Journal: Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
Volume: SBJT 25:3 (Fall 2021)
Article: Reading Psalms 2 And 110 With The Grain Of Scripture: A Proposal For Reading The Psalter Canonically
Author: David Schrock

SBJT 25:3 (Fall 2021) p. 97

Reading Psalms 2 And 110 With The Grain Of Scripture: A Proposal For Reading The Psalter Canonically

David Schrock

David Schrock is Pastor of Preaching and Theology at Occoquan Bible Church, Woodbridge, Virginia, and Professor of Systematic Theology at Indianapolis Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, Indiana. He earned his PhD in Systematic Theology from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. Dr. Schrock has written for Credo Magazine, 9Marks Journal, Desiring God, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Southeastern Theological Review, Criswell Theological Review, and is the author of two books, Royal Priesthood and the Glory of God (Crossway, 2022) and Brothers, We are Not Plagiarists (Founders, 2022).

In this essay, I will show the internal logic behind Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 and why many New Testament (NT) authors read them together. It is my contention that their connection is not based upon some later collection of verses, nor is it based upon a prosopological voice speaking in the text. Rather, there exists in the Psalter itself a literary and covenantal connection between Psalm 2 and Psalm 110. The NT, especially Hebrews, recognizes this fact and reinforces the point that a canonical reading of the Psalms is not forced upon the text, but arises from reading along the grain of Scripture.

Conversely, attempts to support doctrinal positions by reading select verses (e.g., Pss 2:7; 40:6–8; 45:6–7; 110:1, 4) in isolation from their native contexts does damage to the unity and clarity of Scripture. Even more, such reading,

SBJT 25:3 (Fall 2021) p. 98

as advocated by Matthew Bates, Craig Carter, and others, is unnecessary when we see how the Psalms can be read in context.

As I outlined in my first essay, prosopological exegesis (PE) is a growing exegetical technique that has roots in antiquity. Yet, this interpretive method also demonstrates a number of modern, postmodern, and Roman Catholic characteristics. More troubling, PE does not find its origins in the biblical text, as much as it superimposes later exegetical techniques upon the Bible. It then justifies these reading strategies by means of permitting “post-texts” to interpret the Bible, which is a clever way of saying that Tradition c...