Previous | Next

Fall 2023 · Vol. 52 No. 2 · pp. 119–127 

Biblical Theological Awareness and Canonical Consciousness in the Book of Psalms

Jian Jeffrey Wu

This paper analyzes the theological motifs and canonical consciousness of the Book of Psalms, that is, its writers’ awareness of and familiarity with other Hebrew scriptures. Specifically, this paper examines how those motifs comprise a thematic context for interpretation, and how correlation between and beyond the psalms comprise a canonical context for interpretation. The paper also provides examples that illustrate such interpretations and suggests a philosophy and strategy of teaching and preaching a specific psalm. The paper argues that we need to be aware of theological motifs and canonical consciousness in the Psalms, especially when they form a thematic context. But we need to be careful when interpreting any particular psalm not to fall into various traps, like paying too much attention to superscriptions. (I will have more to say about that later.) {120}

Awareness of its theological motifs helps us properly interpret the Psalms.

THEOLOGICAL MOTIFS

All canonical books come with theological motifs, which form a particular thematic context that helps readers interpret them properly. The Psalter is no exception. The Psalter has even been compared to the book of Job in terms of its biblical theology, 1 even though it may not be as comprehensive as the book of Isaiah. 2 Thus, keen awareness of the theological motifs in the Psalter is critical to a good understanding of it. Brevard Childs’s canonical approach, first proposed in his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture in 1979, lays a good foundation for this kind of awareness. 3 His approach encourages reading biblical texts at multiple levels regardless of their date of composition. Biblical texts need to be read by themselves in their context, but also in light of other biblical texts of a similar genre, tradition, or theme, and with texts in a collection or book and with later texts like the New Testament. In sum, this approach promotes “the diachronic interface of reading texts” at multiple levels. 4

Psalm 32 is a case in point. Sin-confessing and forgiveness, the Lord’s faithfulness, and his people’s resulting moral uprightness are the key topics in that psalm. Since it belongs to the maskil genre, often known as a lament psalm, Psalm 32 can be read on its own; or with other psalms of its genre (like Psalms 42, 44, 45, 52–55, 74, 78, 88, 89, and 142); or all together as a collection including Psalm 47:7; or with other books in the Hebrew Bible (such as Isaiah, especially chapters 27 and 51); 5 or even with the text of subsequent interpretations such as Paul’s in Romans 4:7–8.

Tremper Longman III identifies the main feature of this kind of psalm as the underlying belief that “the negative always leads to the positive. Doubt leads to trust; anger toward God turns to love, sadness to joy.” 6 Such a profound change in mood does not necessarily reflect a change in external circumstances, but often an “internal process of meditation.” In the words of Daniel Estes, “As the psalmists contemplate these theological truths, their view of their adversities is altered as the process of meditation causes them to perceive their experience through the lens of Yahweh’s attributes and activity.” 7 This kind of psalm teaches us to be honest with God and with ourselves, to confess and lament before him so that we can regain our strength in him. 8

Furthermore, Psalm 32 uses metaphor to demonstrate the foolishness of those who do not confess sin—they are horses or mules that need to be controlled by a painful bridle and bit. Thus, abstract theological truths become “tangible images of our familiarity.” 9

While awareness of theological motifs is critical to a sound interpretation of the Psalter, we need to be careful not to overstretch our application. For example, a canonical approach needs to allow other parts of Scripture to “have their say, not silencing some by others we prefer.” 10 Even psalms {121} of the same kind may not share key features. Psalm 88, for example, does not seem to come out of a dreadful situation like other lament psalms do. 11

Longman rightly points out that “apart from evident groupings, such as the kingship psalms and the songs of ascent, ‘the psalms themselves are grouped in no apparent order.’ ” 12 So we need to be cautious when grouping psalms and interpreting them as if an order exists. Another potential danger lies in a “theo-literary reading of the text.” When it leads simply to a “theological reading” rather than exegesis, the more natural meaning of a text can easily be set aside as irrelevant. 13 I agree with John Goldingay that when we introduce the New Testament into our interpretation of the Old Testament, we need to distinguish meaning (OT) from significance (NT). 14 Reader-response theory can be useful here. The images that the OT text evoked in the minds of Jesus and his disciples can be different from the text’s “intrinsic meaning when the Holy Spirit first inspired it.” 15 As Goldingay explains, “I have often noted the way the NT quotes the psalm, but in the light of considerations just outlined, I do not attempt to show that this reworking corresponds to the Psalms’ own meaning. Nor do I make the NT the filter or lens through which we read the Psalms.” 16

Overall, we need to be aware that theological motifs in the Psalter can form a thematic context. Nevertheless, when we interpret any particular psalm, we need to be cautious not to fall into traps that keep us from hearing what the Psalter itself wants to tell us.

CANONICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

The Psalter is composed of five books and 150 psalms in total. The question often arises, Is it well organized? Are the psalms deliberately arranged within the Psalter to guide readers to their true meaning? Scholars sharply disagree with each other about how to answer these questions. Some think there is no middle ground: the psalms are either entirely randomly ordered or they have a very clearly defined organization. But is that really so?

Before we jump in, I need to exclude one factor which some scholars regard as evidence of some organizational principle at work in Psalms, but which contributes nothing but noise to the argument: the superscriptions that introduce most of the psalms. These superscriptions should be excluded from the argument for several reasons. First, as Howard points out, only 116 of the 150 psalms have superscriptions in the Masoretic Text (MT) while 148 have them in the Septuagint (LXX) (they are absent only in the first two psalms). 17 This suggests that superscriptions were likely added at some later date, perhaps well after they were first composed and collected. I do not have data from the manuscripts found at Qumran but based on the difference in the number of superscriptions in the MT and {122} in the LXX alone, there is reason enough to conclude that superscriptions have little value for historical arguments in favor of the Psalter’s conscious organization. Robert Cole’s contrary argument that “[t]he fact that LXX adds superscriptions to all psalms, except these two at the beginning, also supports an ancient unitary understanding of them” 18 has no actual evidence to support it. He himself mentions that scholars like Childs think the superscription is “an example of midrashic, i.e., nonhistorical, exegesis.” 19

Second, at the level of individual psalms, superscriptions seem to be disconnected from their content and from their historical location. For example, the superscription of Psalm 72 is literally “to Solomon.” Here the preposition is often translated as “of,” as it is in Psalm 3, which would make it “a psalm of Solomon.” However, because the content of Psalm 72 does not support such a reading—the psalm is a prayer for a king—the New English Translation translates the preposition as “for,” thus “a psalm for Solomon.” That does not solve all the problems, however, since the last verse reads: “This collection of the prayers of David son of Jesse ends here.” We know that not all psalms prior to Psalm 72 are attributed to David and some Davidic psalms appear after this psalm. So whether Psalm 72 is instead a psalm by David for Solomon is uncertain. The contents seem to support the hypothesis that the psalm was written by an anonymous poet in David’s time for Solomon. 20

Putting the issue of superscription aside, the scholars who oppose an organized structure of Psalter are represented by “form criticism” guru Hermann Gunkel while the scholars who support a unitary canonical approach “assert the opposite.” 21 Cole regards the two views as incompatible. 22 I disagree. This is like suggesting that a cup cannot be both half empty and half full. 23

Both positive and negative answers can be correct. I suggest that the Psalter is well organized at the book level but only partially organized at the psalm level. At the book level, Psalms 1–2 act as a dual introduction and Psalms 146–150 act as a group conclusion while each of the five books of Psalms 3–145 ends with “a short doxology in praise of God.” 24 Second, all psalms in Book I are Davidic if Psalm 10 is regarded as part of Psalm 9 and Psalm 33 as part of Psalm 32. 25 Third, some psalms within a book are well organized, as is demonstrated by the mega-chiasmic structure of Psalms 15 to 24. 26

But the Psalter cannot be well-organized at the psalm level. First, the Psalms were written over a long period of time; some would say nearly nine hundred years. 27 To gather psalms over time and put them in order from hindsight would have been almost a “mission impossible.” Second, the juxtaposition of certain psalms—for example, the wisdom {123} and royal psalms such as Psalms 1 and 2; 72 and 73; 89 and 90; 144 and 145—may not mean much except that both were acknowledged. 28 Third, the so-called five distinct psalm groupings in Book V—Psalms 107–118; 119; 120–137; 138–145; and 146–150—may make sense within the book, but cannot make sense at the broader Psalter level. 29 Not only are Psalms 146 to 150 considered to be the conclusion of the whole Psalter rather than just of Book V, but the “order” requires the Psalter to jump back and forth from one book to another. At least this is true if we accept Michael Snearly’s matching of key themes (Psalms 107–118 with Psalm 89; Psalm 119 with Psalm 1; Psalms 120–137 30 with Psalm 2; Psalms 138–145 with Psalms 2 and 89). 31

Fourth, even scholars of the unitary canonical approach acknowledge exceptions when they try to sew all the psalms together. For example, Howard writes, “we can go throughout the Psalter at the lowest level of the book’s ‘microstructure,’ observing links between most adjacent psalms (though not all), showing a running ‘narrative’ in the way in which the Psalms are laid out.” 32 He does not, however, mention how many psalms fall into the category of exceptions. I would say the number would be high enough to make them normal rather than exceptions. In a word, the fact that scholars have not come up with a clear structure for all the psalms is proof that such a structure does not exist.

I agree with Tremper Longman III, who says, “There have been many other attempts to find a structure in the book [the whole Psalter], and I remained unconvinced that there is one that encompasses the whole book. . . . Certainly, we can find small collections of similar psalms, but no overarching systematic structure. It may well be right, though, to say that there is a movement from a higher proportion of laments at the beginning to a higher number of hymns at the end.” 33

TEACHING AND PREACHING

Even though psalms are not perfectly correlated with each other, there are intertextual links between them and the rest of the Scripture. A midrash on the Psalms (tenth century CE) states, “As Moses gave five books of laws to Israel, so David gave five books of Psalms to Israel.” 34 Snearly points out that since the final redaction of the Psalter and the composition of Chronicles both occurred after the Exile and during the Second-Temple period, they share an “overwhelmingly positive” perspective on Davidic kingship, as reflected in Psalm 89 and 2 Chronicles 36:9–21. 35

Here I use Psalm 122 to illustrate how my understanding of its correlation with other psalms and with other biblical books helps me in teaching and preaching. My strategy of teaching and preaching the Psalms is to understand a particular psalm first, without paying much {124} attention to the authorship or historical background suggested by the superscription. Then I look at other psalms with similar themes for clues on cross-interpretation. Once all possibilities are exhausted, I move on to other biblical books.

Psalm 122 is one of the fifteen songs of ascents found in Psalms 120–134. It is a song praising and praying for the city of Jerusalem where the Lord’s temple and the Davidic king are. Since David did not build the Lord’s temple (v. 1), the superscription ascribing the song to him cannot be understood literally, although the song could have been attributed to him by an anonymous poet much later. Nevertheless, the Lord-praising and Jerusalem-centric theme of Psalm 122 can be found in other songs of ascents, such as Psalms 125 and 128. These should be studied together. Moreover, when the scope is expanded to include the whole Psalter, we find that other psalms share similar themes. Psalms 68, 102, 116, and 135 are examples. Psalm 122 uses the interesting expression, “the house of David” (v. 5). Examining the same expression in other books, such as the Latter Prophets, can uncover related meanings. For example, in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord says, “And I will place on his [Eliakim, son of Hilkiah] shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” This verse leads us to similar verses in the New Testament, such as Matthew 16:19 and Revelation 3:7, which show us that the house of David prefigures the kingdom of heaven and the future church. Another prophetic book foretells the future of the house of David (Zech 12:7–13:1), which provides further resources for a deeper understanding of the theme of Psalm 122 as a whole and, in turn, of the related verses in Matthew and Revelation.

Of course, when it comes to preaching, the emphasis is in some ways different from teaching. While teaching focuses on systematically explaining and expositing biblical motifs and themes, preaching centers on the proclamation, exhortation, and application of such themes. In the case of Psalm 122, a detailed analysis of its connections to other psalms, such as Psalms 125 and 128, and to other canonical books, such as Isaiah, Zechariah, Matthew, and Revelation, should be conducted in teaching while the conclusions of such analysis can be packaged for the purposes of preaching. The Lord-praising and Jerusalem-centric themes in particular should be emphasized, alongside the revelation of the kingdom of heaven. A canonical approach to expositing the Psalms (or any canonical book) can uncover a broader range of insights than focusing only on the main passage itself, insights which can enrich a sermon to effectively convince and inspire listeners to faithful living. {125}

CONCLUSION

A proper understanding of the structure of the Psalter and the application of the canonical approach can help pastors teach and preach the psalms well. This paper deals with the issue of whether or not the Psalter of five books and 150 psalms is well organized and argues that both sides could be correct to a certain extent. I’ve suggested that the Psalter is well organized at the macro-level (the Psalter as a whole), but no such organization can be demonstrated at the micro-level (individual psalm). The whole Psalter has an introduction and a conclusion with doxology at the end of each of the five books, but each psalm falls into its current place without much thematic organization other than common authorship in Book 1 and common sub-theme such as “ascents” in part of Book 5. A superscription does not offer as much historical information as we would like to see. Psalm 72 is an example of how a superscription might be disconnected from its content.

This paper also uses Psalms 32 and 122 to demonstrate how a canonical approach can enhance our understanding of a particular psalm by attending to its theological motifs and its relationship with other psalms and even with other biblical books. Such an approach can give us an interpretation that better balances the meaning of a text in the Old Testament with its significance in the New Testament.

NOTES

  1. C. Hassell Bullock, “The Psalms and Faith/Tradition,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 54.
  2. John N. Oswalt, The Holy One of Israel: Studies in the Book of Isaiah, 1st ed. (London, UK: Lutterworth, 2014), 16.
  3. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 1st American ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). Bruce K. Waltke also makes this point in “Biblical Theology of the Psalms Today: A Personal Perspective,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 21.
  4. See Willem A. Vangemeren, “Entering the Textual World of the Psalms: Literary Analysis,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 37.
  5. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Suppressing Myth: Yahweh and the Sea in the Praise Psalms,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 78.
  6. Michael E. Travers, “ ‘Severe Delight’: The Paradox of Praise in Confession of Sin,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. {126} Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 112.
  7. Daniel J. Estes, “The Transformation of Pain into Praise: In the Individual Lament Psalms,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 162.
  8. Bullock, “The Psalms and Faith/Tradition,” 57.
  9. Bullock, 58.
  10. Vangemeren, “Entering the Textual World of the Psalms,” 37.
  11. Estes, “The Transformation of Pain into Praise,” 151.
  12. Vangemeren, “Entering the Textual World of the Psalms,” 33–34.
  13. Vangemeren, 35.
  14. Vangemeren, 36.
  15. Vangemeren, 36.
  16. Vangemeren, 36.
  17. David M. Howard Jr., “Divine and Human Kingship: As Organizing Motifs in the Psalter,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 201.
  18. Robert L. Cole, “Psalms 1–2: The Psalter’s Introduction,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 184.
  19. Cole, 192.
  20. Psalm 72 is a royal psalm, a coronation hymn. See Beth Tanner, “Psalm 72: Responsibilities in the Kingdom of God” in The Book of Psalms, ed. Nancy L. deClaisse-Walford et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 442. However, it is not written “by Solomon” as the superscription may indicate, but “to Solomon” by his father David according to v. 20. Verse 1, however, seems to indicate that the author is not David himself but somebody who prays on his behalf, for it reads, ”Give the king thy judgments, O God, And thy righteousness unto the king’s son.” If we understand “the king” here to refer to David and “the king’s son” to refer to Solomon, is it more likely that somebody who is not “the king” is using that term here or that David is using it? I tend to think it would be odd for David to call himself king before his Lord God.
  21. Cole, “Psalms 1–2,” 185.
  22. Cole, 185.
  23. Mark D. Futato, “Psalms 16, 23: Confidence in a Cup,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 235.
  24. Howard, “Divine and Human Kingship,” 198.
  25. Howard, 200.
  26. Futato, “Psalms 16, 23,” 232.
  27. Howard, “Divine and Human Kingship,” 197.
  28. Howard, 201.
  29. Michael K. Snearly, “The Return of the King: Book V as a Witness to Messianic Hope in the Psalter,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 212.
  30. This covers more than the fifteen songs of ascents! {127}
  31. Snearly, “Return of the King,” 212–13
  32. Howard, “Divine and Human Kingship,” 204.
  33. Tremper Longman III, “From Weeping to Rejoicing: Psalm 150 as the Conclusion to the Psalter,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 224–25.
  34. Howard, “Divine and Human Kingship,” 198.
  35. Snearly, “Return of the King,” 215.
Jian Jeffrey Wu is a part-time teaching pastor with the Pacific Grace Mandarin Church in Burnaby, BC (part of the Mennonite Brethren family). He has a Master of Arts degree in Theological Studies (New Testament) from Regent College in Vancouver, BC, and he is currently a doctoral candidate (Bible Exposition) at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA.

Previous | Next