An Observation about the Inspiration of the Psalms

Something that strikes me when I read the Psalms is how often the words of a Psalm don't match David's actual emotions and behavior in the historical situation in which the Psalm was written.

For instance, in Psalm 3, David rejoices over the defeat of his enemy and how God has smitten his enemy's jaw and broken his teeth. But in the historical setting, David actually weeps and mourns the death of his enemy, Absalom - to the point of nearly losing the loyalty of his army.

Psalm 34 is written when David tried to hide in Gath by pretending to be crazy. Achish throws him out saying he has enough lunatics in his own kingdom, he doesn't need to import any from Israel. But when you read that Psalm, you'll see that the words don't match David's behavior or emotions in the least.

These are just two examples out of many that could be marshaled to make this point.

This is a striking demonstration of the Inspiration of the Psalms. The content was not dependent on David and his experiences. The experiences of David, as a type of Christ, served as a substrate for many of the prophecies in the Psalms, but this is not the same as saying that they explain them. The explanation – in other words – the actual source of the words, was not David, but the Holy Spirit.

This is where you can see the gross error of preachers who try to psychologize Bible characters and explain Scripture based on their feelings. It has always seemed to me that this method was an implicit denial of Inspiration because it looks for a naturalistic explanation for the content of Scripture. David did not provide the content of the Psalms – God did. These are the very words of God mediated through David and his experiences.

David was a prophet. The New Testament asserts this more than once. It was not an uncommon thing for a prophet's personal life to serve as a didactic tool or illustration of some theological truth. Think of Ezekiel being forbidden from mourning the death of his wife, or eating his famous (perhaps, infamous) bread. Think of Hosea marrying a harlot. Think of Jeremiah digging a hole in the wall of Jerusalem. These things were ordered and ordained by God in order to make a larger point to His people. In the same way, David's life was full of experiences which served as the substrate for the revelation God has given us in The books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and the Psalms.

Pierre Allix on the Psalms

Pierre Allix (1641-1717) was a French Protestant pastor and author. The revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 compelled him to take refuge in London. There he set up a church in Jewin street, Aldersgate. He was the most celebrated Huguenot preacher of the 1680s in England. In 1690 Allix was created Doctor of Divinity by Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and was given the treasurership and a canonry in salisbury Cathedral by Bishop Gilbert Burnet.

The work is composed of two parts: First Allix presents an essay describing the correct method of interpreting the Psalms. The second part is the whole book of Psalms itself, supplied with short explanatory notes before each one.

The introductory essay by Allix, explaining the proper method of interpreting the Psalms, is an outstanding work. He argues conclusively, that the idea of “double meaning” is foolish. Neither Christ, nor His apostles ever understood the Psalms to have a double meaning (applied to David or Solomon, and also to Christ).

Allix write: “Nothing is more ordinary among the interpreters of the scripture, than to explain the Oracles of the Old Testament in the first place according to the Letter, and afterwards according to the spirit. They carefully refer to David, for instance, or to solomon, what they think belongs to them in the Psalms, and then what they find is non-applicable to David or to solomon, they pretend it has a regard to the Messias. The ground these Divines go upon-is, that the Holy Ghost in the New Testament has referred to our Lord Jesus Chris divers Prophesies, which seem to have been pronounced under the Old Testament with respect to David and to Solomon, and which indeed seem to befit them in some measure, though they have not an exact fulfilling in those Princes, but only in the Person of the Messias. “They assert therefore, that no inconvenience will follow from referring to the Type what belongs to it, and to the Antitype what concerns it; nay, they look upon this duplicity of sense in the same Prophecy, as worthy of the spirit of God, being an instance of the care he has taken to give his ancient People Types of the time to come...“I affirm that method to be absolutely unknown to the holy Writers; it is an human fancy, grounded only upon the invention of the Interpreters. And indeed, as it is not agreeable to natural Principles for God to grant a Revelation treating and speaking of two different Subjects and of two different Persons in the same speech, and with the same words, so one could never have guessed the Spirit of God did intend his Predictions should be so understood, without his particular Revelation that they had two senses this respected two Persons very different from each other in all the circumstances of place, time, and actions.”

Allix goes on to show how Peter, for instance, when citing Psalm 16, argues that it would be absurd to interpret it of David. Also, the Apostles refer more than once to David as “a prophet,” signifying that what he wrote could not possibly be about himself. It was the normal practice of Christ and His apostles to refer all of the Psalms to Christ – and to assert – in no uncertain terms - that they spoke of Him.

The early church did the same thing. This is seen in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, in Tertullian's Treatise Against the Jews, and Cyprian's books to Quirinius. Allix says, in essence,
“You can't go wrong interpreting the Psalms the way that the Apostles did – mainly because they did so under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit who put the original words in the mouth of David.”

The power of the predictive nature of the Psalms is blunted, Allix maintains, by this double method of interpreting them. So he says, “And truly, supposing that method of interpreting Scripture by a double sense to be true, they could never have been able to persuade anybody from the old Prophecies. Go and tell an Heathen or a Jew that there are Prophecies in the Old Testament that speak of two persons; viz. of David and of the Messias; at the same time, without any difference in the Stile, but distinguished only by this characteristic: that what has been fulfilled in David in a lower sense, was to he fulfilled in the Person of the Messias in a much higher and more magnificent sense, and I am sure he will appear not at all satisfied. with the Proposition...So long as Divine Revelation is brought in to declare a fact which is at a distance, and which cannot be known and which cannot be known otherwise, the efficacy of the Prophecy is much weakened by supposing that the Holy Ghost has expressed himself concerning two Facts, one present, and the other more remote, in the same terms, this thing would naturally confound the sense of the Prophecy, and seems to want a new revelation for the distinguishing of its senses.”

There are some valuable insights in the prefatory notes for each Psalm, but the real gold is the introductory essay on interpreting the whole book. 

The book can be accessed here. 

Reflections on Psalm 45

“Discoveries of Jesus’ glory powerfully animate our hearts, and tune our tongues to commend him. How glorious is his person as God-man! Rich in grace are the qualities of his heart and the words of his mouth. In him it pleased the Father that all fullness of blessings for man should dwell. In almighty power, by his word and influences of his Spirit, he conquered multitudes in the apostolic age to the obedience of faith: and by the strokes of his vengeance did and shall destroy his Jewish and other implacable opposers. Having by himself purged our sins, he, as our righteous Sovereign, sat down at the right hand of God, as the reward of his holy service; and is, in the most transcendent manner filled with the Holy Ghost to shed on us abundantly. In a most glorious and heart-engaging manner, his manhood, mediatorial offices, and righteousness, appear in the heavens above, and in his church and ordinances below. And his people, adorned with gifts and graces, are raised up together, and made to sit together with him. His chosen one, both Jews and Gentiles, in the day of his power, are made to hear his voice in the gospel, to renounce all others, and devote themselves entirely to him and his service, as the object of his gracious and everlasting delight. In shining robes of righteousness, grace and holy conversation, each in their order are adorned; and after serving their generation by the will of God, they shall be brought and admitted into his heavenly palace with exceeding joy. Instead of Jewish fathers there shall be Gentile converts; and instead of glorified saints shall there be another generation, begotten by the power of his grace, all made kings and priests unto God! Thus, by the spread and influence of the gospel, shall Jesus’ renown and honour be perpetuated on earth, while those in heaven above shall praise him for ever and ever.” 

John Brown of Haddington, 

Self-Interpreting Bible, 

Reflections Upon Psalm XLV.  

Preaching On The Psalms 2

In the previous post I referred to goofy exegesis of the Psalms. Actually, I wouldn’t be so riled if the preaching were merely goofy. But all too often principles are asserted in the common hermeneutic that if closely examined, and carried to their logical conclusions, would destroy inspiration as we know it. This is nowhere more evident than in the exegesis of the Imprecatory Psalms.

For the uninitiated, the Imprecatory Psalms are those Psalms wherein people are cursed. Psalm 35 is a case in point. There are several songs in which David curses enemies. And then there are statements against enemies scattered throughout many of the other psalms, such as 139: 21, 22, which read: “Do not I hate them, O LORD that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”

Three proposed solutions to the ‘problem’ of the Imprecatory Psalms:

1. David is sinning. His sins are hatred, resentfulness, and vengeance. All God’s people are sinners, even the saints of the Old Testament. Christians are to love their enemies. Any statement of this kind is simply sinful.

This sentiment is clearly based upon the old “God hates the sin but loves the sinner” line. Is this true? Not at all. Before you rush to protest, let me ask: Is it the sin that God casts into Hell or the sinner? Look at these passages:

Psalm 5:4-6 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalm11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Proverbs 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So it is clear that at some level God does indeed hate His enemies. Therefore this first solution is a red herring. As children of God we are to mirror His character, which includes His hatred of sin and the sinner. Scripture forbids bitterness, yes; but, this hatred of God’s which we are to reflect is neither vindictiveness nor self-centered resentfulness. It is a holy hatred of anything and anyone who opposes the righteous will of a holy God and is therefore His enemy. This may be confusing at times in practice, but it is nonetheless true.

2. The Old Testament period was one of Law, harshness and vengeance. But the New Testament era is one of grace, mercy, and forgiveness. So the hatred and vengeance David was expressing was perfectly acceptable in the Old Testament era. In the New Testament we follow the Law of Christ, but David the Law of Moses.

This is the approach of Dispensationalism because of its sharp discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. While we acknowledge some things discontinued, these are only those which God has revealed by precept or by necessary inference. There is a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a redefined covenant people. But these are fuller expressions of the same Covenant of Grace. But when it comes to God’s moral character and the things He has professed hatred of, there can be no discontinuity or change. God is not a God who can change. What He hated in the Old Testament He still hates in the New Testament. In fact the New Testament expresses God’s hatred for sin more clearly than the Old, for He poured out His infinite wrath against sin on His own dear Son. The Sermon on the Mount is not a new Law contrasted with Old Testament ethics. It is an expression of what was intended by the Old Testament all along. Hence there is no discontinuity of ethics between the Old and New Testaments. Indeed, imprecations are not unique to the Old Testament. Peter curses Simon Magus in Acts 8:20. Paul imprecates the High Priest in Acts 23:3, Alexander the coppersmith in 2 Timothy 4:14, and preachers of a false gospel in Galatians 1. Furthermore, the greatest woes pronounced by anyone on anyone anywhere in Scripture are from the lips of Jesus Himself in Matthew 23.

Not only is this true, but the supposed New Testament ethics of forgiveness and mercy are taught in the Old Testament. In fact, many times the VERY WORDS use in New Testament are merely quotations from the Old! When Jesus summarizes part of the Law as loving your neighbor as yourself, He was not creating a new principle. He was quoting Leviticus 19:18. Exodus 23:4-5 give us case laws wherein kindness to enemies is demanded. The familiar “Vengeance is Mine,” is from Deuteronomy. The same David who wrote Psalm, also penned these words RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of an Imprecatory Psalm: False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not. They rewarded me evil for good to the spoiling of my soul. But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother. Psalm 35:11-14. And therefore, this second attempted solution fails.

3. The Liberals approach is unthinkable to any true Christian. They simply say that we have here a blatant contradiction in Scripture. This is such an abhorrent view that no Christian should give it the dignity of a response. It is a God-hating view developed by men who are God-haters. Period.

These are several ways in which these Psalms are handled. But not one of them is correct. The Reformed position, especial as it pertains to the doctrine of Inspiration, is the only way these texts can be treated correctly. If we wish to defend the traditional Reformed doctrine of Inspiration, then we must shun any interpretation which lets David, or the other authors of the Psalms, insert themselves into the text. Too often, much is made of David’s psychology and his emotions as revealed in the Psalms. While this may jump out at us in a shallow, surface reading of the text, it is incredibly dangerous to take this tack. To work, this approach would necessitate David’s having written a nasty song, fuming against his enemies, being vindictive and hateful. Yet we know from 139:23, 24 that this cannot be the case. It reads: “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” This approach assumes that God allowed David’s rotten sinful attitude to be inscripturated to teach us how not to act. This overlooks the rather obvious fact that the Imprecatory Psalms have no indications nor hints that there is anything wrong with what David has written. Furthermore, it almost requires assuming that David just wrote what he liked and then God, liking it, said, “Hey, that’s good. I think I’ll inspire it.” That, my friends is NOT inspiration. Allowing the text to be colored even in the slightest way by the author’s personal thoughts, feelings and character effectively destroys and denies the Reformed view of Inspiration.

As was said above, God clearly forbids vindictiveness and bitterness, but nonetheless, we must reconcile this with a faithful mirroring of His Divine character as His image-bearers; therefore, we too must hate what He hates. Furthermore, we must clarify that our hatred is precisely hatred because such are God’s enemies. We should never return evil for evil, nor refuse to extend forgiveness to one who repents. Notwithstanding, zeal for God’s glory should outweigh every other concern.

Admittedly, this is a difficult subject. And this is why, in my estimation, very few preachers expound the Psalms, and many of the few who do, do it poorly.

Preaching On The Psalms 1

At the beginning of his homily on Psalm 1, Hilary of Poitiers remarks that the most important thing to determine when reading the Psalms is: who’s talking.

It is no secret that many of the Psalms are Messianic; hence it is Christ who is speaking through the inspired prophetic utterance of David. Even when David is describing his own personal experience, the Psalm, though literally true of David, has a much fuller meaning and fulfillment in Christ. Psalm 22 is a prime example of this fact.

Often, when God speaks in the Psalms to David, it is clear that God is actually addressing Christ as David’s greater Son, and by addressing Christ in this way, God reiterates His covenant of grace to David as the representative king over God’s people. Psalm 89 is a case of this. Several verses can only apply to Christ as King over God’s people, while others clearly apply to David. In fact, verses 36-38 contrast Christ’s everlasting Kingdom with David’s which would come to an end.

It is also quote important to recognize the special status of the Psalms. They are not narrative: they are hymns. Indeed, the Psalms are the hymnal of the Old Testament Church (some would argue that they are the hymnal of the New Testament Church as well). As such, these Psalms were actually sung by God’s people. And because they were intended to be sung corporately, many of the Psalms are place in the mouth of Israel. In other words, it is Israel, God’s covenant people, who is speaking in some of the Psalms. See Psalm 130.

Considerations such as these go a long way, in my opinion to eradicating much of the subpar preaching that is done on the Psalms. Too often, the fact that someone besides David is the intended speaker in the Psalm is ignored, and therefore much goofy (for lack of a better word) preaching results.

The Exegetical Challenges of Preaching From the Psalms

If you haven’t listened to the latest White Horse Inn broadcast, I recommend that you do. It is entitled, “How Not to Interpret the Bible.” The basic gist of the discussion boils down to the redemptive historical hermeneutic. Essential the guys show the flaws in any other way of interpreting Scripture.

This is true for the historical narratives, but especially for the Psalms. The proper meaning or application of each Psalm hinges upon its place in redemptive history. If one ignores this or does not take it into account, all sorts of confusion will ensue.

Think for a moment of the Messianic Psalms or the Imprecatory Psalms. The important principle to remember when interpreting any portion of Scripture is its relation to Christ. I have always liked Augustine’s writings on the Psalms for this reason. Sometimes he seems to be straining the text to see Christ in it, but surely it is better to err that way than to not use Christ as the interpretive key.

This presents a challenge for the preacher. First of all, it requires much more work on his part. The congregation has to be made biblically literate. How can the preacher expound a passage’s place in redemptive history if the whole congregation is virtually ignorant of the over-arching narrative of Scripture? Using the Psalms to analyze David psychologically – to get inside his head – as he wrote his various songs is to horrendously mistreat Scripture. The characters of Scripture are not our examples of Christian character. Christ and Christ alone is the model. Abraham lied about his wife, as did Isaac. David spied on the neighbor lady while she was in the shower, slept with her and then killed her husband. Judah – well let’s not go there… Christ alone was perfectly obedient to God’s law and only His finished work on the cross savingly applied to the believer by the Spirit effectively changes a person’s life.

Trying to find lessons on friendship, loyalty and courage from Israel’s history is to miss the point entirely of the Old Testament. Culling every passage for some moral application denies the Spirit’s ability to powerfully impact the hearer with the meaning and implications of the passage being studied, plus it turns Scripture into little more than a manual for behavior – slightly more spiritual than Emily Post.

A Look at Psalm 91:1, Pt 3

We now come to some practical application of the doctrinal truths we looked at from this wonderful verse: He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. - Psalm 91:1

If we learned nothing else from this verse, we should have learned that all who entrust themselves into God’s hands can remain secure under His protection in the midst of all dangers.

This being true, what does this imply by way of application?

First and foremost, it is a correction and rebuke for all who trust in anything besides God. The simple fact is that many trust in created things against God. Nothing could be more foolish. Some trust in created things without God. Again, very foolish. But equally foolish and equally sinful is to trust in created things in conjunction with God. Our hearts are all so naturally idolatrous and image oriented that we would rather trust in something we can see with our physical eyes and feel with our hands. Yet God is invisible. This does not mean that we deny His existence, but that like idolatrous Israel, we want to worship Him through things we can see and touch. That is why it seems so hard to calmly trust God when things are not doing smoothly (by our definition).

Secondly, for those of us who do trust God, we are encouraged to do so with whole-heartedness. One thinks of the Disciples’ faith after a night of great disappointment. In faith they say to Christ, “We have toiled all night, nevertheless at Your word…” (Luke 5:5).

Trust is displayed also by the waiting of faith when success is delayed. Only greed and impatience must have instant gratification.

One thinks as well of Job and His resolution of faith. He says, “Though He slay me…” (Job 13:15). I don’t think Job thought God would kill him. The point is simply that Job was humbly submissive to God’s sovereignty and would trust in Him even if He slew him. Daniel’s friends exhibited the same trust when they told the king that they would not bow to his image even if God did not save them (Daniel 3:16 - 18).

Trust submits to God gladly. It lets God order things as He pleases (Mat. 6:33).

If it be foolish to trust the creature against, without or together with God, then there must certainly be great wisdom in trust. Settle your mind as to present needs, and let God worry about the future. Jesus told us to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread.” He did not say, “Give us now our bread for the next 35 years.” We live most safely and securely when we let go of the reigns and entrust ourselves wholly to God’s care.

A Look at Psalm 91:1, Pt 2

We previously looked at Psalm 91:1 - He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. We noted that the doctrine which the verse teaches us is that all who entrust themselves into God’s hands can remain secure under His protection in the midst of all dangers.

I now want to unpack that idea a bit. We will do so by asking – and answering – three questions. They are:

• What it is to trust ourselves into God’s hands?

• How does this passage express and recommend this to us?

• How necessary a duty is this for Christians?

1. What does it mean to trust ourselves to God? Scripture commonly expresses this idea by the use of two words: (A) consecrating (B) committing.

A. Consecrating is devoting or giving ourselves up to His will. We see this idea in passages such as, “Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.” (Rom. 12:1) Also, “Present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.” (Rom. 6:13) Included in this is the idea of humble resignation to God’s sovereignty. “Here I am, let Him do to me as seems good to Him.” 2 Sam. 15:26

B. Committing is entrusting all to Him and His care. The Psalms exhort us to this when they say, “Commit your way to the LORD, trust also in Him, and He will do it.” (Psalm 37:5) The Apostles both exhort us to this and model it for us. Paul tells Timothy, “I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him” (2 Tim. 1:12) Peter reminds us, “Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.” (1 Peter 4:19)

The Puritan preacher, Thomas Manton wrote, “This is when the soul rests quietly in God by faith, as a man doth in his habitation, and we can go on cheerfully in the duties of our general or particular calling, knowing that while we are in God’s hands we are in safe hands, come what will come. We are not troubled about any event, but entirely commit it to God.”

Our trust is neither blind faith nor wishful thinking. It is grounded upon the two surest things there are, which are indeed one: God’s nature and God’s covenant. God is faithful is His very nature. He would never back out of anything that He has promised to do. But beyond that, God has made a covenant of grace with the elect. This covenant is made in Christ and rests upon the covenant of redemption made between the Father and the Son from all eternity. For God to not be trustworthy, He would have to not only betray us, but He would also have to betray Himself.

2. How it is expressed and recommended to us in this passage? The passage shows us

(a) The person that trusts

(b) The act of trust itself; and,

(c) The encouragement to trust

(a) The person that trusts is, “He that dwelleth.” Who is this? It is anyone who dwells. The invitation is open to all.

(b) The act of trust is expressed in the words, “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High.” This person is one who dwells with God. It is foolish for an unregenerate person to say that he is trusting God. It is equally wrong for us to encourage an unbeliever to “trust God” in the difficulties of his or her life. The promise of Romans 8:28 applies with legitimacy only to those who are “called according to His purpose.” The invitation to entrust ourselves to God is open to everyone, but only the called find refuge in Him.

(c) The encouragements this passage gives us to entrust ourselves to God are three:

First of all, there are the titles given to God. He is called the Most High. This ensures us that all the enemies of the saints, be they ever so high are under God’s sovereign providence. No one is higher than God. When I trust Him, I am trusting in the Most High. God is then called the Almighty. This reminds us that His power extends to all situations. Nothing is outside the scope of His power. Even the most difficult situations we may ever face are being overruled by His sovereign hand. Romans 8:28 says that God causes all things to work together for the good of those who are called according to God’s purpose. Note well the words, “all things.”

Secondly, we are informed of the manner in which this help appears. It is called, “The secret of the Most High.” This is that special favor of God that the world does not know. It is further referred to as, “The shadow of the Almighty.” This suggests ideas such as protection, shade, refreshing – ideas which rise to the foreground later in the Psalm (v. 4).

Thirdly, we are told that it is given as a promise. It is permission to dwell in God. His throne of grace is always open to a penitent believer. “The one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” (John 6:37) Moreover, it is an assurance to us of safety. A child of God is not numb to or exempt from cares and troubles. But because he trusts God he can resign himself to God and rest satisfied in God’s providence however harsh it may seem.

3. How necessary a duty this is for all Christians.

Entrusting ourselves wholly to God is such a vital part of our Christian duty. If for no other reason than that we acknowledge God’s nature when we do. We only truly honor Him when we trust Him entirely. Beyond that though, our life of faith is enlivened when we trust God. Unless we trust God our soul will never be faithful to Him. When we seek His protection we will strive more to please Him. This is not servile fear; it is a simple fact. We will not have the confidence to seek God’s protection when we know that He has reason to be displeased with us. In addition to all this, trust quiets our hearts and minds. Scripture says, “Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established.” (Prov. 16:3) The Apostle Paul admonishes us, “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” Phil. 4:6, 7

Tomorrow, Lord willing, we will derive some practical application from this passage to drive home the doctrinal truth we have looked at over the last two posts.

A Look at Psalm 91:1, Pt 1

He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. - Psalm 91:1

Generally, scholars believe that this Psalm was written during the plague that struck Jerusalem (2 Sam 24). For this reason, it probably was not written by David. David’s name is usually affixed to his Psalms, and it is unlikely that David, after having brought the plague through his sin, would neither mention of it nor express any repentance for it. Hence it is probably Gad’s. He was David’s seer and was therefore not associated with the event in any way.

This verse contains a qualification and a privilege. We can see it in the sentence structure: “He that…..shall….” Furthermore there are three angles from which these two sides of the verse are contrasted. The three angles are:

• The act of faith

• The manner of preservation

• The Person trusted

The act of faith: “He that dwells” This is the qualification. The one who will receive the promise will be the one who “dwells” The privilege is: “shall abide.” In other words, He that dwells will dwell.

The manner of preservation: “The secret place of the Most High,” is the manner of preservation from the side of the qualification. But in the privilege, it is called “the shadow of the Almighty.” The help of God is a secret to carnal man and God’s shadow is His refreshing and cooling presence, i.e., His protection.

The Person trusted: In the qualification God is called the “Most High.” In the privilege He is called “Almighty.”

When we put all these parts together, we see that this verse teaches us that anyone who entrusts himself into God’s hands may remain secure under His protection in the midst of all dangers.

What a wonderful thought this is! This is merely an overview of the passage. We will expound it in more detail in the next post or two.