foregoing, the following rules apply in the interpretation of the
and historical. The sacred singers are living members of the Church of God, and are so conscious of their unity with the Church as a whole that their songs also embody the praises and the lamentations of the Church. And, as members of the Church, they also feel that they are united to Him Who is its glorious Head, Who suffers for and with it, and is the author of its joy. This explains the fact that Christ is sometimes heard in the psalms, now singing a plaintive song, and anon raising up his voice in a paean of victory. Again, the life of the poet in union with Christ also has its fountain in God. Hence his song, which is also the song of the Church, finds its mainspring in God. The result of it all is that in some of the psalms, the personal experiences of the poet are most prominent; that in others the communal life of Israel and of the Church finds expression; and in still others, the humiliated and exalted Christ is heard. In all the psalms we have the deep background to which we referred, and the interpreter must beware of viewing them superficially. He should never rest satisfied until he hears in them the voice of his God. And the fact that, in God's sight, the antithesis between sin and holiness is absolute, that He loves his Church but hates whatsoever opposes his Kingdom, will also explain the strong expressions of love and hatred that are found in the psalms. 2. RULES FOR INTERPRETATION. In connection with the foregoing, the following rules apply in the interpretation of the psalms:
a. If there was a historical occasion for the composition of a psalm, this should be carefully studied. Notice how this illumines the following psalms: 3, 32, 51, 63.
b. Because the psalms are far more subjective than other parts of the Bible, the psychological element is important for their correct interpretation. The interpreter should study the character of the poet and the frame of mind in which he composed his song. The more thoroughly David is known, the better his psalms will be understood.
c. In view of the fact that the psalms are not purely individual, but largely communal, they must be regarded as utterances of the regenerate heart, of the life that is born from God; and the interpreter should not rest satisfied until he understands how they, too, reveal God's will.
d. In the interpretation of the Messianic psalms, a careful distinction must be made between psalms or parts of psalms that are directly, and those that are indirectly Messianic. While the former, such as Pss. 2, 22, 45, 110, are directly Messianic, the latter, such as 72 and 89, apply first of all to the poet or some other Old Testament saint, and only, through him as an intervening type, in the second place, to Christ. There are also some that cannot be classed with either of these, which Binnie prefers to call "mystically Messianic psalms" in view of the fact that the true key to their interpretation is not found in the doctrine of the types, but in the mystical union of Christ and the Church. Cf. 16, 40. Since the Messianic psalms are prophetic, special attention should be paid to the quotations from them in the New Testament, and to the New Testament realization of their predictions.
e. In connection with the so-called "Imprecatory Psalms," or, perhaps better, imprecations in the psalms, certain facts should be taken into consideration.
(1) Orientals love the concrete, and therefore sometimes represent sin in the concrete form of the sinner.
(2) These imprecations embody the desire of the Old Testament saints for the vindication of the righteousness and holiness of God.
(3) They are not utterances of personal vindictiveness, but of the Church's aversion to sin, embodied in the sinner.
(4) They are, at the same time, a revelation of God's attitude to those who are hostile to Him and His Kingdom.
LITERATURE: Binnie, The Psalms: Their History, Teachings and Use; Robertson, The Poetry and the Religion of the Psalms; Murray, Origin and Growth of the Psalms; and the various Commentaries on the Psalms.
G. The Implied Sense of Scripture
The Bible as the Word of God contains a fulness and wealth of thought that is unfathomable. This is evident not only from its types and symbols and prophecies, but also from what it contains implicitly rather than by express assertion. Even in the case of human compositions we distinguish between what is expressed and what is implied. In writings of a superior order, it is often found that the language suggests and involves important truths that are embodied in words. Great minds contain a wealth of knowledge, and whatever they communicate of it is related to and suggestive of that vast store, so that it becomes quite possible to read between the lines. And if this is true of the literary productions of men, it applies much more to the infallible Word of God.
There is an important distinction, however. Man only knows in part, and is not always conscious of what he knows. Moreover, he often fails to see the implications of what he says or writes. It is quite possible that his words contain implications which he did not see and to which he would not subscribe. It may very well be that what can fairly be deduced from his explicit assertions, by means of logical inference or comparison, lies entirely outside of his range of thought and is, in fact, the very opposite of what he means. Hence the rule, so often forgotten in practice, but yet essential to all fair controversy, that "it is not allowable to charge upon an author the consequences of his statements when not expressly avowed or adopted, even although these consequences may be necessarily involved in the statements." He may not have contemplated nor even seen them, so that he is not responsible for them, but only for the employment of language which unintentionally implies them. For the same reason it is not permissible to infer a writer's opinion on a certain matter from
incidental expressions, used by him when the matter in question was not under consideration. As a rule it is an unwarranted procedure, to ascribe to an author thoughts or sentiments which he did not expressly utter in connection with the matter to which they pertain. He who does this is guilty of consequensmacherei.
But in the case of the Word of God, these restrictions do not apply. The knowledge of God is all-comprehending and is always conscious knowledge. In giving man his Word, He was not only perfectly aware of all that was said, but also of all that this implied. He knew the inferences that are deduced from His written Word. Says Bannerman: "The consequences that are deduced from Scripture by unavoidable inference, and more largely still the consequences that are deduced from a comparison of the various Scripture statements among themselves, were foreseen by infinite wisdom in the very act of supernaturally inspiring the record from which they are inferred: and the Revealer not only knew that men would deduce such consequences, but designed that they should do so" (Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 585). Therefore not only the express statements of Scripture, but its implications as well, must be regarded as the Word of God.
Jesus himself warrants this position. When the Sadducees came to him with a question which, in their estimation, clearly proved the untenableness of the doctrine of the resurrection, he referred them to the self-designation of Jehovah at the bush: "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"; and deduced from it by good and necessary inference, the doctrine which they denied. Moreover, he reproved their failure to see the implication of that self-designation by saying, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scripture" (Matt. 22:29–32; Mark 12:24–27; Luke 20:37, 38). For other examples, cf. Rom. 4:5–12; 1 Cor. 9:8–10; 1 Tim. 5:17, 18; Heb. 4:5–9.
We feel warranted, therefore, in laying down the following rule: "The deductions of doctrine made from its (the Bible's) statements on a