Tag: John Sailhamer

“The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation” by John H. Sailhamer

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Few 600 page books on theology are intended to help the average Bible student as much as the learned theologian. Even fewer succeed in that aim. But I figured something was special about this book when John Piper encouraged everyone who cared about “meaning” to get this book, because it will “rock your world”. Rock my world, it did! And more.

I can’t claim this book is an easy read. I had to work my way through parts of it. But the effort was worth it. Sprinkled throughout the book are the kinds of takeaways that can truly change one’s life. John Sailhamer unpacks the meaning of texts and shows the relationship between various parts of the Old Testament. I came away with an enhanced understanding of OT Scripture and a greater appreciation for the unity of the testaments. In the following review, I will walk through the book, then I’ll focus on Sailhamer’s emphasis on authorial intent, the final shape of the canon, the poems of the Pentateuch and some of his conclusions about the meaning of the Pentateuch.

The book begins with a 46-page introduction setting the stage for what will be covered. The scope of what Sailhamer sets out to accomplish with this book is impressive. He is all about “meaning”, and showing us how we can go about finding the meaning of something as large as the first five books of the Bible — considered as one cohesive unit, the Pentateuch. Along the way, he offers thoughts on OT theology, and traces a history of biblical interpretation. This sets the stage for his discussions of authorial intent, verbal meaning, and the place of “historical meaning” in biblical texts. Ultimately he is pushing toward discovering the “big idea” of the Pentateuch, as expressed by the biblical author.

Once he introduces us to his stress on finding the author’s intent in the final shape of the canonical Pentateuch, he goes about doing fantastic exegesis of the Pentateuch itself. He explores how the Pentateuch was put together and composed, and shows how poetry frames the Pentateuch, offering textual clues to finding the author’s emphasis. He then goes on to trace several themes in the Pentateuch, finding corroboration in how the prophets and later authors of Scripture themselves interpreted Moses’ foundational books. That’s the book in a nutshell, but there’s so much more that could be said about it!

Sailhamer sees incredible importance in finding the author of the Pentateuch’s intent. He sees both conservative and liberal theologians as having erred in focusing too much on the questions of historicity. To this point, Sailhamer explains:

The Pentateuch may be compared to a Rembrandt painting of real persons or events. We do not understand a Rembrandt painting by taking a photography of the “thing” that Rembrandt painted and comparing it with the painting itself. That may help us understand the “thing” that Rembrandt painted, his subject matter, but it will not help us understand the painting itself. To understand Rembrandt’s painting, we must look at it and see its colors, shapes and textures. In the same way, to understand the Pentateuch, one must look at its colors, contours and textures. (pg. 19)

Sailhamer’s history of biblical interpretation focuses on the increased attention paid to the historical background to the OT text. There was an attack on the historicity of Scripture, and Sailhamer acknowledges the apologetic value of historical studies. But they have served to distract OT scholars from their real mission. “Filling in the biblical narratives with additional historical material may teach us things about the events of which the biblical writers were speaking, but the evangelical’s goal in interpretation and biblical theology is not an understanding of those events as such. The goal, as evangelicals must see it, is the biblical author’s understanding of those events in the inspired text of the Bible (OT).” (pg. 104)

Questions of authorial intent, when it comes to the Pentateuch, inevitably run into the various source theories. This is where Sailhamer parts course and advocates a “compositional approach”. Some have read Sailhamer and conclude he rejects a Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, my understanding is different. I’ll let Sailhamer explain at some length.

…an evangelical compositional approach to biblical authorship identifies Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and seeks to uncover his strategy in putting the book together…. As far as we know, the Mosaic Pentateuch is identical with the canonical Pentateuch with only few exceptions…. Two notable examples are the account of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34 and Moses’ final words in Deuteronomy 33. Such comments, though possibly spoken by Moses, were added late in Israel’s history, likely as part of a “new edition” of the Pentateuch (“Pentateuch 2.0,” in the lingo of today’s computer world). Contrary to the prevailing view of biblical authorship, both critical and evangelical, the compositional approach suggests that the Pentateuch was not the product of a long and complicated process of literary growth, but comes to us more or less as an updated edition of a single earlier Mosaic composition. The present canonical Pentateuch is thus an updated version of the Mosaic Pentateuch produced, perhaps, by the “author” of the OT as a whole (Tanak). (pg. 48)

Such a focus on the “final shape” of the canonical Pentateuch is best suited to a vigorous pursuit of the author’s intended meaning given to us through the text. To that end, Sailhamer sees an importance in the poems which frame the narrative sections of the Pentateuch. Gen. 49, Ex. 15, Numb. 23-24, and Deut. 32-33 are all large poems which function as a frame for the stage upon which the narratives of the Pentateuch are played out. These and other poems in the Pentateuch “serve a didactic purpose without being didactic.” Sailhamer explains further:

They are intended as commentary, although, being poetry, what they add to the narrative is not merely commentary, but also the opportunity of thoughtful reflection. The poems, as such, slow readers down and challenge them to reflect on the narrative through the eyes of a poet. Ultimately, the reader is left not with a narrative meaning, but with a poetic one. The reader joins the narrator in filling in the sense of the story. Although this may challenge the patience of modern readers, it adds an essential feature to the meaning of biblical narrative. (pg. 319)

When one looks at these four chief poems, an emphasis on a kingly messiah figure is apparent. Furthermore, three of the four poems are specifically said to be related to “the last days”. Sailhamer explores the intertextuality of these poems and other sections of the Pentateuch and even with the Hebrew OT as a whole. He then offers a decisive verdict: the Pentateuch is decidedly messianic in focus. The laws given on Sinai are not central, rather the new covenant Moses foretells and the coming of a kingly Messiah — they are the focal point of the books of Moses.

Following the lead of the poems, Sailhamer finds several important themes in the Pentateuch itself. Some of them sound very much like ideas we find in the New Testament. He sees a stress on a singular “seed” rather than a collective “seed” as the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (and Gen. 3:15), the importance of faith as opposed to a mere law-keeping perspective, and the idea of salvation coming to those who believe and hope in God. Along the way, Sailhamer also explains the Messianic structure in the arrangement of the Hebrew canon (the Tanak) and within the psalter. Three additional points from Sailhamer’s book were especially helpful to me.

First, was the discussion of Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1. Sailhamer shows how Matthew’s use of the text in Hosea is not entirely novel, as many interpreters believe. Rather, Hosea himself is reading the Pentateuch in a messianic way. Hosea quotes Numb. 24:8, one of the messianic poems which frame the Pentateuch. So he has in mind a messianic application in his use of the text. Matthew is merely following suit. Second, was the discussion of how Gen. 49 and the surrounding chapters about Joseph’s story, actually serve to use Joseph as an example of the future kingly Messiah. In other words, the very structure of the Genesis account of Joseph is designed intentionally to see Joseph’s life as a kind of type of the future messianic kingly leader who was to come from Judah’s line.

Third, was Sailhamer’s discussion of the law as being given successively over time and in response to the sin of the Israelites. He revives the earlier teaching of John Calvin and Johann Coccejus based in large part on both Gal. 3:19 and a careful reading of the Pentateuch itself. The golden calf as well as Israelite sacrifices to goat idols (Lev. 17:1-9) are narrative sections that frame different collections of laws. Sailhamer also points out that there were laws mentioned as operative prior to the account of the giving of the 10 commandments even. This perspective merits further study especially as it doesn’t fit the mold of either covenant theology or dispensationalism’s teaching on the laws of Sinai.

Time prevents me from offering a fuller discussion of these matters. One must get the book and hear Sailhamer out. Even if one differs with some of Sailhamer’s conclusions, he must appreciate Sailhamer’s exegetical insight and the great care he has to listen to the text itself. Like John Piper implied, Sailhamer cares about “meaning” , and so should we. If you do, you will benefit from studying what John Sailhamer has to say on the Pentateuch. You may never look at the Old Testament in the same way again.

Pick up a copy of this book at Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Amazon.com or through Inter-Varsity Press.

This book was provided by Inter-Varsity Press for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Quotes to Note 15b: Sailhamer on How Genesis Intends Joseph’s Life As a Type of the Coming Messiah

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

I’m working my way through John Sailhamer’s The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (IVP). I’m finding multiple nuggets of special insight and blessing; the reward for reading through this 600 page book is well great indeed.

Often the interpretation of the Joseph narratives proves problematic among pastors and evangelical theologians today. Many don’t want to see Joseph’s life as paralleling Christ’s because the New Testament doesn’t expressly indicate that Joseph’s life is typical of the Messiah. But right in Genesis, however, Sailhamer finds a warrant for seeing Joseph’s life typified as an example of what the coming Messiah-King will be like.

…special attention [is] given to Judah in the whole of the Joseph narrative (Gen 37-50). As the story of Joseph’s journey to Egypt is getting underway (Gen 37), the author interrupts the narration to insert a lengthy story about Judah and his “righteous” (Gen 38:26) descendants (Gen 38). Also, when Joseph’s brothers devised a plot to kill him (Gen 37:18), it was Judah, rather than the firstborn, Reuben, who saved Joseph from sudden death. Such “reversals” occur numerous times within the remainder of the Joseph narrative. Judah is singled out from the other brothers as the one through whom the rescue of the family of Jacob was accomplished.

…Joseph’s brothers understood his [dreams] to mean they… would bow down to him…. As the narratives unfold, that is exactly what happens…. When they bow to him, Joseph “remembers his dreams” (Gen 42:9), and with him, the reader discovers that this is a work of divine intervention. The point of the narrative is to show that these and similar events are a fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams.

The narratives that focus attention on the fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams are not permitted a final word. There are still important parts of the narrative that draw our attention not to Joseph, but to Judah. That focus reaches its fullest expression in Jacob’s poem (Gen 49). The last word of the Joseph narrative turns our attention toward the preeminence of the tribe of Judah: “your brothers will bow down to you”… (Gen 49:8b). These words connecting Judah to Joseph’s dreams are… important in giving us another look at the author’s understanding of Jacob’s first words to Judah. By means of these words (Gen 49:8b), a larger lesson is drawn from the Joseph narratives. What was once true only of Joseph, that his brothers would bow down to him (Gen 37:7-10), is now to find its fulfillment in the reign of one who holds the scepter from the house of Judah (Gen 49:10)…. In drawing a connection between the Joseph narratives and the promise to the house of Judah, Joseph and the events of his life foreshadow what will ultimately happen to the king from the house of Judah, the one spoken of in this poem. The king who was to come from the house of Judah is foreshadowed by the life of Joseph. He will save his people and the nations, just as Joseph saved the families of the sons of Jacob (Gen 50:20) and the nations (Gen 47:19). Joseph, rather than Reuben, will be the firstborn among his brothers, but Judah will reign through the kingship… (pg. 327-328)

A redemptive-historical approach to interpretation such as I advocate, would already feel liberty to find divinely-intended parallels between the life of Joseph and the life of Christ. Now with Sailhamer’s work, a stronger connection is forged, and we can see that the prophetic shapers of the final canonical form of the Tanak, themselves, saw parallels between Joseph’s career and the life and work of the coming Messiah-King.

The Christological Shape of the Old Testament

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I just finished part one of John H. Sailhamer’s The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (IVP, 2009). I have been riveted by what I’ve read so far, and just have to share this much with you all.

First a little background. Sailhamer aims to bring back an emphasis on authorial intent to the study of the Old Testament. He holds to a Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but argues for a later prophetic retrofit or, in modern lingo, a Pentateuch 2.0. I’ll let Sailhamer explain:

For the most part, the new edition replicates the original Mosaic Pentateuch, but it has a wider screen. Rather than reading the Pentateuch from the viewpoint of the beginning of Israel’s history, as no doubt was intended in the original Pentateuch, the new edition looks at the Pentateuch from the perspective of the end of Israel’s history and God’s continuing work with Israel and the nations. (pg. 204)

Along with a prophetic retouch of the Pentateuch, Sailhamer argues that the entire Tanak (Hebrew Bible or the Christian Old Testament) was shaped by perhaps a single author. It was presented to us in a particular order for a reason. You are likely aware of Jesus’ approval of this basic shape of the OT. He referred to the OT as “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). He also spoke of the blood of the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah (Luke 11:51), which likely points to the Tanak ending with Chronicles even in Jesus’ day.

So to Sailhamer, the very shape– the order of the books, and their current literary shape– of the OT is important. We aren’t primarily concerned with the history it witnesses to, but rather our job is to listen to the inspired writings themselves and try to discern what the authors intended to communicate through their completed books. The shape matters. And when you look closely at that shape, a Christological or messianic focus comes into view. The following chart may help:

The three parts of the OT again, are the Torah or Law, which we call the Pentateuch (Genesis – Deuteronomy); the Nevi’im or Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel-2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel & the minor prophets); and the Ketuvim or Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1-2 Chronicles). Imagine these three parts of the OT stitched together at the intersections of the book of Deuteronomy & Joshua, and Malachi & Psalms. These are the two seams that hold the Tanak together. [Tanak comes from the first letters of the words: Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim.]

Each of these seams is very similar. Deut. 34 declares that the expected “prophet like me (Moses)” never appeared. This implies that this section of Deuteronomy was written quite late. Sailhamer writes, “The fact that the prophet “never came” is intended to spur the reader on to further trust in the hope of his coming. In other words, this last bit of commentary on Deuteronomy 18 in Deuteronomy 34 guides us in understanding Moses’ words not as a reference to the coming office of the prophet, but as a historically unfulfilled prophecy of the coming of an individual future prophet.” (pg. 18).

Meanwhile, Malachi ends with an expectation of a coming messenger preparing the way for the coming of the LORD. A prophet like Elijah will arise at a future time. This expectation of a coming future prophet is then followed by a call to meditate on the Law as a means to find prosperity and success. Josh. 1:8 and Ps. 1:2 both link success with meditating on the Law.

This all fits together when we realize the Tanak was crafted specifically to draw emphasis to these parallels. Sailhammer explains further:

Both Joshua 1 and Psalm 1 speak of “meditating on the law of God” as the means of becoming wise and prosperous. The two canonical links (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:3) appear to be read as cross-citations, each citing the other…. The verbal identity of these two texts suggests an intentional strategy…. In these two canonical seams the law becomes an object of meditation and the primary source of wisdom.

These two seams, or “redactional glue,” Joshua 1:8 and Psalm 1:2, contrast the role of law as wisdom in the present and as prophecy in the future. In doing so they raise a further question: “How does one live in the present while waiting for God’s new work in the future? These seams refocus the reader’s attention from the present to the future arrival of a great prophet like Moses (Deut 34:10), whose way is prepared by another great prophet, Elijah (Mal 4:5 [3:23 MT]).

A final theme is embedded in these canonical seams. It is the role of Scripture in the lives of those who are called to wait for God’s future work. By meditating “day and night” on Scripture (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:3), one finds wisdom and prosperity. Prophecy is a thing of the past. It has ceased and has been replaced, for the moment at least, by Scripture. The Scriptures, as God’s prophetic Word, have been given for those who wait for the return of prophecy…. (217-218)

An additional element of the shape of the Tanak also adds to this messianic focus. The last book, Chronicles, ends with Cyrus’ edict to return to Jerusalem, but it cuts off the edict mid-sentence (compare 2 Chron. 36:22-23 with Ezra 1:1-5). This is an intentional strategy, to emphasize that the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s 70 years is to be seen in Daniel’s 70 weeks which are yet future. The return was not the end of Israel’s prophetic future. Again, I’ll allow Sailhamer to explain further:

In the version of the Tanak that ends with Chronicles, the next biblical events are to be the coming of the Messiah (Dan 9:25), the death of the Messiah (Dan 9:26) and the destruction of the temple (Dan 9:26b). These events, all taken from Daniel 9, are projected on to the screen of the future by 2 Chronicles 36 at the close of the Tanak…. the ending of the OT is fixed by its reference to Daniel 9, the last great prophetic word recorded in the Tanak….

The countdown begins with “the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Dan 9:25). It is that decree of Cyrus that brings the OT to its proper conclusion. At the same time, that conclusion also signals an important new beginning. It is the beginning of the countdown to the coming of the biblical Messiah….

By marking the effective end of the Tanak with Daniel 9, the framers of the OT canon were making a statement that the next great event in Israel’s history was the advent of the Messiah (Dan 9:25). There was little left to do but wait for that event. All else, biblically as well as historically, was put on hold.

…OT textual strategies, both compositional and canonical, appear poised to move directly and intentionally into the theological world of the NT. Such textual strategies suggest that the NT is a true descendant of the OT. It also suggests that some of the framers of the OT Tanak had ties to early “pre-Christian” believers like those in the early parts of the Gospels and included men and women of the likes of John the Baptist, Simeon, Zacharias and Anna (Lk 1-2). The historical faith that lies behind the shape of the OT canon anticipates the faith of the early Christian communities. (214-215)

In its very shape, the Tanak points to Christ. The prophetic retrofit of the Pentateuch, and the composition and shaping of the Tanak was crafted so as to highlight a future-oriented hope in the coming Prophet-Messiah. As such, the OT hints at the need for additional prophecy and revelation to complete it’s story. Jesus the Messiah prophesied in Daniel 9 and elsewhere, did come. And His coming fulfills the message embodied in the content as well as the shape of the Hebrew Scriptures.

More could be said on all of this, but you’ll have to get the book!