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!