Reading The Psalms Theologically (Studies in Scripture and Biblical Theology), edited by David M. Howard Jr. and Andrew J. Schmutzer. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2023, 344 pages, $29.99.

Reading most books out of order would be a disaster. Encyclopedias and collections of essays aside, if I was to randomly rearrange the chapters of a story like Pilgrim’s Progress and have you read it for the first time, you would understandably struggle. The ordering of things communicates something—in the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, effectual calling (ch. 10) comes before justification (ch. 11), matching and expressing our theological understanding of their logical ordering.

Yet curiously, readers of the Bible often skip over the intentional ordering of certain biblical books—the Psalms being chief among them, perhaps because it seems more to us like an encyclopedia than a narrative. Here the book Reading the Psalms Theologically helps readers to see the intentional ordering of the “chapters” of the book of Psalms and its significance. Reading the Psalms Theologically introduces readers to “editorial criticism,” wherein study of the final form of the psalter reveals the theological intention of the editor(s) (4). “Editorial criticism” could be described as a form of “canonical criticism,” associated with Brevard Childs and Christopher Seitz, which evangelicals can embrace to the degree that it reacts against the anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions of much modern biblical criticism by suggesting that we read the biblical books as the sacred Scriptures of the church.[1]

While Christians today are rightly cautious of anything with the term “criticism” in it, we should remember that this is essentially the same work that O. Palmer Robertson engaged in through his own The Flow of the Psalms: Discovering Their Structure and Theology.[2] In other words, editorial criticism, at its best, is reminding us that someone, by God’s inspiration, collected the Psalms (individually inspired at their composition) and put them in an order. Reading The Psalms Theologically asks why the Psalms were put in the order they were and what we can learn from that order.

This is a popular new way of looking at God’s Word, and thus pastors should be aware of it (if even to reject it). For example, another new Lexham title is Text and Paratext: Book Order, Title, and Divisions as Keys to Biblical Interpretation.[3] One more example is Don Collett’s intriguing proposal that Hosea has a signal position among the minor prophets (“The Twelve”), wherein

Hosea’s marriage to Gomer is intended to be a living parable of the Lord’s covenantal marriage with Israel. . . . Hosea is not only the first prophet through whom the Lord spoke in the Twelve but also . . . the word the Lord speaks to Hosea is the founding agent or agency by which the witness of the Twelve is established. [4]

The first chapter, “Reading the Psalter as a Unified Book: Recent Trends,” sets the table nicely, describing the state of Psalms scholarship. Here we are told that notable scholars like Roland Murphy, John Goldingay, Norman Whybray, and Tremper Longman have been skeptical of the editorial criticism approach to the Psalms (24). Nevertheless, lamenting that “traditionally, most readers have approached the Psalter atomistically, looking only at individual psalms, assuming that they are included in the work in random fashion,” (31) the authors of the first chapter suggest there is indeed an intentional ordering to the Psalms. Again, this should set theological conservatives at ease: what we are after is the author’s intention as presented to us in the words of Scripture and its order. Explicitly we are told (and it is worth quoting at length because of the importance of this point),

We understand the entire Bible to be “God-breathed” (or “inspired by God”), as Paul puts it in 2 Timothy 3:16, and so another question arises in a collection such as the Psalter as to where, exactly, the locus of inspiration is to be found—in other words, what stage(s) of a text that came together over time is/are inspired? Only the original writing? Only the final form? Something in between? We affirm that the Spirit inspired the writing of the very words of individual psalms when they were originally written. We base this on Jesus’ words in Matthew 22:41–45 (NIV), where he states that David, “speaking by the Spirit,” uttered the words from Psalm 110:1. That is, when Psalm 110 was first written, this was done through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But we also affirm that the Spirit superintended the process that finally resulted in the collection that we call ‘the book of Psalms.’ (32)[5]

In other words, at least these contributors (one who is an editor of the book) do not believe that a robust understanding of editing necessarily undermines Scripture.

I believe that one can be a skeptic towards much of historical-criticism and still recognize the value (however limited) of careful editorial criticism. This is simply what readers do with every book of the Bible: we understand there is an intentional structure, an ordering, which builds upon and is communicated through the very details of the text. [6] We can certainly benefit, for example, from considering how Psalm 126 is almost at the midpoint of the psalms of Ascent, almost at the arrival at Psalm 127 which explicitly speaks of the Lord’s house. Perceiving such an order enhances the sense of “already-not-yet” in Psalm 126, and it does not take much imagination to envision Psalms 120–126 as the songs of the journey to God’s house, and then 128–134 related to the journey back. As Robertson points out, “This arrangement of fifteen individual psalms in a symmetrical form with seven psalms balancing one another on either side of a centralized focal psalm cannot be purely accidental.”[7] Or, more obviously, Psalms 22, 23, and 24 have been appropriately dubbed, “the cross, the crook, and the crown,” with their proximity helping us to see God’s Old Testament promises of Christ. At the same time, we should be careful not to let “paratext” or editorial critical insights overwhelm the words themselves.

We read in chapter 1: “We believe that there is much merit in understanding the book of Psalms not simply as a random collection of unrelated Psalms, but also as an organized, unified ‘book’ that has an overarching message, to which the individual psalms and smaller psalms collections contribute” (33). What then is the message of the book of Psalms? It points to and shows the need for Christ, the “true David,” the Messiah (34). Thus, even though the book is titled Reading the Psalms Theologically, it could just as appropriately have been titled “Reading the Psalms Messianically.”

The book successfully demonstrates the significance of seeing intentional ordering in the Psalter. Reading the Psalms Theologically features various scholars, making some chapters more beneficial than others. Several chapters at the opening reinforce the view that Psalms 1 and 2 should be read together and were intentionally placed there (e.g., 40, 59, 67, 82, 98). Jim Hamilton wrote chapter 2, continuing the emphasis on the human author’s conscious intention in typology (which Hamilton wrote about in his 2022 book Typology[8]), positing here “that David understood himself as a prefiguring type of the future king God promised to raise up from his line of descent” (64). Hamilton makes the fascinating observation that the call of Psalm 8 to look to the stars, recalls God’s promise to Abraham (72).

Similarly hitting on Psalm 8, Seth Postell’s chapter asserts that given the similarities with Daniel, “the book of Psalms does, in fact, present a divine Messiah” (97). Few issues are more naively treated today as the “creation mandate” and if and how it applies to us today. Thus, Postell’s work is helpful as he notes that “the rule of the [Psalter’s Messianic] king is portrayed as a fulfillment of the creation mandate (cf. Ps. 8:5–9 with Gen. 1:26–28)” (99). This claim is strengthened by the reference to Solomon with similar language in 1 Kings 5:4 (101). Thus, “The Messiah in the book of Psalms is most clearly, quintessentially, a son of Adam, and a human being in the image of God” (101).

Other chapters are full of notes of interest to students of the Psalms, like Jill Firth’s observation that Psalm 144 echoes Psalm 18 but turns indicatives into imperatives, “leading to a different rhetorical strategy” (122). Likewise, Rolk A. Jacobson writes that “the relationship of the theology of the cross to the Old Testament, however, is a field that has yet to be satisfactorily plowed” (157). C. Hassell Bullock invites doxology, additionally noting how Psalm 23 equates the LORD with a shepherd: “That David, the shepherd of Israel, should himself have a shepherd, and that his shepherd was equivalent to his God, was a dazzling truth. What was more astounding still was that the Lord would stoop so low as to assume one of Israel’s most menial roles” (129).

Readers may not agree with all the points made by all the contributors to Reading the Psalms Theologically. I take exception, for example, to the claims made in chapter 10 related to death, namely, that “punishment after death is a later development, arguably on the margins of the Old Testament but certainly not present in the Psalms” (177). This is followed by a curious confidence: “The general perspective just outlined is so widely attested as to be incontrovertible and uncontroversial” (177). The author of this chapter must wrestle with Psalms like 1 and 73 which both mention the judgment of the wicked, but the author concludes that these were “relectured” and “later read in eschatological terms. . . . this was more a rereading than the original intent” (181). Thus,

these psalms can be seen to illustrate relecture. While the Old Testament texts generally exhibit no concept of a positive afterlife, hints of this emerged in response mainly to the catastrophe of exile and the political uncertainties of the ensuring centuries. And as this concept developed, older texts were reread and new texts written to reflect it. (182)

Perhaps these comments illustrate why some caution is warranted with editorial criticism—here it seems most like faulty types of biblical criticism. Such comments are far from, for example, what Geerhardus Vos articulates in his “Eschatology of the Psalter,” that is, for example, “The Psalter is wide awake to the significance of history as leading up to the eschatological act of God.”[9] Thankfully, the New Testament has no problem affirming a clear and original eschatology of personal bodily resurrection in the Old Testament (e.g., Matt. 22:29; 1 Cor. 15:3; Acts 2:27).

These concerns aside, Reading the Psalms Theologically provides an interesting and encouraging advanced taste of editorial criticism, doing so with vigor and an apparent love for the Psalms. The overall thrust is that the Psalter does point to Christ, which should lead believers to reverence and awe of God.

Endnotes

[1] A helpful introduction to canonical criticism and related biblical criticism is Mark S. Gignilliat, A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism: From Benedict Spinoza to Brevard Childs (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), particularly 145–68.

[2] O. Palmer Robertson, The Flow of the Psalms: Discovering Their Structure and Theology (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2015). Also see Leslie McFall, “The Evidence for a Logical Arrangement of the Psalter,” WTJ 62 (2000): 223–56.

[3] Gregory Goswell, Text and Paratext: Book Order, Title, and Divisions as Keys to Biblical Interpretation (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2023).

[4] Don Collett, “Jezreel, the Day of Visitation, and Hosea,” in The Identity of Israel’s God in Christian Scripture, eds. Don Collett, Mark Gignilliat, and Ephraim Radner (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020), 180–81.

[5] Here, John N. Oswalt’s cautions for canonical criticism thirty-five years ago seem to be addressed, whether intentionally or not. See “Canonical Criticism: A Review from a Conservative Viewpoint,” JETS 30/3 (Sept. 1987): 317–25. On the other hand, some have argued canonical criticism is too conservative! See Dale A. Brueggemann, “Brevard Childs’s Canon Criticism: An Example of Post-critical Naiveté” JETS 32 (1989): 311–26.

[6] As the book argues, “There is much merit in looking [at a book’s] ‘literary context.’ . . . For example, in the book of Isaiah, we do not simply read each prophetic oracle on its own, but we read them in relation to other oracles, all of them ultimately contributing to the book’s overall message. The same is true with the book of Psalms” (33).

[7] Robertson, Flow of the Psalms, 212. On Psalm 127 as the center of the Psalms of ascent, see Gerald Henry Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter SBLDS 76 (Chico: CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 208.

[8] James M. Hamilton, Jr., Typology-Understanding the Bible's Promise-Shaped Patterns: How Old Testament Expectations are Fulfilled in Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2022).

[9] See Geerhardus Vos, “Eschatology of the Psalter,” Princeton Theological Review 18 (Jan. 1920): 13.

Andrew J. Miller is an Orthodox Presbyterian minister and serves as regional home missionary for the Presbytery of Central Pennsylvania. Ordained Servant Online, March, 2024.