clearer focus the picture of the Good Shepherd one day reigning over a reunited Israel. The books of the post-exilic times place an emphasis on the ultimate triumph of God's plan in the world. Thus we can see that there is indeed a unified biblical theology in the OT: the Promise-Blessing of God upon the world.

In light of this unified focus of OT theology, we are now at a point to consider how Psalms fits into the rest of the OT. What is the central feature of the theology of the Psalter, and what implications does it present for our understanding of the Psalms? Longman says that the "central theological concept" of the Psalms is "God's covenant with his people" (p. 53). He says that the psalmists "speak out of the context of covenant," that everything they say about God and the world should be viewed in light of their covenant relationship with him. This concept "ties together many of the strands of the theology of the Psalms" (p. 57). McCann says "... the central theological affirmation of the Psalter is this: The Lord reigns!" (p. 44). In my estimation, both of them are correct, yet not fully or precisely enough. I am asserting that the Psalms should be read in light of the theology of the entire OT, which points toward the Promise/Blessing of God. Hence, I believe that the central theme of the Psalms could be summed up as this: "The sovereign and loving God has entered into a covenant relationship with his people." The psalmists do many things: lament over their struggles, call on God to rescue them, praise God, thank God, recall historical events, offer wisdom for living, comment on God's kingship. Yet all of these are to be understood in light of the overarching theme: "The sovereign and loving God has entered into a covenant relationship with his people." There are some wide-ranging implications from this phrase. Most significantly, we see that there exists a covenant relationship between God and people. God for his part has promised to bless and protect them, and in response, the people have the responsibility to follow and obey. We also see that God is sovereign. No matter what circumstances suggest, God is in control. Not only has he entered into a covenant in which he has promised to bless and protect his people, but he is in fact able to do so. Finally, we see that God is loving. He cares for his people, and wants to bless and protect them.

In order to demonstrate this theological focus of the Psalms-that the sovereign and loving God has entered into a covenant relationship with his people-I have chosen to examine psalms which make explicit references to specific events in OT history or to God's covenant. These best demonstrate the connections between Psalms and the rest of the OT. But I believe that we can build on this foundation as a means to understand the whole Psalter. This approach is valid because God's way of working in the OT is utterly historical; indeed, we should recoil from considering the Psalms ahistorically. Thus, looking at individual psalms with explicit ties to history is a good foundation for discerning how to historicize the others, the psalms where the connections are not as clear.

Perhaps the place to begin is with the psalm which best demonstrates the types of hermeneutical choices being made by the psalmists, Psalm 78. What is particularly interesting about this psalm is that it covers Israel's history from Jacob's choosing Judah to be the ruler in Genesis 49, through their rescue from the captivity of Babylon. Yet, the presentation is not chronological. Note the following outline of the events discussed in the psalm:

vv. 5-8: God establishes his law (Exodus 20ff)
vv. 9-42: God blesses, and the people rebel in the wilderness (Exodus 30ff, Numbers)
vv. 43-53: "they rebelled even though..." and recounts God's mighty deeds in afflicting the Egyptians and rescuing his people (Exodus 1-18)
vv. 54-55: He gave them the land (Joshua)
vv. 56-60: Still they rebelled (Judges)
vv. 61-64: He gave them over into captivity (End of 2 Kings)
vv. 65-66: He rescued them from captivity (540-520 B.C.)
vv. 67-69: He chose Judah instead of Joseph (Gen 49:12!)
vv. 70-72: He chose David to skillfully shepherd the people (1-2 Sam!)

Either this psalmist is a lousy historian, or something else is going on here! I believe we can see here a microcosm not only of what the psalmists typically are doing, but in fact of what OT writers generally are doing: working thematically. This writer knows that God chose David to shepherd his people more than 400 years before they entered captivity. Yet he is making a broader point. Even in the midst of all the trials, including going into exile, the most important thing for his readers to remember is that God has established an eternal covenant with David.

This type of emphasis can also be seen in Psalms that at first glance appear to be "merely" praise songs. Psalm 111 is a good example of this. Much of the psalm focuses on God's qualities; and when it refers to his "works", it is essentially generic, without a direct tie to historical events. Yet we can nonetheless see the theological key in verses 5 and 9:

5 He has given food to those who fear Him; He will remember His covenant forever.
9 He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever; Holy and awesome is His name. (emphasis mine)

According to this psalmist, there are many reasons for one to praise God. Yet the reason for his confidence lies in God's covenant relationship with his people.

Several Psalms explicitly hearken back to God's covenants, and call upon him to remember and uphold his end of it. In Psalm 74, the psalmist is calling for God's help in the midst of siege (probably from Babylon, with the mention of the destruction of the temple in verse 7). In verses 1-11, we see cries for help. We also see the basis for the claims on God's compassion: God had "purchased them from of old" and had "redeemed them to be the tribe of his inheritance" (v. 2). He then proceeds, in verses 12-17, to remind himself-and, importantly, God as well-who God is: The Creator of the World. Thus, not only has God made a promise, but as the sovereign creator of the world, he has the power to fulfill it. In verses 18-23 the psalmist calls on God to defend his own name, but his trump card in the claim lies in the first part of verse 20: "Consider the covenant."

Another psalm which takes the form of a lament at God apparently not upholding his end of the covenant is Psalm 89. This psalm is an interesting, and painful, one to read. The psalmist begins by praising God for his love (v. 1). He proceeds to summarize the Davidic covenant (vv. 2-4), recount that God is the sovereign and all-powerful creator (vv. 5-18), and then give a detailed presentation of the Davidic covenant (vv. 19-37). It is tempting to focus on this section of the psalm (as Kaiser does) for its insight into 2 Samuel 7. Yet the real focus of the psalmist is not on the covenant, but on what he perceives as God's failure to live up to it. For in verses 38-51, we see a venomous diatribe accusing God of not fulfilling the covenant. Indeed, this is actually a painful Psalm to read, both because of the emotional struggle that the writer is undergoing, and the spiritual dilemma it raises. There is no positive turn in this psalm (Verse 52 simply ends book 3). This is the psalm of a bitter and broken man. It is the struggle that has faced Jews through the ages: God has made a covenant and made promises, but where is he now? We're getting attacked and destroyed, and he is nowhere to be seen. I believe that this psalm can be seen as support for "blessing theme" by antithesis; the writer knew it was promised, and therefore it is the "theme"; yet the promise seems unfulfilled, so it is the antithesis.^[8] 

While the previous psalms focused on the psalmists call for God to uphold his side of the covenant, there are also those which address both sides: not only God's promise, but man's responsibility to respond properly as well. Psalm 37 is a good example of one which presents both sides of the covenant. What God has promised is introduced in verse 3 with the phrase, "Dwell in the land," and then is emphasized by the repetition of the phrase "inherit the land" in verses 9, 11, 22, 29, 34. But note that the psalmist is presenting both sides of the covenant: each time (excepting verse 22) he mentions the temporal blessing of inheriting the land, he also mentions the type of obedience which precedes it:

v. 9: "those who wait for the Lord, they will inherit the land."
v. 11: "the humble will inherit the land"
v. 29: "the righteous will inherit the land."
v. 34: "wait for the Lord and keep his way, and he will exalt you to inherit the land."

The psalmist is making a clear connection between Israel's covenant obligations and God's upholding his end of the covenant, specifically in the earthly blessing of inheriting the land. Throughout this psalm we also see an emphasis on God's sovereignty and goodness in general: he will look out for the righteous, and he has enough control to determine their destiny.

Another example of this type of psalm is Psalm 81. In this psalm we find a general recounting of Israel's history. God calls for his people to follow his law and laments that they do not. In verses 8-10 we see echoes of Exodus 20 in a call to obey the law, but they wouldn't listen (v. 11). Hence, God gave them over to their own stubbornness (v. 12). In verses 13-16, God sadly tells what he would do for them if they would follow him:

13 "Oh that My people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in My ways!
14 "I would quickly subdue their enemies and turn My hand against their adversaries.
15 "Those who hate the LORD would pretend obedience to Him, and their time {of punishment} would be forever.
16 "But I would feed you with the finest of the wheat, and with honey from the rock I would satisfy you."

We see here that the people do have a responsibility to respond properly in order to receive the blessings which God has promised; and it saddens God when they fail to accept what he has to offer.

We will conclude our discussion of specific psalms by examining two sets of companion psalms, Psalms 105/106 and Psalms 135/136. Psalms 105 and 106 are an interesting pair of psalms. Psalm 105 recounts Israel's history from Abraham through Joseph, then the exodus, and pretty much stays positive. Psalm 106 then recounts history as well, but it focuses more on the rebellion of the people. But the emphasis in both is on the covenant God (105:8-12, 42, 45; 106:45-46).

Psalm 105 begins with a general call to praise (vv. 1-7), but note that the section finishes by calling our attention to the Abrahamic covenant and the fact that Israel is chosen:

6 O seed of Abraham, His servant, O sons of Jacob, His chosen ones!

The psalmist then calls full attention to the covenant, in verses 8-11:

8 He has remembered His covenant forever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations,
9 {The} {covenant} which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac.
10 Then He confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11 Saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion of your inheritance,"

The psalmist then switches to a recounting of history, with particular emphasis on the sovereignty of God. Throughout the psalm, all of the agency remains with God; it is God who is in control, causing everything to happen, from the events in the life of Joseph to the plagues leading up to the exodus. Note just a few of the verses which indicate that it was God who was in control of the situations:

16 And He called for a famine upon the land; He broke the whole staff of bread.
17 He sent a man before them, Joseph, {who} was sold as a slave.
24 And He caused His people to be very fruitful, and made them stronger than their adversaries.
25 He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants.
26 He sent Moses His servant, {and} Aaron, whom He had chosen.

Then the psalm finishes with them entering the land:

44 He gave them also the lands of the nations, that they might take possession of {the fruit of} the peoples' labor.

Once again, it is God who is the agent of the action. But interestingly, the psalmist goes on to tell us why they got the land:

45 So that they might keep His statutes and observe His laws, praise the LORD!

God's blessing on them was a covenant blessing. It assumed that there would be a proper response from the people.

The ending of Psalm 105 is especially interesting, considering that the next psalm deals with their rebellion, i.e., their failure to keep the covenant. After a detailed listing of the many sins of the people, the psalmist tells us that God was angry, and turned them over to oppressors (vv. 40-43). Once again it is important to note that not only does God keep his covenant, but all of the agency belongs to God; he is sovereign. This can be seen in verses 7-10:

7 Our fathers in Egypt did not understand your wonders; they did not remember your abundant kindnesses, but rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea.
8 Nevertheless He saved them for the sake of His name, that He might make His power known.
9 Thus He rebuked the Red Sea and it dried up, and He led them through the deeps, as through the wilderness.
10 So He saved them from the hand of the one who hated {them} and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy.

And again in verses 41-43:

41 Then He gave them into the hand of the nations, and those who hated them ruled over them.
42 Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were subdued under their power.
43 Many times He would deliver them; they, however, were rebellious in their counsel, and {so} sank down in their iniquity.

In the end we see that God remembered his covenant and had mercy on them, even to extent of making them objects of compassion to oppressors:

44 Nevertheless He looked upon their distress when He heard their cry;
45 And He remembered His covenant for their sake, and relented according to the greatness of His lovingkindness.
46 He also made them {objects} of compassion in the presence of all their captors.

God is both sovereign and merciful.

In Psalms 135 and 136, we again see companion psalms which work together to show that "The sovereign and loving God has entered into a covenant relationship with his people." Psalm 135 reminds us of Exodus 19 and Deuteronomy 7; we see in verse 4:

4 For the LORD has chosen Jacob for himself, Israel for His own possession.

We are reminded in verses 8-11 of God's mighty works in Egypt, and in verses 12-13 that God has fulfilled his covenant by giving them the land. Yet the key to the whole psalm lies in verses 5-7:

5 For I know that the LORD is great and that our Lord is above all gods.
6 Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.
7 He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; who makes lightnings for the rain, who brings forth the wind from His treasuries.

Even as we're reminded in verse 5 of the beginning of Exodus 20, we see the essential message in verse 6; in short, the Lord is above all gods and does whatever he pleases. The sovereign covenant God is in control. Psalm 136 beautifully follows up this emphasis on God's sovereignty in fulfilling his covenant with an emphasis on God's love. While Psalm 136 is very similar in historical content to 135, every verse contains the refrain "for his lovingkindness is everlasting." Indeed, this is a crucial point in the Psalms: the sovereign God who has entered into a covenant with his people is motivated by everlasting lovingkindness.

Thus we can see how the Psalms which refer to historical events or the covenants can best be understood in context of the idea that "The sovereign and loving God has entered into a covenant relationship with his people." But what about other types of Psalms? I will briefly address how this type of analysis might be applicable to two other genres of the Psalms, the lament and the imprecation.

What about laments without a positive turn? The reason for the complaint against God originates in the fact that the psalmist knows that the sovereign and loving God has entered into a covenant relationship with his people; thus his faith is struggling as he tries to reconcile present circumstances with what he knows should be true.^[9]  From our perspective, in looking at the psalmist's situation, we can see the bigger picture of what God is doing in history, and therefore maintain faith that indeed God was in control. Yet on the other hand, we can see that in many of the events in our own lives, we are in the same predicament as the psalmist, unable from our perspective to glimpse how God is working. Hence, we are able to identify with the psalmist in our struggles, yet we are also presented with the opportunity to rise above our circumstances by at the same time identifying with what we can see to be God's sovereignty in the situation.

What about the imprecations, the calls for God to enact judgment on the enemies? These psalms trouble many readers, and some commentators fee lthe need to claim that they are merely pre-Christian and have no place within an overall plan of God. Yet I think the context I am suggesting also makes these psalms understandable. Using this lens, we can understand these tirades in terms of covenant. Within the covenant, we should (generally) expect temporal blessings on the righteous and cursings on the wicked. Thus, the call for judgment upon the wicked holds the same theological and philosophical (though admittedly not emotional) status as the call for blessings upon the righteous. It is simply the psalmist calling on God to keep his covenant, in the way that it appears to the psalmist, from his perspective, that God should do it.^[10] 

I believe that this understanding of the Psalms need not be merely an academic exercise. I think it has implications and applications for our daily lives as Christians as well. It was noted in the introduction that many people look to the Psalms merely as a charge (or comfort) for their emotions. It has been demonstrated, I trust, that the Psalms are loaded with theological content. So we are brought to the point of considering how this should affect our lives. What impact should these theological poems have on our daily relationships with God? How can we properly apply the Psalms to our daily lives? Longman states that "the Psalms inform our intellect, arouse our emotions, direct our wills and stimulate our imaginations" (p. 13). Yet many people focus only on the "arouse our emotions" aspect, and fail to realize the crucial connection with "informing the intellect," to use Longman's phrase. Indeed, various writers on the Psalms point out that their strength lies in tapping into the whole man; that is, in relating to God, it is the whole person relating, both the cognitve and affective sides. Yet I believe it is important to understand exactly how it is that this works. Along these lines, the Psalms are often viewed as a source of personal or corporate praise and worship of God. Based on our current understanding of them, what should our understanding of worship be?

I believe that this understanding of the Psalms can give us insight into the nature of our relationship with God, into worship, and even into our evangelistic method in the postmodern world. I would suggest the following approach, which I think does justice to the richness of the Psalms. While surely the psalms, as poetry, are meant to impact our emotions, the way that we are to be impacted is simply this: We are to experience comfort, or joy, or thanksgiving, or awe at the fact that, no matter what, "The sovereign and loving God has entered into a covenant relationship with his people." Longman makes the excellent point that "the Psalms give us theology written in intimate relationship with God and in close touch with life" (p. 53). And this moves us toward the key to what we learn in the Psalms about relating with God. We see men responding to God in an emotional way, yet it is not raw or unbridled emotion; it is emotion that ultimately responds to the truth about God in his relationship to his people. In short, we see real-life emotion at the footstool of deep theological truth. People are genuinely sad or angry or happy or awestruck, because of the events of life and because of God-and ultimately, they are directed and turned to the proper state by the truth about God. This, I believe, is what the Psalms-that most worshipful of books-have to teach us about worshipping God. True worship is not fueled by emotion; true worship is fueled by exciting truth. It is as we fully understand the truth about the nature of God and his relationship to us that our emotions will be energized into praise and worship of God.

Last year I had the privilege of hearing a lecture by Ajith Fernando, a pastor from Sri Lanka. In his lecture, "The Urgency of the Gospel", he asserted that "Our challenge is to demonstrate that truth is pleasurable." He said that we need "to show people that truth is desirable." If our approach to God is purely intellectual, we communicate an incorrect conception of truth: "The tragedy of dry orthodoxy is that it makes truth unattractive." To that I would add that the tragedy of mindless emotionalism is that it makes the attractiveness of passion to be unnecessarily devoid of truth content. It is just this that the Psalms do. They present Truth in a beautiful way, never truth devoid of real-life emotion, and never emotion separated from truth. It is possible-indeed necessary-to refuse in our Christian lives and witness to allow pleasure and emotion to be separated from truth. Fernando asserted that we Christians need to "linger with the truth, we need to meditate on the beauty of the truth." It is this approach which ultimately will motivate us to get outside of ourselves and focus on the needs of the unbelieving world. As Fernando said, "When we are filled with wonder over the truth of the gospel, urgency will be our hallmark."

As "worship," that is what the Psalms urge us to do: be emotional about Truth. In this sense, perhaps the Psalms are a key to reaching the world today-they contain emotional reality that postmodern man knows he is looking for, along with the Truth that he doesn't realize he needs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody, 1994.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. No city: Basic Books, 1985.

Abrams, M.H., General Ed. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 6th Ed. New York: Norton, 1993.

Fernando, Ajith. "The Urgency of the Gospel." Lecture. Telling the Truth: Evangelizing Postmoderns. Conference in Deerfield, IL. May 14, 1998.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

Lewis, C.S. Reflections on the Psalms. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1958.

Longman, Tremper, III. How to Read the Psalms. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1988.

McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993.

NOTES

^[1]  New Testament writers would not allow for such a view. It is interesting to note that of the 40 quotations from the Psalms in the epistles, 31 of them appear in Romans and Hebrews, the two most theological books of the NT. Return to Text

^[2]  He uses the structure of the Psalter, with Psalm 1 first, as his primary defense of this of this point. I think his structural argument is tenuous, yet he nonetheless makes a good overall point. Return to Text

^[3]  Return to Text

^[4]  Lewis-surely unintentionally and unwittingly-foments this fear by drawing such a sharp distinction between poetry and other types of writing. Return to Text

^[5]  Fortunately, in biblical poetry the primary convention is repetition (with variations), which is fairly easy to grasp. Robert Alter presents an excellent discussion of the form of biblical poetry. He would not affirm the inspiration of scripture in the Evangelical sense, but his literary analysis is nonetheless instructive. Return to Text

^[6]  I understand that some unfortunates have difficulty discerning when figurative language is being used, and therefore take some things literally which were not meant thus. Yet I believe that most discerning readers do not find this to be a problem. Return to Text

^[7]  Kaiser presents a fascinating list showing how this Davidic covenant is indeed a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant. (See p. 153 for full list of scriptures): 1. "I will make thee a great name" (v. 9) 2. "I will appoint a place for Israel and will plan them" (v. 10) 3. "I will set up thy seed after thee" (v. 12) 4. "He shall be My son" (v. 14) 5. "I will be to thee a God and you shall be to Me for a people" (v. 23-24) 6. Yahweh's uniqueness (v. 22) 7. Israel's uniqueness (v. 22, 23) 8. Exceptional use of "Adonai Yahweh" (vv. 18-19). Kaiser also shows that Premonarchical "Deuteronomism" and Davidic "Promise" form a unity. He says that throughout the DTR history we see "the hopes and threats of Deuteronomy." When we get to David, Kaiser sees the following connections between the two eras: 1. Obligation of David to follow the Law. 2. Frequent appeal by Davidic kings to Israel's election and promised land. 3. Constant reference to Jerusalem as place God has chosen. 4. Importance of name theology. 5. Confidence that Yahweh's word would not fail. 6. Appearance of prophets who emphasized keeping law of God. 7. Promised rest achieving measure of realization in David. Return to Text

^[8]  Later in the paper I address how an understanding of the theology of the Psalms can help us come to terms with laments such as this (i.e., ones without any discernible positive turn). Return to Text

^[9] See the discussion of Psalm 89 above. Return to Text

^[10]  I find this explanation more palatable than the one by C.S. Lewis, who essentially says that the psalmists who curse their enemies are sinning, and then tries to explain how we should respond to their contemptible sin. Return to Text