The Tripartite Structure of the Hebrew Canon#

Where a biblical book is placed relative to other books in the canon influences a reader’s view of the book as to what to expect and what the book may be about. The ordering of books can be classified according to a number of principles (e.g., their size, storyline thread, or similar themes). These principles need not be mutally exclusive, for there may be more than one possible principle reflected in a particular order.

The arrangement of the books that make up the Old Testament varies between the Jewish and Christian communities who share it as Scripture. Both canons basically have the same books but not the same order in which books are placed. When required, we will take into consideration the Apocrypha but will not discuss the related but separate issue of why some books were included in the canon and others were left out.

The typical order of books in the Hebrew Bible is as follows:

Thus the Hebrew Bible was given a tripartite structure (Tanak). Tanak is an acronym for the Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings), with helping vowels, these being the three canonical sections of the Hebrew Scriptures.

• The first part (Torah) describes the making of a covenant between God and Israel.

• The second part (Prophets) offers instructions and warnings regarding Israel’s violation of provisions of the covenant.

Putting books that Christians usually view as “Histories” (e.g., Samuel and Kings) in the same section as prophetic anthologies (Isaiah; Jeremiah; etc.) tends to make all these books prophetic in orientation - they offer a critique of the behavior of God’s people according to divinely instituted standards.

The placement of Joshua-Juges-Samuel-Kings after the Torah suggest an understanding of these four books as illustrating and applying the teaching of the Pentateuch. The prophets whose oracles are recorded in the Latter Prophets are viewed as preachers of the law. This understanding of the books is supported by a cluster of references to God’s law at the beginning and end of the Former Prophets (e.g., Josh. 1:8; 8:31, 32, 34; 2 Kings 22:8, 11; 23:24-25). Likewise, the Latter Prophets start and close with references to the law (Isa. 1:10; Mal. 4:4).

• The third part (Writings) provides prudential wisdom for typical situations of life.

The Writings do not simply include wisdom texts (e.g., Job, Proverbs) but also what look like historical works (Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles). The tone of Chronicles differs from Kings by virtue of its tendency to extract a moral lesson from historical events. It is perhaps possible to view Chronicles as a widsom book of sorts. There is the wisdom theme of Daniel (e.g., Dan. 1:4, 17, 20; 11:33, 35) and the exemplary behavior of the Jewish heroes in the “tales from the Diaspora” in Daniel 1-6 and Esther.

The Torah#

The placement of the Torah first in the Hebrew canon does not need to imply that the whole of the Old Testament is turned into ethical instruction (and no more), for the Pentateuch has the same primary position in the Christian Bible. The Pentateuch could hardly be put in any other position, for it recounts the origins of the world and of Israel, and by so doing provides a background for all that follows. Many of the key biblical-theological themes of the Bible receive an initial airing in the Pentateuch. Moreover, the five books could not be put in any other order than they are in, given the storyline that connects them, so that historical sequence explains the ordering of the five books.

The Prophets#

The four books of the Former Prophets (Joshua; Judges; Samuel; Kings) precede and match in number the four books of the Latter Prophets (Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; and the Book of the Twelve). The Masoretic Text (MT) follows a generally chronological scheme, namely Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, with the catch-all collection of Twelve Prophets at the end. Certainly, the ministries of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in the Persian period are to be dated later than those of the other prophets.

There are other orders attested for the Latter Prophets, notably that found in a tradition preserved in the Babylonian Talmud tractate Baba Bathra (14b), which reads,

Our rabbis taught that the order of the prophets is Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve… The order of the Writings is Ruth and the Book of Psalms and Job and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Lamentations, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther, Ezra[-Nehemiah] and Chronicles.

It is a baraita (a quotation of earlier rabbinic sources) originating in the Tannaic period (pre–AD 200). The sequence in Baba Bathra 14b may be in order of decreasing length, a common mode of ordering in the biblical canon, or else it reflects an alternate method of computing chronological order, noting that the latter part of the scroll of Isaiah foresees certain postexilic developments (mentioning Cyrus) and Haggai–Zechariah–Malachi concern events that post-date Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

An important feature of the Baba Bathra listing is the pairing of books using a conjunctive waw. The Baba Bathra pairing of books (e.g., Joshua and Judges) is attested in the earliest printed versions of the Talmud from the Soncino-Pesaro edition of the 1510s onwards, but the waw is absent in all the medieval manuscripts, which leads to the conclusion that this is an editorial (and interpretive) insertion into the Talmudic text, and thus, it is not represented in recent English editions of the Talmud.

The Former Prophets#

With regard to the paratextual phenomenon of the order of the four books of the Former Prophets as self-standing literary blocks, their arrangement according to storyline thread does not mean that this way of sequencing the biblical material is natural or neutral. Their enjambment affects the interpretation of the individual books.

• With Judges following Joshua, the period of the judges is made to appear even darker than it might otherwise be (Judg. 2:10), given the contrast with the obedient generation of Joshua’s day.

• The refrain in the final chapters of Judges (“In those days there was no king…”) is often viewed as recommending kingship as a way of overcoming the inadequacies of the period (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).

• For the books that follow Judges show that most of the kings were unfaithful, such that Gideon’s adverse reaction to the suggestion that he rule over Israel is shown to be justified (8:22–23)

• With the book of Samuel following Judges, an absolute rejection of human kingship in Israel is also not possible, though that is the first reaction of Samuel the judge (1 Sam. 8).

• David is not idealized in Samuel (esp. 2 Sam. 12–20) but becomes a pious model against which later Judean kings are measured in the book of Kings (e.g., 1 Kings 3:3; 11:4; 2 Kings 14:3; 18:3).

• After the parading of David’s failures in the second half of 2 Samuel, the reader is not surprised to find in Kings a largely negative view of monarchy in Judah and Israel.

What we are seeking to illustrate is that the theological evaluation of individual biblical books must take into account their canonical setting, especially the interaction of neighboring books.

The Latter Prophets#

A number of Prophetic Books have superscriptions relating to kings who are mentioned by name in the book of Kings, helping to bind together and coordinate the Former and Latter Prophets (e.g., Hos. 1:1; Amos 1:1). This in part compensates for the virtual non-mention of the writing prophets in the book of Kings. Isaiah (2 Kings 18–20) and Jonah (2 Kings 14:25) are the only writing prophets mentioned in Kings.

The Former Prophets, and Kings in particular, supply a narrative frame for the compilations of oracles by prophets that follow (starting either with Isaiah [MT] or Jeremiah [Baba Bathra]).

Masoretic Text#

The synoptic nature of 2 Kings 18–20 and Isaiah 36–39 justify the juxtapositioning of Kings and Isaiah in the MT, and the two books assist in uniting the larger canonical structure dominated by prophecy. These synoptic passages represent an important turning point in their respective books, namely, when the fate of the Davidic house is announced (2 Kings 20:16–18; Isa. 39:5–7), either leading to an account of the final years of that house (2 Kings 21–25) or precipitating a major thematic shift to an exclusive focus on divine kingship (Isa. 40–66).

These perspectives can be viewed as complementary, the one providing the historical record of the end of the house of David (Kings) and the other the theocratic framework within which to understand it (Isaiah).

The MT order (Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Twelve Prophets) is chronological. Ezekiel was the younger contemporary of Jeremiah and therefore Ezekiel’s prophetic book follows that of Jeremiah. There is a fuller discussion of the exile and the hope for the nation beyond it in the prophecy of Ezekiel (chs. 36–48) relative to Jeremiah (where it is largely limited to chs. 30–33). The historical progression is also indicated by the different schemes of dating used in the two books. In the book of Ezekiel, the prophecies are often dated according to the years of Jehoiachin’s exile (Ezek. 1:2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; etc.), whereas in the book of Jeremiah, a number of the prophecies are dated according to the year of a reigning Judean king, often Zedekiah (Jer. 25:1; 26:1; 27:1; 32:1; etc.). The placing of these four Prophetic Books side by side gives the impression of a (divinely provided) succession of prophets generation by generation, matching the succession of monarchs described in the book of Kings.

Baba Bathra#

The sequence of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve in Baba Bathra 14b may have been arranged in descending order according to length, or in accordance with an alternate understanding of chronological order, for the latter part of the prophecy of Isaiah (mentioning Cyrus) and Haggai–Zechariah–Malachi concern events that postdate Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Baba Bathra explains that Kings ends with destruction (ḥorbana’) and Jeremiah is all destruction; Ezekiel commences with destruction and ends with consolation (naḥmata’); and Isaiah is full of consolation, so that “destruction is next to destruction and consolation is next to consolation.”

The suggestion is, then, that thematic considerations predominate, so that, for example, the placing of Kings and Jeremiah side by side is due to their common theme of judgment and the disaster of exile. The placement of Jeremiah after Kings provides a prophetic explanation of the demise of the nation as plotted in 2 Kings 23–25.

Moreover, the position of Jeremiah immediately after Kings is appropriate seeing that Jeremiah 52 is drawn from (and adapts) 2 Kings 25, so that these are synoptic passages. In addition, the oracles of Jeremiah are set in the closing years of the kingdom of Judah, which is what the final chapters of Kings describe. The effect of the order in Baba Bathra is to give the Prophetic Books an increasingly hopeful prospect, due to the extensive promises of restoration in Isaiah 40–66.

The four Hebrew book titles “Joshua,” “Judges,” “Samuel,” and “Kings” give the Former Prophets a distinct focus on leadership. The focus on kings and prophets in the book of Kings is, therefore, in line with the thematic orientation of the canonical grouping of which it is the climax. Kings plots the failure of the institution of kingship, both in Israel and in Judah, with most kings failing to reflect the prototype of a good king provided by David. Consistent with this focus on kings, the prophets are styled as the critics of kings, and the ruin of the nation is blamed on the kings. With Jeremiah as the head book of the Latter Prophets (B. Bat. 14b), the interest in kings and prophets is picked up, for the prophet Jeremiah himself is a severe critic of contemporary kings (esp. chs. 21–23).

The order of the books in the Twelve is set in the Masoretic tradition, though the order of the books in the Major Prophets varies considerably in Jewish lists. The evidence of the Qumran fragments of the Minor Prophets indicates that these twelve prophetic booklets were copied together in ancient times.

The order within the Twelve may well be intended to be chronological, though the dating of several of these books is strongly debated (esp. Joel and Obadiah). The order within the Twelve gives no more than a rough approximation to the order of their real dates, with a basic twofold division into Assyrian (Hosea to Zephaniah) and Persian (Haggai; Zechariah; and Malachi) periods.

• Amos should be dated before Hosea, for example, seeing that the superscription of Amos mentions only Uzziah, whereas Hosea 1:1 also lists the three subsequent Judean kings.

• Hosea may stand at the head because of its size and because it is theologically formative. It lays down the dynamics of the covenant relationship, so that Hosea 1–3 functions to introduce the leading themes of the Twelve as a unit. The story of Hosea 1–3 is one of covenant infidelity and punishment, followed by restoration. As such, it can be viewed as providing a summary of the message of the Twelve as a whole.

• There is no chronological data supplied by Joel to explain its placement between Hosea and Amos. It must, then, be considerations of content that dictated Joel’s position before Amos. Joel widens the indictment of sin found in Hosea to include a general denunciation of the nations (e.g., Joel 3:1–8), which helps to prepare for the critique of foreign powers in Amos 1–2.

• On the other hand, Amos 9:11–15 eases the transition to Obadiah, with Obadiah expanding on the mention of Edom in Amos 9:12.

• The Jonah section continues the theme of the relation of Israel and the nations that began in Joel 3:9–21 and was developed in Amos 1–2 and Obadiah. The response of fasting and repentance by Ninevites (Jonah 3) is reminiscent of Joel 1:13–14 and 2:15–16, which call for fasting and sackcloth by Israelites, such that the penitent response of Nineveh is an example for Jerusalem. The book of Jonah stands between Obadiah and Micah, and such paratextual considerations should shape the reader’s understanding of the text, not a hypothetical historical reconstruction.

• Micah’s place after Jonah is appropriate in that it explains how sinful Israel could be destroyed by Assyria, which itself had evaded judgment by repenting.

• The prophecy of Micah (5:5–6), however, anticipates Assyria’s subjugation by Judean shepherds, and Nahum in turn portrays the eventual punishment of Nineveh, which plainly deserves God’s wrath (Nah. 3:18–19).

• With the removal of Assyria, Habakkuk is set in the context of the looming Babylonian crisis (Hab. 1:6).

• The cosmic breadth of the devastation described in Zephaniah (e.g., Zeph. 1:2–3) makes it a fitting climax for the first nine prophecies of the Twelve that focus on the theme of judgment, but it also introduces the restoration focus of Haggai–Zechariah–Malachi, with Zephaniah 3:9–20 containing God’s promise to restore the fortunes of Zion

The Writings#

According to Marvin Sweeney, the Tanak, in placing the Writings after the Prophets, portrays the rebuilt temple and restored Jewish community in the postexilic period as a fulfillment of the hope of the prophets. If the arrangement of the books were doing this, it would be at variance with the contents of the books themselves. In the eyes of the Jews, the Tanak is complete in and of itself, insofar as it does not constitute a component of a larger body of Scripture—it is not “Old Testament,” for it has no New Testament—but the story of God’s purposes is far from complete, for the restoration described in Ezra-Nehemiah is disappointing.

It is not true that the Tanak, ending with Chronicles, has no sense of incompleteness, for it ends on a note of expectation (2 Chron. 36:23: “Let him go up”). According to the final books of the Tanak, the nation is still oppressed; for example, Nehemiah 9:32 speaks of their continued hardship “until this day,” and in Nehemiah 9:36 there is the complaint to God by those who have returned to Jerusalem (“we are slaves”). The sweeping historical review provided by the penitential prayer of Nehemiah 9 makes depressing reading. Likewise, Ezra-Nehemiah shows the failure of God’s people to reform themselves, ending as it does with the depressing account of the recurrence of problems (the final placement of Neh. 13:4–31 demonstrates the people’s inability to keep their pledge in Neh. 10:28–39).

The order of the individual books within the Writings greatly fluctuates in the Jewish tradition. According to the Babylonian Talmud (B. Bat. 14b), the book of Ruth comes at the beginning of the Writings, maybe because the events narrated belong to the time of the judges (Ruth 1:1). In that baraita, the relevant listing is “Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs,” so that this is a four-book mini-collection, with Ruth (ending with the genealogy of David) positioned as a kind of preface to Psalms, and Psalms–Job–Proverbs forming a tripartite wisdom collection. “Qoheleth” is next in line, strategically placed between books also viewed as Solomonic compositions. Then, we find three pairs of books, namely, Song of Songs and Lamentations (a genre grouping of songs: romantic and mournful); Daniel and Esther (both court tales wherein the safety of Jews are under threat); and lastly, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles (with their obvious similarities).

In Hebrew Bibles, at the beginning of the Writings is the group of “three great writings”, Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, in order of decreasing length. The little group of Megillot (meaning “scrolls”) are placed next, and finally Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The order of the five books of the Megillot in the Leningrad Codex and in Sephardic codices appears to be based on traditional notions of chronology: Ruth, Song of Songs (written by a young Solomon?), Ecclesiastes (written by Solomon when he was old?), Lamentations, and Esther.

It is usually said that these five books are grouped together for liturgical reasons, due to their public reading at the five main annual festivals, but this rationale has been questioned by Timothy Stone, who argues that the process was the reverse; namely, it was because of the existence of the five-book grouping that Ruth, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, in particular, began to be read at feasts, following the example of the obvious fit of Esther with Purim. Certainly, the link of Ruth with the Feast of Weeks, Song of Songs with Passover, and Ecclesiastes with Booths (Tabernacles) is not strong and could be viewed as manufactured. In other Hebrew Bibles, especially those used by Ashkenazic Jews, the order of the Megillot reflects the sequence of the annual cycle of the major Jewish festivals (assuming the year starts with the month of Nisan): Song of Songs (Passover), Ruth (Weeks), Lamentations (Ninth of Ab), Ecclesiastes (Booths), and Esther (Purim).

In the order of books Proverbs, Ruth, and Song of Songs (BHS), both Ruth and Song of Songs develop the picture of the virtuous and assertive woman pictured in Proverbs 31, and the woman is the main speaker in the Song.55 When followed by Song of Songs, the romance aspect of the book of Ruth is highlighted. Then, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Esther follow in that order. The liturgical application of the Megillot is further supported by the fact that it is placed directly after the Pentateuch in the editions of the Hebrew Bible in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for the Pentateuch and the Megillot are the only portions read in their entirety in the lectionary of the synagogue.

The Cyrus decree provides an inclusio around Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, in that order (Ezra 1:1–4; 2 Chron. 36:22–23). After the people focus of Ezra-Nehemiah, with its many lists of names (e.g., Ezra 2; 8; Nehemiah 3; 7), the reader meets the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9, though H. G. M. Williamson has successfully debunked the earlier scholarly consensus that subsumed both Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles under the common authorship of the Chronicler. Instead of being at the end of the Writings as in the standard editions, Chronicles in the oldest medieval codices (Aleppo and Leningrad) is at the beginning of the whole unit, so that, with Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles forms an envelope around the Writings, providing a unifying and ordering framework for them.

David and Solomon are prominent in Chronicles, and so there is in the Writings a heavy concentration of works connected with or attributed to the house of David.

• The books that follow Chronicles, namely, Psalms and Proverbs, are directly connected with the founding dynasts, David and Solomon.

• Chronicles followed by Psalms gives the poetic pieces of the Psalter a liturgical setting in the musical cult organized by David (cf. 1 Chron. 23–27; 2 Chron. 7:6; 8:14; 23:18; 29:25–30; 35:15), and a number of psalmic titles help to cement such a connection (e.g., the titles of Pss. 42–50 and 62).

• Ruth may be treated as a “Davidic biography,” since Ruth and Boaz are the great-grandparents of David (Ruth 4:18–22).

• Song of Songs (e.g., 3:11) and Qoheleth (read as royal autobiography) each have connections with Solomon.

Esther provides a happy ending to the Megillot, especially when read after the tragic expressions of Lamentations. Daniel is in this position because of the court tales (Dan. 1–6) that connect with similar tales in Esther and Ezra-Nehemiah. Daniel following the book of Esther (in the Talmud, the order is reversed) provides a theological explanation for the confidence expressed in Esther concerning the survival of the Jewish race in the genocidal crisis depicted in the book (Est. 6:13).

Conclusions#

With regard to the order(s) of the books that make up the Hebrew Bible, the following may be said by way of summary.

• The ordering of books according to storyline would seem to explain the sequence of books in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets.

• The books of the Latter Prophets also are ordered according to chronology, whether the sequence is Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve, or Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve. The highs and lows of the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel are thereby plotted through time.

• The order in the Writings may, in part, reflect the (presumed) order of composition, with Davidic and Solomonic works at the beginning and Persian period compositions at the end (Esther onwards).

In almost every case, the location of a biblical book relative to other canonical books, whether in terms of the grouping in which it is placed, or of the books that follow or precede it, has significance for the reader who seeks meaning in the text. Therefore, a consideration of biblical book order can assist in the process of interpretation and the biblical-theological appreciation of the contents of Scripture.

The Structure of the Greek Old Testament Canon#

The Greek canon presents salvation history as a progressive movement through temporal stages toward an eschatological goal. According to Sweeney, this gives the Greek canon a primarily historical orientation, providing a linear account of the divine purpose, moving from the creation to the consummation as promised by the prophets. By placing the Prophets at the end of the canon, the Greek Old Testament points beyond itself to a future fulfillment, and the reader is led to consider eschatology as the guiding thread through the multifarious books of which Scripture is composed.

Despite the appropriateness of this arrangement for a Christian reading of the Old Testament, the evidence is that the Greek arrangement of the books is a pre-Christian order and is not shaped by Christian preconceptions. Contrary to Sweeney, both the Tanak and the Greek canon can be viewed as leading to the New Testament.

The early church adopted and used the Septuagint, and, for that reason, the influence of this tradition is reflected in the various sequences of the Greek Bible now preserved in ancient Christian codices. The early church did not adopt the canonical order it did for Christological reasons, but because the predominantly Greek-speaking church found the Septuagint convenient and of practical use both for teaching its converts and in apologetic argument with Jews, until Christian appropriation of the Septuagint caused most Jews to abandon it and replace it with other Greek renderings of the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. The reason behind the Christian adoption of the Greek Old Testament was simply language. Many Christians in the early centuries spoke Greek; they did not understand Hebrew.

The four-part structure - Pentateuch, Historical Books, Poetic Books, and Prophetic Books - reflects the generic character of the books that comprise the Greek Old Testament, and, in contrast to the Tanak, there is no disparate literary category of Writings.

• The Pentateuch depicts the distant past, for it describes the origins of the world and of Israel.

• The Historical Books recount the more recent past, up to and including the Persian period.

• The Poetic Books reflect perennial (and therefore present) concerns.

• Finally, the Prophetic Books describe the future as envisaged by the prophets.

Given their position in the Christian canon, they naturally point to the New Testament as the fulfillment of prophetic visions. Such historical periodization is also evident in the larger two-part canonical structure of Old Testament succeeded by New Testament.

The majority order of books in the Greek Old Testament (exemplified by Vaticanus) is as follows:

* Non-canonical work(s)

The Pentateuch#

The Pentateuch has the same premier position in the Greek Bible as in the Hebrew canon, and we would not expect its canonical placement to change in any listing of Old Testament books, given the fact that it describes the origin of the world and of Israel. Although the five books of the Pentateuch are followed by the books Joshua to Kings, classified as “Former Prophets” in the Hebrew canon, the fact that the Greek canon, as represented by the three great codices, is consistent in the ordering of the books from Genesis to 2 Chronicles could be taken as suggesting that the Pentateuch is being viewed through the same historical lens as the Historical Books, that is, the storyline is the important thing.

On the other hand, the attribution by the Chronicler of a number of works cited by him to prophetic figures as authors, if that is what the titles do indicate (e.g., “the [records] of Samuel the seer” [1 Chron. 29:29]), suggests that Chronicles also embodies a prophetic representation and interpretation of historical events. It is possible, then, that Sweeney and others overstress the differences between the two canons, for what we are suggesting is that Joshua to 2 Chronicles may well be viewed as prophetic works in the Greek tradition (cf. the portrait of prophets as historians in Josephus [Contra Apionem 1.38–41]).

The creation backdrop (Gen. 1) to subsequent events in the Pentateuch gives them a universal context and testifies of God’s interest in humanity as a whole. The disastrous consequences of the fall and the spread of sin affect all humanity and disrupt the unity of the race (11:1–9). The divine call and commission of Abram is with the aim that the peoples of the world will find blessing through the descendants of Abraham (12:1–3). For the most part, the patriarchs’ relationship with other people groups is portrayed positively.

Balaam’s fourth and final oracle speaks of Israel’s dominion over various named nations and says, “a scepter shall rise out of Israel” (Num. 24:17). At the end of the Pentateuch, though Israel is the focus of attention in the sermons of Moses, the issue of the nations is not ignored, if nothing else, due to the presence of the Canaanites in the land to be conquered. God’s dealings with Israel take place on an international stage (e.g., Deut. 4:5–8; 9:26–28; 15:6). Underlying such passages is the idea that Israel is divinely chosen to be an example for other nations to emulate.

The focus is rather on the unfaithfulness of God’s people and, notwithstanding this, God’s gracious dealings with them in the covenant relationship. The moral failings of the patriarchs - Abraham (Gen. 12:10–20; 20:1–18), Isaac (26:6–16), Jacob (ch. 27), and Judah (ch. 38) - are not hidden or excused, and these revelations prepare for the persistent unfaithfulness of Israel in the rest of the Pentateuch. The future prospect provided by chapters 29 and 31–32 includes the expectation that Israel will fail to keep God’s instruction as required.

The Historical Books#

The bringing together of various books into one section (Joshua–Esther) suggests that these books are being read according to a historical perspective, which is a feature of the Greek canon generally. The disadvantage in calling these books “Histories” is that it may obscure for the reader the fact that historical writing is not limited to this second section; indeed the Bible as a whole has a narrative framework. The Pentateuch sketches the history of the world from creation to the death of Moses. The Historical Books (Joshua–Esther) present the history of Israel as one of failure; but then, so do the Former Prophets in the Hebrew Bible (Joshua–Kings), which move from land entrance to expulsion from the land.

There is no reason to see the theme of Jew-Gentile relations as the leading theme of Joshua–Esther in the Greek canon. When history is reviewed in the Old Testament and a lesson drawn from God’s dealings with his people in successive periods of history, the persistent focus of the presentation is the unfaithfulness of God’s people and yet the graciousness of God’s dealings with them. This is the case whether the review takes the form of historical psalms (e.g., Pss. 78, 105, 106, and 107), speeches and summaries (e.g., 1 Sam. 12; 2 Kings 17), prophetic surveys (Hos. 2; Ezek. 16; 20; and 23), or postexilic penitential prayers (Dan. 9; Neh. 9).

If a historical principle is reflected in Genesis–Esther in the Greek tradition, the periodization is in terms of the ups and down of God’s dealings with his wayward people.

• The book of Joshua ends with sober warnings (Josh. 23–24).

• This is followed by the cycle of unfaithfulness plotted in Judges 2–3 and illustrated in the rest of the book.

• The people reject God in asking for a king (1 Sam. 8).

• David is shown to have feet of clay (2 Sam. 11–20).

• With only a few exceptions, the kings of Judah and Israel are reprobates (Kings), and the final paragraph of 2 Kings (25:27–30) gives no prospect of a revival of the house of David

• The presentation of Chronicles is little different in this regard and closes with Cyrus as world ruler (2 Chron. 36:22–23).

• Ezra-Nehemiah ends with the failure of God’s people to do what they had pledged (Neh. 13:4–31).

The placement of Chronicles after Kings in the Greek order makes it look like an addendum and supplement, and the Greek title assigned to it—“[The books] of the things left out” (Paraleipomenōn)—has the effect of downgrading its importance. Chronicles has had to live in the shadow of Kings until the recent flowering of Chronicles scholarship. The fact that only the Judean line of kings is traced might confirm the reader in the impression of Chronicles as an appendix to the story given a broader scope in Kings, but Chronicles is better viewed as world history, seeing that it begins with Adam (1 Chron. 1:1). The effect of placing Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Esther after Kings (rather than in the Writings) is that the history plotted in Joshua to Kings is extended into the postexilic period.

However, the distinction we have drawn is not absolute, for in both canons the story recounted has moral applications.

The Greek order of Chronicles followed by Ezra-Nehemiah gives an impression of continuity and may obscure for the reader the theological distinctives of each work. The “overlap” (as it is often called) in 2 Chronicles 36:22–23 and Ezra 1:1–3a seems to confirm their continuity, but that description prejudges the issue. With regard to the Greek codices, an ellipsis in Sinaiticus makes it unclear whether 2 Esdras (= Ezra-Nehemiah) directly follows Chronicles.

• In Alexandrinus, 1 and2 Esdras are nowhere near Chronicles.

• In Vaticanus, the deuterocanonical book of 1 Esdras (= Esdras A) intrudes between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, which is an appropriate setting for it, in that it reproduces (and rewrites) the substance of 2 Chronicles 35–36, the whole of Ezra (partly rearranged), and then jumps to Nehemiah 8 (which also features the figure of Ezra), so that it spans Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.

In 1 Esdras, Zerubbabel is viewed as being in the line of wise Solomon, who built the temple, and his Davidic lineage is mentioned (1 Esdr. 5:5), whereas it is not mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah. Tamara Eskenazi argues that 1 Esdras was in fact written by the Chronicler, so that its placement after Chronicles in Vaticanus is fitting. The upshot of all this is that putting Ezra-Nehemiah straight after Chronicles, as happens in the English Bible, runs the danger of blurring the individual teaching of each book.

Ezra-Nehemiah is followed by Esther (only in Sinaiticus) because that book is set in the reign of Ahasuerus (Est. 1:1), and this Persian king (mentioned in Ezra 4:6) preceded Artaxerxes, who was the royal master of Ezra and Nehemiah. The account of Esther’s marriage to a Persian king, therefore, follows Ezra-Nehemiah and that book’s negative reference to Solomon’s marriages to foreign women (Neh. 13:26). The book of Esther continues the negativity about foreigners that is present throughout Ezra-Nehemiah (e.g., Ezra 9:1–2). Mordecai’s and Esther’s disobedience to the king is based on their Jewish identities.

With regard to the genre of these three books, they are placed in different positions in the codices.

• Sinaiticus treats them as histories (seeing that they are narratives) and they are followed by 1 and 4 Maccabees.

• In Vaticanus, they follow (and join) Wisdom Books and both entertain and instruct readers about sustaining a Jewish ethos in the midst of a pagan world.

• In Alexandrinus, Esther–Tobit–Judith follow Daniel (with its narrative additions of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), so that, like Daniel, they are classed as paradigmatic diaspora tales.

In Alexandrinus, the grouping of Esther–Tobit–Judith is followed by 1 Esdras, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1–4 Maccabees, indicating that all belong together as postexilic histories.

The Poetical Books#

The Psalter, by its placement between Job and Proverbs in the English Bible, conforming to the order in the Vulgate, is designated as a wisdom book, and this classification is supported by the wisdom psalms sprinkled through it (e.g., Pss. 1; 32; 34; 37; 49; 112; 128) and by the various other psalms that show a wisdom influence (e.g., Pss. 25; 31; 39; 40; 62; 78; 92; 94; 111; 119; 127). This setting makes Psalms a wisdom book rather than a hymn book for temple praise, despite the musical notation found in some psalm titles (e.g., “To the choirmaster”), such that this canonical position adds support to the thesis of Gerald Wilson, who reads the Psalter along these lines.

In the Greek codices, the Psalter commences a section usually classified as poetic, but seeing that most of the other books in this section are obviously wisdom in character (i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Wisdom, and Sirach), it seems best to view the section in toto as consisting of Wisdom Books. Psalms is followed by either Proverbs (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) or Job (Alexandrinus). The placement of “The Song of Solomon” (so named) in this section makes it another wisdom book, with the Solomon connection in the Greek title adding weight to this classification. The Song is more than an effusive outpouring of amorous sentiment but is a means of instruction. See, for example, the warnings in the refrain-like verses at 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4 about the power of love. The position of Job at the beginning of this section in the English Bible is presumably due to chronological priority, given the setting of the story in the patriarchal age.

The juxtapositioning of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (with Job not far away) is a sign that Job and Ecclesiastes are not to be viewed as “wisdom in revolt” or “protest wisdom,” with these two books, according to this theory, aiming to correct or counter Proverbs. Instead, their propinquity assumes and asserts their ready compatibility, as does the “epilogue” of Ecclesiastes (12:9–14), which closes with the exhortation, “fear God and keep his commandments.”

Like the other two books, Proverbs insists that no degree of mastery of the rules of wisdom can confer absolute certainty on human actions and their consequences (e.g., 16:1, 2, 9; 19:14, 21; 20:24; 21:30–31). A failure to notice this strain of teaching in the book of Proverbs has led many to perceive a tension, if not an irreconcilable conflict, between Job–Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. The truth of the matter is that the three books are aligned in their teaching.

The Prophetic Books#

If the Prophetic Books are placed at the end of the Old Testament (as in Vaticanus), it is implied that prophecy is mainly foretelling, pointing forward to the eschaton in which God’s plan of salvation for Israel and the nations will come to completion. The fact that a number of Prophetic Books are capped by oracles of hope shows that this is not a tendentious reading of the Prophets (e.g., Isa. 40–66; Ezek. 40–48; Amos 9:11–15; Mic. 7:8–20). In Vaticanus (B), Alexandrinus (A), and Greek orders generally, the Minor Prophets precede the Major Prophets, perhaps because the ministries of Hosea and Amos must have preceded in time that of Isaiah.

The accustomed English ordering of these two prophetic blocks is found only in Sinaiticus. The usual Hebrew order follows a general chronological scheme, beginning with Isaiah, followed up by Jeremiah and Ezekiel (his younger contemporary), with the catch-all Book of the Twelve at the end. There is a slight difference in the order of the sequence within the Twelve in the Greek Bible compared to the MT. Significant for interpretation is the fact that oracles with a northern provenance (Hosea; Amos; Jonah), those originating from the southern kingdom (Joel; Obadiah; Micah; Nahum; Habakkuk; Zephaniah), and those addressed to postexilic returnees (Haggai; Zechariah; Malachi) are placed together and even mixed together, so that they become in this larger canonical conglomerate the word of God for God’s people irrespective of time and location.

In the Greek canon, the order of Obadiah followed by Jonah is the same as in the MT. The juxtapositioning of Jonah and Nahum is supported by the Nineveh orientation of both books (Nah. 1:1a: “An oracle concerning Nineveh”). The bringing together of Hosea, Amos, and Micah places these three larger books at the head of the Book of the Twelve, with Micah 1:1 indicating a later dating than either Hosea or Amos, and the smaller books follow in their train, so that size appears to be a contributing factor to the Greek arrangement.

Conclusions#

The reader naturally assumes that the placement of books in close physical proximity implies that they are related in some way. In other words, propinquity is taken as an indication that there is a significant connection between books so conjoined. A historical principle is reflected in the arrangement of the Greek Bible into four sections reflecting a chronological sequence (Vaticanus), though the fact that Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus end with poetry, not prophecy, is one of a number of factors that show that we are not to exaggerate the contrast between the Greek and Hebrew canonical traditions.

The Alternative Ends of the Old Testament Canon#

The Old Testament is a unified corpus whose ending is significant for an understanding of the whole. The series of books that make up the Old Testament is read as a coordinated canonical structure, which is what we are seeking to do in this biblical theology. If the Bible is read in canonical order and viewed as having a narrative trajectory (i.e., as one story moving toward a goal), this would require “an increased emphasis on the theology of the later literature which forms the end of the story.”

Alternative Last Books#

With regard to Hebrew canons, the final book is almost always Chronicles, or Ezra-Nehemiah when Chronicles is placed at the head of the Writings. Peter Brandt classifies those Jewish orders with Chronicles at the end of the Writings as Eastern (Babylonian) and those that close with Ezra-Nehemiah as Western (Palestinian). The tradition in Baba Bathra (14b) has “the order of the Writings” closing with “Daniel and the Scroll of Esther, Ezra[-Nehemiah] and Chronicles” (our translation). The baraita, therefore, provides an early record of an acceptable order of the Writings closing with Chronicles.

It is commonly said that the Greek canon in effect transposes the second and third sections in the Hebrew ordering of the books. In this way the Prophetic Books (= Latter Prophets of the Tanak) close the Old Testament canon and, from a Christian perspective, provide a bridge to the New Testament, signaling that the main connection of the New Testament is with the words of the prophets who pointed forward to Jesus Christ. In actual fact, only Vaticanus of the early codices places the Prophetic Books at the end of the canon (the Minor Prophets preceding the Major Prophets), with Daniel being the last book listed. In Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, the Poetic Books are placed last, so that the final section in these two codices is not all that different from the Writings.

Though the reader of the English Bible is familiar with Malachi as the last book of the Old Testament, this arrangement is not found in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin orders. Its late placement at this position came with the adjustment of the Vulgate tradition made in the Protestant Bible of the sixteenth century, when 1–2 Maccabees were removed from after Malachi. It was, therefore, an adjustment of biblical book order within the Christian tradition, and this had the unpremeditated consequence of making Malachi the last book of the Old Testament. This outcome had nothing to do with controversy with Jews and everything to do with disputes among Christians over the canonical status of the Apocrypha.

Finally, at times, though only rarely, Esther is the last book in the Old Testament. One important instance is B967, a Greek manuscript dated c. AD 200 and the earliest witness to the (pre-hexaplaric) Old Greek version. It has the order Ezekiel, Daniel (with Bel and the Dragon and Susanna), and Esther. Other texts that have Esther at the end of a listing of Old Testament books are the Bryennios list, where it is placed after Daniel, Esdras A and B (c. 2nd century AD); the canon poem of Amphilochios from Ikonion (late 4th cent. AD), who notes that after the Prophetic Books ending with Daniel “some also add to these Esther;” Epiphanius of Salamis, who aims to provide a listing of the books accepted by the Jews (after the two books of Esdras); and finally Jerome, who reports that the “order” (ordo) of the Hagiographa (or Writings) known to him lists the last Old Testament books as Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra(-Nehemiah), and Esther.

Ending with Chronicles#

The placement of the book of Chronicles after Kings in Greek orders makes it look like an addendum to Kings, and the Greek title assigned it—“[The books] of the things left out” (Paraleipomenōn)—confirms that Chronicles is being viewed as a supplement to 2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings. What is of relevance in the present discussion is the greater role assigned to Chronicles in the Hebrew Bible, for it is no longer overshadowed by Kings. In particular, 2 Chronicles 36:22–23, when placed at the close of the Writings, has a new prominence, and its proper interpretation becomes a key issue.

The generation of the Chronicler is put in the same position as the original returnees as depicted in 1 Chronicles 9, but with the hope of a significant advance over the failures and disappointments of the original return depicted in Ezra-Nehemiah. Brian E. Kelly is right to insist on an eschatological interpretation of Chronicles, though he appears to think that for Chronicles to have an eschatology it must be messianic in character; but eschatology and messianism (= the hope of a coming ideal king) need not be equated. There is, however, nothing in 2 Chronicles 36 to suggest an expectation of the restoration of Davidic rule. The ambiguous hope provided by Jehoiachin’s release from prison in 2 Kings 25:27–30 has no parallel in Chronicles. The rule of Cyrus confirms the termination of the Davidic dynasty, with the Persian king dressed in the Davidic garb of world ruler and temple builder.

Chronicles is an appropriate last book of the Tanak, seeing that it “bookends” the Old Testament with Genesis, for it reviews the entire sweep of world history starting with Adam (1 Chron. 1:1). Contrary to Barry Olshen, the future return to the land contemplated in 2 Chronicles 36 need not be equated with the vision of the modern Zionist movement.

The concluding words of Chronicles, “let him go up [to rebuild the temple],” reiterate the prophetic hope of the return of God’s people within the consummated kingdom of God, anticipated by the rebuilt temple (= God’s palace [hēkāl]), as the final goal of God’s purposes in history.

Ending with Ezra-Nehemiah#

Building on the work of David Freedman,134 Sailhamer views the alternate positions assigned to the book of Daniel as the most significant feature of the fluctuations in the order of the Writings. Daniel 9 reinterprets Jeremiah’s prophecy of a return after seventy years (Dan. 9:2) in terms of the much more extended and indefinite period of “seventy sevens” (or weeks) (9:24), so that the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy is projected beyond the mundane return from Babylonian captivity in the years following 538 BC.

In the Leningrad Codex, the final three books are Esther–Daniel–Ezra(-Nehemiah). In this order, the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2–4) immediately follows the book of Daniel, and Sailhamer views this as asserting that the historical return under Ezra and Nehemiah is presented as the true fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of a return after seventy years, with Ezra 1:1 referring to the prophecy of Jeremiah. A comparison with 2 Chronicles 36:21–22 suggests that the prophecy of the seventy years is indeed in view, and if Ezra-Nehemiah directly follows Daniel, the natural supposition is that Ezra 1:1 refers to the same prophecy as Daniel 9:2. It is Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years that motivates the prayer recorded in Daniel 9.

According to Sailhamer, Ezra-Nehemiah ignores the apocalyptic reinterpretation of the seventy years found in Daniel 9. It is not clear, however, that this is the case, given the prayer recorded in Nehemiah 9. Ezra-Nehemiah describes a national renewal with the rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of a law-abiding Jewish community in fulfillment of the hope of the prophets, but the restoration is far from complete.

• The Levitical prayer of Nehemiah 9 speaks of their continued hardship “until this day” (9:32), and in 9:36 there is the complaint to God by those who have returned to Jerusalem: “we are slaves.”

• The exploitation suffered under Persian rule is viewed as a continuation of the earlier Assyrian oppression (Neh. 9:32: “since the time of the kings of Assyria until this day”).

Moreover, their present situation is one of “hardship” (9:32) and “distress” (9:37), with these expressions framing an appeal for divine relief in the final portion of the prayer (9:32–37). In line with this gloomy evaluation of the current state of the nation, the notice at Ezra 1:1 must be understood as a partial fulfillment only of Jeremiah’s prophecy of a return to the land. Consistent with this interpretation of the joint book, the prayer of Nehemiah 9 is followed by a community oath (9:38–10:39), whose third and largest section consists of a pledge to support “the house of our God” (10:32–39).

In addition, Ezra-Nehemiah shows the failure of God’s people to reform themselves, ending as it does with the depressing account of the recurrence of problems, for the final placement of Nehemiah 13:4–31 demonstrates the people’s inability to keep their earlier pledge in Nehemiah 10. The period ends with disappointment, for the popular reforms have failed. All this makes plain that the glorious visions of the prophets have not yet been fulfilled.

One feature that makes Ezra-Nehemiah an appropriate final book for the Old Testament is the historical review provided by the penitential prayer of Nehemiah 9 (cf. Dan. 9). The prayer recapitulates and evaluates the course of biblical history starting at creation. The Davidic-Solomonic period is not mentioned in the historical review, which has only generic references to “our kings” in 9:32 and 34 (cf. Ezra 9:7; Dan. 9:6, 8, 12 [“our rulers”]). In other words, the eschatological hope in Ezra-Nehemiah, consistent with the preceding book of Daniel, is focused on the dawning of the kingdom of God, when God will act to redress the grievances of his people.

Ending with Daniel#

With regard to Daniel as the final book of the Old Testament, this occurs in certain Greek orders, though it is always near the end of the Tanak in the Hebrew ordering of the canon. In the Greek canon, of which the early church became the custodian, Daniel is regarded as a prophet (the subscription of Alexandrinus names the book “Daniel the prophet”), and his book follows that of Ezekiel as the last of the great prophets. This tradition, which is of Jewish origin, shows itself in a florilegium of biblical passages from Qumran, in the New Testament, in Josephus, in Melito, and in Origen, all of which refer to Daniel as a prophet.

The decision to include Daniel among the Prophets is undoubtedly due to the visionary character of chapters 7–12, wherein Daniel receives visions depicting future events. Following Ezekiel, which ends with the vision of the new temple (Ezek. 40–48), the temple theme of the book of Daniel is highlighted, commencing as it does with the sacking of the temple. Moreover, the prayer of Daniel 9 results from the hero’s pondering of the prophecies of Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2), and Daniel 10–12 is full of exegetical reapplications of prophetic texts, so that the book of Daniel sheds light on earlier parts of the prophetic corpus in which it is found in the Greek orders.

As in the case of Ezra-Nehemiah, the presence in Daniel of a long prayer that provides a review and evaluation of Old Testament history (Dan. 9) makes its position near the end of the canon apposite. In that prayer, the hero Daniel pleads for the restoration of the city of Jerusalem and especially its sanctuary (9:17–19), but rather than receiving a simple affirmative answer to his request, the prophecy of Jeremiah of a return after seventy years is given an apocalyptic reinterpretation. This reinterpretation does not ignore the intent and concern of Jeremiah’s prophecy but makes clear that the city will be rebuilt and destroyed more than once before the climax of history and final salvation of God’s people takes place.

It is plain that the Jerusalem sanctuary is the focus of the angelic communication recorded in Daniel 9:24–27, especially when the time of Gabriel’s arrival is noted (9:21: “at the time of the evening sacrifice”; cf. 8:13–14). Daniel 9 contains the prediction that the sanctuary will be reconsecrated after its defiling (9:24), followed by a further destruction and restoration (9:26).

Within the closing vision of Daniel, there is yet another prediction of a later interference with the temple (11:31; 12:11). What is described is foreign interference in the temple cult (Dan. 11:28, 30a) and the culpable failure of the priests as temple functionaries (11:30b, 32a; cf. 2 Macc. 4:14). This interpretation can be coordinated with what is found in the closing chapter of Nehemiah, where the failure of priests with regard to the temple is exposed (13:4–14) and where covenant terms are used to condemn exogamous marriages contracted by priests (13:29: “they have [defiled] the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites”).

The Danielic focus on the fate and future of the temple is consistent with the theology of the kingdom of God on display in the book as a whole.

Ending with Malachi#

If the Prophetic Books are placed at the end of the Old Testament (as in Vaticanus), it is implied that prophecy is mainly foretelling the future, with the Prophets pointing forward to the eschaton in which God’s plan of salvation for Israel and the nations will come to completion. In line with this, the prophecy of Malachi includes the eschatological hope of the renovation of the Jerusalemite cult (3:4) and the universal recognition of God by the nations (1:5, 11, 14; 3:12), though we must rule out the idea that Malachi was consciously selected by Christians as a fitting conclusion to the Old Testament.

The theme of foreign nations surfaces in Malachi as early as 1:5b, which is best translated in the future tense: “YHWH will show himself to be great beyond the border of Israel”. The threat of God’s action against Edom (Mal. 1:4–5a) is a portent of his future rule over all the nations of the world, given the regular role assigned to Edom as a representative of foreign nations generally in prophecy (e.g., Amos 9:12; Obadiah).

Malachi 1:11 depicts acceptable Gentile worship of YHWH on foreign soil, without any mention of the requirement of pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Despite the common rendering of this verse in English versions in the present tense, the text provides a picture of the future, as is clearly the case in the two texts closest to it in content (cf. Isa. 19:18–25; Zeph. 2:11). This implies that Malachi 1:11 does not depict present practice but an eschatological prospect. The contemporary cultic failure of Jerusalemites (unworthy sacrifices) is set in contrast with the future universal worship of YHWH by all nations (“from the rising of the sun to its setting”).

Likewise, the close thematic relation of Malachi 1:11 and 14b suggests the possibility that verse 14b is again an eschatological prospect: “my name will be feared among the nations.” The reference to “all the nations” in 3:12 is hyperbolic (“all nations will call you blessed”), but hyperbole is appropriate for a verse which, like 1:5, 11, and 14, provides a glimpse of the end times,166 in this case the picture of the restored nation of Israel as the envy of the nations, implying international recognition of the God of Israel.

The extensive use of Deuteronomic terminology in 4:4 provides a strong link back to the Pentateuch. In addition, the reference to the Mosaic “law” in this verse coincides with the opening of the Former Prophets (Josh. 1:8), the Latter Prophets if headed by Isaiah (Isa. 1:10), and the Writings if headed by Psalms (Ps. 1:2). It is predicted that an Elijah figure will be sent by God “before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Mal. 4:5 NASB), and this verse in Malachi is the final instance of the pervasive theme of the day of the Lord in the Book of the Twelve.

Ending with Esther#

Placement of Esther in the final position occurs just often enough to discount the explanation that Esther was simply tacked on to the end of the Old Testament canon due to uncertainty over its canonical status. It does seem that there were at least some early readers who saw this as the appropriate position for the book, and in such a position it is well-nigh impossible to ignore its presence in Scripture.

It is not always the same book of Esther that is placed at the end of the Old Testament, for sometimes it is the Hebrew version of Esther and at other times one of the Greek versions. Irrespective of the version, however, the book testifies to the remarkable survival of the Jewish race despite the genocidal aims and efforts of Haman. With Esther in final position, God’s people are intact at the end of the Old Testament, and their continued existence is attributed to the courage and ingenuity of Esther and Mordecai, the leading characters in the book. In the letters of Mordecai and Esther that give instructions concerning Purim, it is laid down that the feast is to be celebrated at the same time “every year” (Est. 9:27) and kept without fail “throughout every generation” (9:28).

Whether by the canonical context of the book of Esther (in the case of the Hebrew Bible, near books like Daniel) or due to the explicit mention of divine involvement (in the Greek versions of Esther), the expectation is generated that God is behind this development and that he will protect and vindicate his people in such times of threat in the future; namely, the story has a kingdom of God frame.

A Bridge to the New Testament?#

It is plain, therefore, that all five candidates for the final book in the Old Testament (Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Daniel, Malachi, Esther) are oriented toward the future. They each look forward to the unreached divine goal of the consummated kingdom of God. On that basis, each can be viewed as a viable bridge to the New Testament, for the Old Testament requires a sequel, though nothing suggests that this was a motivation for the placement of any of the five books in final position.

We have sought to show, however, that the Old Testament itself, whichever of the five books is placed at its close, has an eschatological goal in view, and there is a remarkable coalescence of theme in all five books, namely, the hope of the coming of God’s kingdom.

• The eschatological ending of Chronicles can be viewed as requiring a sequel such as is provided by the coming of Jesus Christ, who viewed his death as the means of gathering God’s people (John 10:16) and his resurrection as the raising up of the new temple (John 2:18–22).

• The non-use of Ezra-Nehemiah by New Testament writers may be due to its non-messianic stance, but that is not the same as saying that it is non-eschatological, for its profound dissatisfaction with present conditions leads to the hope of the dawning of God’s kingdom, which is what takes place in the ministry of Jesus (Mark 1:14–15).

• With regard to Daniel as the final book of the Old Testament, its kingdom theme is picked up in the teaching of Jesus (notably the parables).

• Though no one in antiquity placed Malachi in final position, it is almost universally recognized as making an effective transition to the revival of prophecy depicted in the New Testament. The prediction of the coming of “Elijah” (Mal. 4:5) is applied to John the Baptist, who goes before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17). Moreover, Malachi’s eschatological orientation is confirmed by its recurrent expression of the hope of the recognition of God by the nations of the world (Mal. 1:5, 11, 14; 3:12), which in the New Testament leads to the gospel mission to the nations.

• Finally, though the book of Esther is not taken up by the New Testament, perhaps due to its non-mention of God (a striking feature that calls for explanation), the implied message of the positive outcome to the story is to give assurance to God’s people that they will survive in a hostile world, leading to their final triumph over all their enemies.