With the sensitivity of a poet and the honesty of a scholar, C.S. Lewis delves into the Psalms. In doing so, he is not afraid to raise uncomfortable questions, such as how to understand the apparent self-righteousness and gleefulness of many psalmists; or the question whether God is an egocentric monarch who demands people to praise Him as if He needed such praise. Other issues Lewis deals with are the concept of Judgment in the Psalms, as well as their portrayals of death, nature, and the beauty of God. He also devotes two chapters to understanding the prophecies, or second meanings, in the Psalms
For me, however, the most interesting part was C.S. Lewis's view on the Bible as seen in the book. Except for some of his essays, letters, and recorded Q&A sessions, C.S. Lewis has been rather sparse on clearly stating his view on Scripture. This makes his Reflections on the Psalms a valuable resource to a Lewis scholar, since it shows his view on the Bible more clearly than any other of his books.
To summarize his view, he emphasizes that the Bible is not a Divine encyclopaedia. We cannot simply turn the Bible to the headwords stars, earth, animals, homo sapiens, and find a Divine exposition that explains God's perspective on the topic in a systematic manner. The Bible is a canon of various types of literature, to be approached in various ways. It is not an encyclopaedia but an anthology: God selecting a canon which, taken as a whole, portrays the history of the Incarnation, using myth, chronicle, poetry and prophecy to do so.
Many people would of course rather have a Divine encyclopaedia than a Divine anthology of human literature. The latter seems to be rather an "untidy and leaky vehicle," as C.S. Lewis puts it. We much prefer "something we could have tabulated and memorised and relied on like the multiplication table." But only because we wish the Bible were different, it does not mean that it is different. God does not necessarily share our opinion that a Divine encyclopaedia would be best for us. As C.S. Lewis says: "There is one argument which we should beware of using for either position: God must have done what is best, this is best, therefore God has done this. For we are mortals and do not know what is best for us, and it is dangerous to prescribe what God must have done - especially when we cannot, for the life of us, see that He has after all done it."
Even Jesus, the Word that truly was perfect, does not measure up to some people's expectations of the Bible. He did not communicate a Divine encyclopaedia to mankind. Jesus wrote no book. "We have only reported sayings, most of them uttered in answer to questions, shaped in some degree by their context." He preached and conversed rather than lectured, using thereby the whole range of human expressions such as we can expect from a carpenter: "paradox, proverb, exaggeration, parable, irony." If we took all of His sayings literally, they would contradict each other. One can therefore not reduce His teachings to a neat set of Divine principles. Bible teachers who do that lose the essence of the Word made flesh. His teaching "cannot be grasped by the intellect alone, cannot be `got up' as if it were a `subject.' If we try to do that with it, we shall find Him the most elusive of teachers. He hardly ever gave a straight answer to a straight question. He will not be, in the way we want, `pinned down.'" The attempt is, Lewis says, "like trying to bottle a sunbeam."
Neither does the Apostle Paul give us a Divine encyclopaedia. When it comes to lucidity and orderly exposition, Paul is a very bad writer indeed. His letters are a "turbulent mixture of petty detail, personal complaint, practical advice, and lyrical rapture." They are not a collection of treatises on systematic theology. But what we do get from the letters is an example of a Christian's life in action. "Follow me as I follow Christ" is Paul's maxim. We see "Christ Himself operating in a man's life" - which is more valuable than a simple set of dogmas.
If, therefore, even the Word made flesh and the great Apostle cannot be approached like Divine encyclopaedias, how much less the Old Testament? - how much less the documents which portray the history of the Incarnation gradually coming into focus? Indeed, "the value of the Old Testament may be dependant on what seems its imperfection. It may repel one use in order that we may be forced to use it in another way - (...) to re-live, while we read, the whole Jewish experience of God's gradual and graded self-revelation, to feel the very contentions between the Word and the human material through which it works. For here again [as in Jesus' and Paul's teachings], it is our total response that has to be elicited."
Thus far a summary of C.S. Lewis's view on Scripture. For a full exposition, and much more besides, buy the book. You will not regret it.
- Jacob Schriftman, Author of The C. S. Lewis Book on the Bible
