Adam as Israel presents a bold new thesis that the Old Testament should be interpreted canonically due to the shaping and editing of the “seams” of the three major divisions of the Tanakh.[1] In order to make his case, author Seth Postell relies heavily on the work of John Sailhamer and others who have advocated for a canonical reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. The canonical cohesion begins in the Torah which utilizes three poems to at “strategic locations” to drive home an eschatological message reinforcing that God will fulfill all of his promises in the future.[2] Next, Postell argues that the final compiler of the Old Testament documents threaded the thematic connective tissue of the Torah into the beginning and end of each of the three main divisions of the Tanakh.
In Chapter 4, Postell focuses on defining and justifying the methodology he uses in Old Testament studies. He begins by mounting a critique of modern liberal biblical criticism. He states that his method does not separate the text of the Old Testament from actual history or “events.”[3] Instead, he asserts biblical authority, reliability, and authenticity.[4] Next, Postell stands firm against the “death of the author” movement by affirming authorial intentionality along the lines of speech-act theory, wherein intention can be discovered by a combination of textual analysis and period relevant semantic rules.[5] He also denies the validity of reader-response theories, stating that it is the readers job to understand the text not to create the texts meaning.[6] Finally, he affirms a canonical reading of the text, but denies that the meaning is derived from the canon.[7] Rather the canonical seams emphasize what the first authors already intended. In terms of defining his approach positively, Postell first asserts that he holds the text as the primary locus of meaning.[8] Second, he heavily utilizes intertextuality to come to an understanding of the what the original authors intended.[9]
Chapter 7 of Postell’s work serves to elucidate the canonical seams of the Tanakh and use them to discover that the purpose of the entire Old Testament is to “exemplify the figure of the ideal reader’s aspirations” who “will rescue God’s people from exile” and “reestablish the Edenic sanctuary in the Promised Land.”[10] He does this through a discussion of Joshua’s relationship with Adam and the “man” of Psalm 2. By drawing these links, Postell unearths that the entire Old Testament has, as its major theme, the Messiah at the forefront. Through this linkage, Postell justifies many of the New Testament utilizations of Adam and Eve, Moses, and Israel to describe Jesus and His relationship to the body of believers.[11]
His case becomes very strong through the inclusion of a novel but very convincing hypothesis that Chronicles is actually the ending book of the Old Testament. In support of his argument, he reminds readers that unlike the Book of Kings, which covers history inline with where it is included, the Book of Chronicles covers the entirety of human history to that point from Adam to King Cyrus.[12] Additionally, by ending with a discussion of Cyrus and his roles in restoring the temple, returning the people to Jerusalem, and ruling the known world, the ending of Chronicles becomes an assertion that God will one day send the Messiah to restore the temple, return Israelites to the land, and govern the world.[13]
In a discussion of Sailhamer’s theology, Postell mentions that the Pentateuch and the Sinaitic Covenant are not equivalent and while the latter is focused on the present the former is focused on eschatology.[14] He quotes Sailhamer’s assertion that the Pentateuch presents the Sinaitic Covenant “as Gods means of restoring God’s original plans to bless humanity” and that it “failed to restore the creation blessing because of Israel’s failure to trust and obey God.”[15] As biblical justification, Sailhamer cites Gen. 1:26-28, Gen. 12:1-3, and Exod. 2:24. Postel also notes that Sailhamer does not cite any further defense for this position. In fact, Sailhamer’s position on the Sinaitic Covenant runs contrary to Postell’s overall thesis.
First, it is questionable whether or not the creation mandate can be linked to the Abrahamic covenant in a direct 1:1 manner. Genesis 1 speaks of God blessing mankind and then mankind using that blessing to be his ambassadors on the earth, thus the blessing flow is God to mankind to creation. In Genesis 12, God is covenanting with Abraham and his descendants so that a blessing would come to all of humanity, which makes the blessing flow from God to Abraham (and descendants) to all of humanity. While they find commonality in God’s blessing, the objects of the blessing could at best be interpreted as an expression/elaboration of a portion of promise of God in Genesis 1. Second, Exodus 2:24 does not present a direct link between the Sinaitic Covenant and the Abrahamic covenant. It only establishes God’s faithfulness to Jacob’s descendants as a result of His promise to Abraham. The verse does not force the generation of a new covenant nor hint at the elaboration of the Abrahamic Covenant into the Sinaitic Covenant. Again, the most generous scenario is that the Abrahamic Covenant’s extension to and culmination in Jacob indicates that it is with Jacob’s people that God will establish His Chosen People.
Second, Sailhamer’s assertion that the Sinaitic Covenant had the potential to “restore the creation blessing” is at odds with Postell’s assertion that the Tanakh is fundamentally structured to foster the idea of an eschatological “conquering king” that would meet the needs of the people and set them free to live in the land, free from oppression.[16] If, as Sailhamer proposes, the Sinaitic Covenant could have resulted in the restoration of the creation blessing and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, then a natural follow up question is what place does Jesus serve in the canon of Scripture? Is he a plan B path to the restoration of creation? Did God intend that Israel’s obedience would be enough and if so does their inability to obey mean that God was unable to bring about His will to pass?
Though Postell does not mention his thoughts on Sailhamer’s theology at this point, later statements seem to indicate that he too disagrees with Sailhamer’s position. For instance, he mentions that “Sailhamer did not include Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 2 as part of his interpretation of the intentionality of the seams of the Tanakh.”[17] This makes sense as to include these would lead to an assertion it was God’s plan all along to bring the conquering king to earth with the express mission restore the creation blessing. Overall, Postell’s interpretation utilizing the seams of the Tanakh leads to more fruitful conclusions inline with the rest of the Bible than does Sailhamer’s interpretation and the Sinaitic Covenant should be seen in light of the messiah not as a first attempt at restoring the creation blessing.
Postell’s methodology is to be admired for its adherence to conservative principles while also maintaining flexibility to account for intertextuality and cultural semantic context. However, there is one point at which his own explanation of his methodology was somewhat at odds with itself. In the methodology section, Postell rightly affirms that “the locus of meaning” cannot be “dislodged” from the original text as written prior to becoming part of a canon.[18] This would ground meaning in “the community of faith” and make all biblical interpretation a matter of meeting the needs and whims of the generation who is currently exegeting the text.[19] However, Postell’s thesis asserts that the canonical seams of the Old Testament Scriptures are necessary for understanding each of the books.
Theoretically the meaning of an individual book could change once it is placed in its canonical setting and “stitched” together by the final compiler. Postell gets around this issue by stating that the later authors and compilers “took the intentions of the historical prophets seriously” and complied the text in such a way as to bring out the themes and statements already present in the original text.[20] Thus, he results to a presupposition to address a potential problem in his theory. Though his bibliological assertion is inline with Scripture, it would not serve to address critical scholars who disagree with his readings of the individual books.
One way that he could solve this problem is by presenting a hybrid view whereby canonical form and progressive revelation are held in tandem. The canonical theory on its own leaves a gap between original authorial intention and the canonical author; however, if progressive revelation is defended and applied, later compilers could be said to legitimately apply the revelation given in later texts to the canonical seams to cue the reader into future insight while leaving the original meaning intact. The problem with a hybrid view is that it could lead to reading later texts back into earlier ones; however, if the complier comments are understood as divine revelation revealed at a later time, the texts could remain authorially separate. Admittedly, this issue is not an easy one to resolve and Postell did a commendable job through his presuppositional assertions.
One of the treasures of Postell’s book is the light he sheds on the possibility that Chronicles is the true end of the Old Testament canon. The historical insights he brings to his argument advance his position forcefully. The attestation of Chronicles being the conclusion to the Old Testament Scriptures is nearly universal as the earliest order of the books found in the Palestinian Canon from all four major perspectives reflect Chronicles being the end.[21] Additionally, the content reflects a conclusion as Chronicles ends with the ending of the exile and the restoration of Jerusalem through a powerful foreign king.[22] This ending matches each of the other division endings by focusing on the future work of God among the people of Israel and the hope of the promises of God being fulfilled in the future.[23] Additionally, by starting with Adam and ending with the most current point in history, Chronicles serves as a full summary of the entire Old Testament.
The question that seeing Chronicles as a conclusion raises is how does this affect one’s understanding of Genesis 1-3? According to Postell’s methodology, it cannot be used to reinterpret or provide new meaning to the passage. Nor can any assessments or links that Chronicles draws be used to enhance the meaning of Genesis 1-3. Postell circumvents these pitfalls by arguing that Genesis 1-3 was intended from the beginning to have eschatology in focus, and that the introductions and conclusions of the seams of the Tanakh promote this understanding.[24]
One issue that critical scholars may take with Postell’s account of Genesis 1-3 is his linkage of Adam with Israel and the foreign kings that serve to aid Israel. Through typology these do seem to be related, but a critical methodology would reveal that they are related through redaction and canonical editing. They would also critique the capability of human authors separated by thousands of years being able to have the forethought and cultural commonality to write a work such as the Hebrew Canon and maintain authorial intention throughout. In response to these potential criticisms, the following comments can be raised. First, headship of mankind factors into the majority of the stories found in the Old Testament. Nearly every book speaks of kings and rulers of Israel, of God’s relationship with them, and the results of their actions. Thus the themes present in the Scriptures are not culturally dependent and are present throughout history. Second, the prophetic nature of the Hebrew Canon speaks to its divine authorship. With divine authorship affirmed, it is probable that God gave the human authors the knowledge that the work they started would be continued into the future by prophets. Overall, Postell’s book is an excellent resource and provides invaluable insight into understanding the unity of the Old Testament Scriptures.
Postell, Seth. Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011.
[1] Seth Postell, Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 151.
[2] Ibid, 39.
[3] Ibid, 44.
[4] Ibid, 45.
[5] Ibid, 49.
[6] Ibid, 52.
[7] Ibid, 53.
[8] Ibid, 55.
[9] Ibid, 60-65.
[10] Ibid, 162.
[11] Ibid, 167-168.
[12] Ibid, 159.
[13] Ibid, 162.
[14] Ibid, 40.
[15] Ibid, 40.
[16] Ibid, 40, 162.
[17] Ibid, 162.
[18] Ibid, 53.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid, 54.
[21] Ibid, 158.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid, 166-167.
Comments