In The Judaizing Calvin, G. Sujin Pak seeks to discover the place that John Calvin occupies in the history of the interpretation of scripture by examining his interpretation of the Messianic Psalms 2, 8, 16, 22, 45, 72, 110, and 118. Pak has three primary objectives in this study. Her first goal is to attempt to locate the place of John Calvin in the transition from pre-critical to critical exegesis, by placing Calvin's interpretation of these Psalms in the context of the prior work of Medieval and Reformation exegetes. Her second goal is to discover the role of biblical exegesis in the development of confessional identity. Her third goal is to seek to uncover the contribution Calvin might make to a more edifying encounter between Jews and Christians in their interpretation of scripture.

Pak attempts to discover the place of Calvin in exegetical history by discussing the interpretation of these eight Psalms by Calvin's predecessors and contemporaries. She begins with the interpretation of the medieval and late medieval tradition, focussing on the Glossa Ordinaria, Nicholas of Lyra, Dennis the Carthusian, and Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples. She discovers that all of them read these Psalms as direct prophecy of Christ, and do not see them in the context of David or Solomon at all. All see in them clear teachings concerning the doctrines of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, and all identify the “enemies” mentioned in these Psalms with the Jews who rejected Christ. She then turns to the ways Luther and Bucer interpret these Psalms. Pak sees both as maintaining the prophetic nature of these Psalms, and both maintain that the Psalms clearly teach the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. Bucer differs from Luther in his willingness to use Jewish exegesis, but he agrees with Luther in using his exegesis to combat the errors of the Jews.

Pak then uses this context to highlight the distinctiveness of Calvin's interpretation. According to Pak, Calvin interprets these Psalms primarily in light of the mind of David or Solomon, and he does not see them as directly prophesying about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Consequently, Calvin often agrees with Jewish exegetes like David Kimhi in denying that these Psalms clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity or the two natures of Christ. Indeed, Calvin appears to remove all mention of Christ from his interpretation of Psalms 8 and 16, reading them entirely in light of David's historical context. This leads Pak to claim that “frequently in these Psalms, Calvin hardly sees a prophecy of Christ at all” (133). However, Calvin interprets David and Solomon as examples of true piety, and thus seeks to comfort and edify the Church with his interpretation of these Psalms. Calvin's concern with the historical context of David and Solomon places him in the company of critical exegesis, whereas his concern to build up the faith of the Church places him in the company of pre-critical exegesis, according to Pak (132).

Pak seeks to discover the role of the interpretation of scripture in the formation of confessional identity by comparing the different ways Luther, Bucer, and Calvin interpret these Psalms. Pak identifies all three theologians as “Protestants” and claims that all three “used the Psalms to teach key Protestant doctrines and Protestant understandings of piety and worship” (5). However, Pak also sees each theologian as already being a member of a distinct confessional group. Luther “first” has a Protestant identity, then “later” a Lutheran confessional identity (52, 129). Calvin converts to “Protestantism,” but is immediately seen as part of the “French Reformed churches” (77). Bucer writes for “Lutherans,” “Roman Catholics,” and “Protestants” (56), but is quickly distinguished from Luther as early as 1529, by “setting forth Reformed doctrine” (56–57). Pak does not demonstrate how the interpretation of scripture shapes confessional identity, but instead shows how the exegesis of Luther, Bucer, and Calvin expresses their anachronistically ascribed confessional identity. Her central argument here seems to be that the Lutherans reject Jewish exegesis and see the Jews as the enemies of Christ, making anti-Judaism constitutive of Lutheran confessional identity. The Reformed, on the other hand, increasingly embrace Jewish exegesis and do not view the Jews as enemies, thereby making “Judaizing” constitutive of Reformed confessional identity.

This argument leads directly to the third objective, that of seeing in Calvin a model of a more positive engagement with Jewish exegesis. By means of his attention to the context of each Psalm, Calvin is led in the direction of David Kimhi and other Jewish exegetes, so that “Calvin's overwhelming emphasis is on David as an exemplar of Protestant piety” (98, 122). It is not clear how David became a Protestant, but Pak clearly and repeatedly identifies him in this way, and even devotes a whole section of her discussion of Calvin to “David as Exemplar of Protestant Piety” (87–91). In spite of this glaring anachronism, her point is that “it can appear to some that Calvin elevates the example of David where he should be promoting Christ” (98). This focus on David and his historical context frees Calvin from “most of the anti-Jewish tendencies of premodern exegesis” (132). However, if one looks at Calvin's actual interpretation, one finds a very different picture. In Psalm 2, Calvin quickly moves from David as type to Christ as reality, and claims that the first enemies of Christ were the Jews. In Psalm 110, he insists that the only person about whom this Psalm can be speaking is Jesus Christ, over against the Jews, whom he describes as the most obstinate people in the world. In Psalm 22, Calvin accuses the Jews of altering all Hebrew codices to remove the reference to the piercing of Christ's hands (v. 16), for their uppermost desire is to despoil the crucified Christ of his character as Messiah and Redeemer.

The strongest aspect of this analysis is the way it highlights the distinctiveness of Calvin's approach to these Psalms. Pak is right that Calvin accentuates the historical context of David more than the other interpreters she discusses, and he does rather provocatively remove Christological references from verses of these Psalms, or even from entire Psalms. Her attempt to see in this the development of confessional identity is not persuasive, given the anachronistic way she applies confessional categories. Finally, Calvin is no less anti-Jewish than Bucer, Luther, or any preceding theologian, and his claim that Christ is the reality fulfilling the shadows of the law is as supersessionist as any other position in the Christian tradition.