The Beginning is Not the End

The landscape of history is scattered with the remnants of those who were a “flash in the pan.” They were there for a minute, but gone for a lifetime. They were filled with potential but failed to see it through.

What happened?

For some, it was the proverbial “second time through the lineup.” It’s that new pitcher just called up from Triple A ball to fill in a start. No one has seen his pitches and so he looks pretty good the first time around. But when the lineup resets to the top of the order, the Major League hitters have figured out his stuff and he gets rocked.

For others, it was laziness. I once talked with a man who had played basketball with some very high level players back in the day. Through summer leagues and college, it was clear that they had big time potential. But by the time of this conversation, they were walking the streets, sleeping on benches, and looking for their next fix. I asked him, “Why?” He said, “They didn’t want to work at it.”

For still others, it was distraction. Shiny coins glistened on the pavement. Colorful flowers sprang up in the garden. Cheerful sounds rang out from the playground. And decades later, all the potential lay in an undeveloped pile in the distant past.

O, what could have been.

King Saul is an interesting guy for a lot of reasons and one of those reasons is what could have been. Filled with potential, he ended a disaster.

He was a loyal son, a farmer, a good-looking guy, tall and impressive. He was simply living his life, doing his job.

Then he went looking for donkeys and along the way he found a kingdom, picked by God and anointed by Samuel.

At first, he was fearful and shy. He lacked ambition. In fact, he didn’t even tell his own family. But he was the new king, the first king of Israel.

Then, almost overnight he was transformed from this shy, unambitious farmer to a leader who quickly roused an army of 330,000 men by use of a dismembered ox.

To much acclaim, he delivered a city and was greeted with some ancient equivalent of “Long live the king.”

What a great start.

But the beginning is not the end.

Somewhere along the way, Saul turned into a paranoid maniac. He became fearful, controlling, and obsessive. And he lost everything that he had been given to him. He squandered a kingdom and died by suicide surrounded by the enemy.

Every Israelite knew the story of Saul’s failure. But 1 Samuel 11 reminds us that it didn’t start that way. The handpicked king, handpicked by God himself, had the whole world on a platter in front of him and he unceremoniously dumped it on the ground. He blew up his life and turned into a sad caricature.

In the beginning he summoned 330,000 soldiers to kill for the dignity of all Israel (1 Samuel 11). In the end, he couldn’t persuade one servant to kill to save his own dignity (1 Samuel 31).

In the beginning he was unwilling to kill those who resisted his kingship (1 Samuel 10-22). In the end, he was determined to kill the one who refused to resist his kingship (1 Samuel 18-30).

Saul’s sad life reminds us that the beginning is not the end. Today is no guarantee of tomorrow.

The bad news of life is that what you did yesterday is no guarantee of what you will do tomorrow. Just because you start well doesn’t mean you will finish well.

But the good news of life is that what you did yesterday is no guarantee of what you will do tomorrow. Just because you start bad doesn’t mean you will finish bad.

The grace of God is at work. There is a King who didn’t fail. He, like Saul, went looking for something that was lost and by so doing found a church and a kingdom. Perhaps there was something donkey-like in the ones for whom the Greater King came. But there was something Lamb-like and Lion-like in the deliverer of souls.

And because of our Greater King and his gospel of grace, your past does not have to be your master. And it will not be your guarantee.

The transforming power of God’s Spirit will not come for a moment as it did with Saul, but will come forever.

So number your days so that you may present to the Lord a heart of wisdom.

A Foundation for Preaching Christ from the OT

The OT should be preached from the perspective that it is part of the Word of God to us from an earlier stage of progressive revelation, that reveals part of the one Story of God in which he pursues his glory through his reign over his creation, a reign that will be brought about through the redemption and reconciliation that is found in Jesus alone of which we are now made aware even though OT saints were not fully aware, and which redemption and reconciliation we must preach since Jesus is the necessary and sufficient Redeemer of all mankind.

Preaching the Gospel from the OT

There are a few blogs kicking around the idea of preaching Christ and the gospel from the OT. The Gospel Coalition will focus on this topic this year. Just this week, The Gospel Coalition announced a website devoted to this topic.

One blogger commented that he had preached five messages from the OT and mentioned Christ only once. Another blogger responded that such was appalling. But why was that appalling? I don’t know what the texts were, and until I do, how I can pass judgment on the content of the message? Can we automatically say that the absence of something in a sermon is “appalling” if we don’t know what the text was?

In my view, if one is committed to preaching the text, the question of what we preach is derived from the Scriptures, not from a precommitment to preach Jesus.

Just yesterday I saw a blogger talk about finding help in determining the Christological interpretation of an OT text.

Yet absent is any reason why one should look for a Christological interpretation.

If such interpretation exists, it should arise naturally from the exegetical process. It is found in the words of the text. Only when we study the text can we determine whether or not it is appalling to not mention Jesus.

I know this sounds like rank heresy to some, but I would simply ask, what warrant do we have to use a text to preach something that is not in the text. Everyone who reads this blog would say that there is no warrant to preach something that is not in the text.

Many critics of fundamentalism have lamented (and rightly so) the tendency of some preaching to “take a text and depart therefrom,”—ito use the text as a springboard for their personal topic.

If I were to stand up and preach that the story of Genesis 6-9 means that every “man of God” should have a boat, everyone would object that I am not preaching the text because that text says nothing about the watercraft ownership obligations of preachers.

Yet I would suggest that all some are doing is sanctifying that tendency by inserting “Jesus” or “our greater David” in the place of having a boat or “hairstyles” or “britches on women.”

Is it really okay to use a text to declare something the text doesn’t say? I don’t think so. And I don’t think that changes just because we have good intentions.

I think it greatly prejudices the study process when the outcome is decided. I fear that for some, the main study question is, “How do I get to Calvary from here?”

Spurgeon’s old quote about finding roads and jumping hedges is a great and powerful quote. It’s also bad exegetical method and worse preaching method.

You see, when you use the text to say something the text does not say, you ultimately undermine the authority of the preacher and often, the authority of the Scriptures.

When we study a text, we need to study it on its own terms.

Jesus never declared that everything in the OT was about him. What he said was that everything in the OT that was about him was actually about him. In other words, it wasn’t that the every OT passage spoke of a Messiah. It was that everything in the OT that spoke about the Messiah was speaking of Jesus of Nazareth.

The men on the road to Emmaus were not confused because they didn’t know the OT spoke of the Messiah. They were confused because they did not know that the OT message about the Messiah was about Jesus of Nazareth.

So in my view, we do not need a greater commitment to preaching Jesus and the gospel. We need a greater commitment to preach the text. Often, Jesus and the gospel will arise out of that. And often, Jesus and the gospel will be the answer to the problem presented in the text.

But we must not start there. We cannot start with “How do I find the Christological interpretation of this text?” We start with “What does the text say and what does it mean by what it says?”

Around the Horn

This week is the official beginning of hope. Spring training has started, everyone is a potential World Series champion, and warmer days are just around the corner.

In honor of baseball, here are a three bases and a home run from around the blogosphere.

At first base, Ben says, “Sometimes, the Bible doesn't say everything we wish it said, even if our wishes are motivated by our desires to defend it.” This is in response to a discussion about whether or not Genesis 1-2 teaches something about the length of the creation days and weeks.

This past week, I preached from Mark 10:1-12 about marriage. A thought that I had (and probably said) rings true here. Ben is right that sometimes the Bible doesn’t say everything we wish it said. But often, it says far more than we are willing to admit, whether about creation or marriage.

I think Genesis 1-2 is pretty clear. There is really no other way that God could have communicated six successive twenty-four hour days. There are, on the other hand, much better ways to communicate long periods of time.

At second base, Mark set off a bit of a firestorm with some comments about Christ in the OT. Here’s the funny thing: I think what Mark said about separation in the OT is far more controversial than what he said about Christ in the OT. Of course, I say that in light of Mark’s helpful clarifications both in the comments there and in this subsequent post. I post my “mostly agreement” with Mark here instead of at his blog so that no one will see that I agree mostly with Mark.  There is no doubt that Christ is in the OT, in the Law and the Prophets. But I also think that there is no doubt that Christ is not nearly so omnipresent in the OT as many people seem to think. Perhaps later I will write a bit on my take on Christ in the OT, but suffice it to say that if we are going to preach the text as the text, Christ will not be preached as the meaning of the text all the time.

I think the whole “Gospel-centered preaching” from the OT is well-intended, but I fear that it adds a pious slant to old moralism, such as Dave indicates here. Interesting, a long time ago I started a post quoting the same thing Dave quotes because I was astounded that Tim Keller actually said this. I didn’t take time to transcribe it but you can read it for yourself. I think the lectures where Keller gives this illustration are excellent, and helpful in so many ways. Just don’t use his examples.

At third base, a couple of parables showed up on the internet this week, along with a complaint by someone that he couldn’t understand one of the parables. This included a demand for an apology for the parable. I think he means an explanation, but perhaps in a moment of sensus plenior, he actually means something else. I wonder if he holds Christ to the same standard, demanding an apology for His parables.

And for the home run, just when you think it can’t get any more bizarre, I happened upon a discussion about the KJV and Revelation 16:5. A commenter, ironically (or perhaps prophetically) using the handle of “Faith” says:

ANYWAY, this being the situation, the decisions of faithful translators simply ARE evidence equal to the manuscript evidence. OBJECTIVELY equal. This isn’t just an arbitrary thing I’m saying. There is very good manuscript and version support for Holy One in 16.5, including previous English versions by faithful translators, but nevertheless Beza chose against it and gave reasonable support for his decision, and the KJV translators followed him rather than the other line of evidence.

BOTH LINES HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FAITHFUL TO GOD’S WORD because there is no objective way of deciding one way or the other. Beza COULD have been right in his conjecture that the verse once read as he corrected it to read. WE CAN’T KNOW.

What we learn is that manuscript evidence doesn’t matter so long as a “faithful translator” (apparently defined as someone who translated the KJV) inserted some words into the text. Of course, words inserted by someone other than a “faithful translator” don’t count. They are perversions and corruptions.

What we also learn (in what is perhaps a bit of a Freudian slip), is that two contradictory readings can both be considered “faithful to God’s word,” which destroys the whole movement this commenter is apparently trying to save.

I think what we learn most of all is that a segment of KJVOnly proponents have no clue what they are talking about, and regularly participate in and propagate beliefs and arguments that have the potential of destroying the Christian faith.

And now, in honor of spring training (and Jim Rome), I’m out.

Some Thoughts on OT Historical Narrative and David and Goliath

I recently had the opportunity (obligation) to interact with some passages in 1 Samuel for a class I was sitting in on Preaching Narratives.

What struck me is that in this class of pastors who had interacted exegetically and homiletically with the same passages in 1 Samuel there was very little seeming awareness of the historical context of the writing of 1 and 2 Samuel. The main themes in preaching were about moralistic and illustrative examples, most with some form of Jesus tacked on the end as the “Greater David” or the one who fights for us, or some such, all of which miss the point. The stories were viewed almost as isolated vignettes of fascinating story rather than a single narrative to make a bigger point.

I think the point of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings is pretty easy. It is a defense of the Davidic monarchy. 1 and 2 Samuel was written probably after the death of Solomon, in the days when people would begin to forget the reign of Saul. So these histories were written to explain how it came to be that Saul, the first king, had no reigning son (as should have been expected), and how David, the second king, was the one who had and would have reigning sons so long as there was a kingdom culminating in Jesus and the restoration of the kingdom.

Here’s an example from the story of David and Goliath which was one of the passages we interacted on.

But what is it about? Let me cut to the chase: David and Goliath is not about David and Goliath but about David and Saul. It really has nothing to do with how to defeat giants in your life, or how Jesus defeats your giants for you. It is about the failure of leadership and conviction by Saul compared to the leadership and conviction demonstrated by David.

Goliath is the antagonist, but he’s not really the point. He is a side issue that brings the real issue to the fore.

The real issue is leadership of God’s people. Saul was weak and vacillating. He was fearful. He was willing to stand back and ask for people to go fight, and give them rewards if they would.

In contrast, David was convinced that God’s name was at stake and was willing to die to defend it. He spoke up, to the discomfort of others. He was amazed no one else had this conviction. He got up and went to the amazement of others, even going without armor. He boldly confronted the enemy face to face rather than ask someone else to go do it.

So the events of David and Goliath are intended to highlight how God switches the loyalties from Saul to David.

This is most clearly seen, not in the events of 1 Samuel 17 but in the events of 1 Samuel 18. The crowds cheer, “Saul has slain his thousands but David has slain his tens of thousands.” It was a bit of hyperbole to be sure. But it was clear that the people were far more impressed by David than by Saul. He was a man they were willing (at that time) to follow into battle. Saul had lost favor.

The key phrase of the whole story pops up in 1 Samuel 18:8 where Saul, in his anger says, “They have ascribed to David ten thousands, but to me they have ascribed thousands. Now what more can he have but the kingdom?”

The answer: He shall have the kingdom too.

The people of Israel did not need to know how to fight giants in the Valley of Elah, or in their personal lives. They needed to know why David was the man, the king, the one that they should follow. They needed to know why David’s sons were the legitimate rulers in Israel.

So I suggested this in class.

It was met with, “I think all that is true, but I don’t know how you preach that.”

But I think how you preach it is secondary; what the text means is primary.

We cannot avoid the purpose and meaning of a text simply because it we think it doesn’t preach well. And we cannot seek the meaning which preaches well. We have to ask many of the same questions of narrative that we ask of the epistles: Why was this written? What problem was it intended to address?

Of course, as a dispensationalist, I can preach this differently because I can preach the future reign of a Davidic king, Jesus, which is the fulfillment of everything God started in 1 Samuel 17 with a boastful giant.

I don’t need to charge out and fight some giants. I need to know that Jesus is the Davidic ruler who will sit on the throne of David, and 1 Samuel 17 is where it started.

An Introduction to History and Historiography

At the outset of a discussion of the history, historicity, and historiography of the biblical text of the Old Testament, it is necessary to understand exactly what is being discussed. R. K. Harrison, in his Introduction to the Old Testament says, “It the best sense of the term, the objective of history, as a branch of research or inquiry in the field of the humanities, is the investigation of human activities in a given period or periods of the past with a view to discerning the nature and significance of man’s achievements” (Harrison, IOT, p. 291).

This definition contains two key features. First, it is “the investigation of human activities in a given period or periods of time.” It therefore requires research into past people, acts, and events. Second, it is done to “discern the nature and significance of man’s achievements.” It therefore requires interpretation of the research, which will inevitably be done with the presuppositions and biases of the historian dictating both what is included and what is said about what is included.

Historiography, of necessity, must include a perspective. There is, in the simple recording of an act of history, an act of interpretation since the author is interpreting the event as worthy to be remembered by a future generation. The author may, as he sees fits, further enlarge on his view of the significance of the event, informing the reader as to why the author considered this event worthy of record.

In fact, it is impossible to write history without making judgments based something as simple as what should or should not be included (“Is it important for my point?”) or on something as complex as why certain things happened as they did. As a result there is a certain amount of subjectivity in historiography as the author chooses material, arranges that material, and interprets that material to make his point.

History is sometimes viewed under two broad headings known by their German names: historie and geschichte. The former, historie, deals with facts—the events that actually happened. Its concern is for the facticity, or the actuality of the events. Geschichte deals with the contemporary significance of the events. “It goes beyond or ignores (even denies) the element of facticity. In the case of the OT, it deals with what Israel believed happened, not what actually may have happened.”[1] While this division easily lends itself to a critical view of OT history, it need not necessarily do so. It is clear that there are objective facts of history. Yet it is also clear that there are subjective understandings of those events. Furthermore, in the writing of history there is a necessary selectivity (to be addressed later). That is, it would be impossible for a particular author to say everything that there is to say about an event due to many constraints, not the least of which is his personal bias about the meaning of the event combined with his less than complete knowledge of the event. Even if he was there to witness the event from a completely neutral perspective (likely impossible in any event), he has no access to the mind of the participants that would enable him to explain why the participants acted or reacted as they did. In short, he can see the actions, and he can hear what the participants might tell him about their perspective of a situation, but that knowledge is limited, and will inevitably be processed through his own perspective.

There is a third German word, heilgeschichte, that means “salvation history.” While the word in and of itself need not be particularly troubling, it is used by some to discount the historicity or factuality of the Bible in favor of seeing a free reign of the author to tell the story however he wants (without necessary regard to truth or fact) for the purpose of telling a story of salvation. For these, the Bible’s authority is limited to matters of salvation, not to matters of history, science, or the like.

Such a limitation is inherently problematic since it assigns varying levels of authority to the statements of Scripture in an arbitrary fashion. The Bible makes no distinction between different types of facts. Indeed, many of the teachings of “salvation” are based on the historicity of the stories in question.

---

[1]David M. Howard, Jr. An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993), p. 41.

The History of the Bible

“One of the most universal human impulses can be summed up in a familiar four-word plea: Tell me a story.”[1]

History is, at its most basic element, a story. It is the retelling of past events. The history in the Bible is no different. It is made up of stories—stories about people and events; stories about everyday life and the life of the supernatural; stories about intrigue and mystery; stories about betrayal and deception; stories about conquest and victory; stories about defeat and humiliation; stories about love; stories about hate. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a modern (or ancient) literary theme that is not found in the pages of Scripture.

Leland Ryken says, “…imagine yourself trying to describe the content of the Bible to someone who has never read the Bible. You would very quickly find yourself describing what happens in the Bible, and to ‘tell what happens’ is to tell a story.”[2] In fact, out of sixty-six books of Scripture, twenty-two of them, or one-third, is narrative. The Bible has 1,186 chapters of which 553 (46%) are narrative.

It quickly becomes clear that God has invested much in “telling the story” his way, and it is in this story that we are to see God. We use the word “narrative” because “story” has gained a mythical or fictional connotation.[3] Narrative “narrates” an event or series of events.

Stories are very effective ways of teaching. It helps the reader to enter into the lives of others and experience life as they experienced it (cf. 2 Sam 12:7 – You are the man). It reminds the reader that human nature has not changed all that much while human history has.

---

[1] Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), p. 35.

[2] Ryken, Words of Delight, p, 35.

[3] Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 2^nd ed, p. 79.

Waltke and Enns on Enns

The recent edition of the Westminster Theological Journal has an exchange between OT scholars Bruce Waltke and Peter Enns on Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation, which I commented on recently here. (They are re-published at Peter Enns Online.)

Waltke concludes,

A theory that entails notions that holy Scripture contains flat out contradictions, ludicrous harmonization, earlier revelations that are misleading and/or less than truthful, and doctrines that are represented as based on historical fact, but in fact are based on fabricated history, in my judgment, is inconsistent with the doctrine that God inspired every word of holy Scripture. To be sure, the Scripture is fully human, but it is just as fully the Word of God, with whom there is no shadow of turning and who will not lie to or mislead his elect.

Waltke claims that his comments and conclusions are strictly exegetical and a posteriori, which is to say that he is not writing out of his pre-determined theological commitments. Enns, in his response, gently ribs Waltke for his “apparent claim to have achieved exegetical objectivity” (p. 97).

I have to agree with Enns on that point. Exegetical objectivity is a pipe-dream, IMO (although I am as close as anyone I know)*. We all live and study in the sometimes vicious turmoil of the hermeneutical spiral.

Of course, Enns is perhaps a bit condescending when he speaks of allowing a “a responsible reading of Scripture to challenge our own fallen notions of Scripture, God, the gospel, and so forth” (p. 100). It is hard to imagine that Enns means by “responsible reading” anything other than his own approach. His tenor, both in I&I and this response seems to indicate that anyone who doesn’t read it his way is not reading responsibly.

My point is saying that is not to impugn Enns. I do not know him. Waltke affirms his belief that Enns is a man of personal integrity and “unflinching honesty.” Fine. My point is simply to say that Enns, like Waltke (and all of us), can be too in love with our own thinking and not able to see that others might be as “responsible” or perhaps more “responsible” than we are in the reading of Scripture, and still come to different conclusions.**

Having said all that, I think Waltke is right, as I previously expressed. I  think Enns bibliology is woefully lacking. I do not think he has wrestled with inerrancy and inspiration (and incarnation for that matter) in a responsible way. (I recently heard someone say that even the metaphor of incarnation works against Enns because Christ, in human flesh, was sinless. He did not partake of these foibles that Enns would like to thrust on the Scriptures.)

I think Waltke has successfully shown that Enns’ proof-texts can be handled in responsible ways that do not arrive at Enns’ conclusion. I think Waltke has a more coherent view of inspiration.

Enns says he has arrived at this position because has has no other option. I have no problem with that. I am a soteriological Calvinist and a traditional dispensationalist for the same reason: My conscience in the study of Scripture leaves me no other option. But we all (myself and Enns included) must recognize that good-faith study does not make us right. We might mean well and still be wrong.

In this case, Enns makes some good points. I agree with his conclusion that many of these issues are not “open and shut cases” (p. 114). But I still think he is wrong.

______________________________

*I am kidding … Lighten up.

**Which reminds that I recently saw someone fairly young, obviously theologically and socially immature, accuse a more than 40-year veteran of seminary teaching of being clearly wrong. Having witnessed some of the exegetical process and conclusions of both, it is fair to say that some people would be better served by not speaking up, even when you think it.

Enns – Inspiration and Incarnation

I recently read completely Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns. (I had previously read parts of it.) This book was the catalyst in Enns’ departure from Westminster Seminary at the behest of the board, although he apparently had the support of the faculty. (You can probably Google it and find the information if you are interested.)

Many others, including D. A. Carson and John Frame, have reviewed it, so I have no desire to do that here. (BTW, if anyone knows where Carson’s review is, please let me know. The links I have found are broken.)

However, let me offer a few brief thoughts on this book that has caused some angst among evangelicals.

Enns does a good job of bringing out some points. He argues that the OT accommodated itself to its readers in certain ways (which no one I know of denies) and gives numerous illustrations. He writes in an easy to read style that makes things fairly simple (which is the great danger … It is intelligible.) He is loaded up with information and documentation. At first glance, without strong theological underpinnings, Enns makes sense. And he makes a good case for humility in our conclusions.

But here’s the rub for me: I think Enns is writing from a very simplistic and limited view of the theological doctrine of inspiration as revelation from God. IMO, Enns essentially denies any meaningful doctrine of inerrancy in bibliology. (I realize I am making some pretty direct statements about a recognized scholar in OT, but I find it hard to draw any other conclusion. How does a robust historical doctrine of bibliology allow for the conclusions that Enns draws?)

He seems to assume that since ANE texts reveal a similarity to the OT, that somehow has implications for the inspiration of the OT that move away from the historic doctrine of inspiration. I disagree. There’s no reason why similarity has a negative impact on the inerrancy or accuracy of the OT. As many have pointed out, the historicity of the worldwide flood should cause us to expect flood accounts in other ancient peoples stories. Why that means that the biblical account is somehow mythical or inaccurate is not clear, nor is it well-founded. In fact, only if the flood was a true world-wide destruction should we expect other accounts. If the flood was merely local, there is less of a reason for parallel accounts since those unaffected by the flood would have little reason to tell the story. Other examples could be cited.

Enns leans heavily on second temple hermeneutics (which is essentially the way that people interpreted the Bible between the restoration of Israel from Babylon in the fifth century B. C. and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70) to argue that the NT writers used the OT in some ways that seem pretty weird to us but were perfectly normal for the first century readers. IMO, he hasn’t made a convincing argument that his conclusions are necessary or even accurate. This section he loads up with illustrations, but doesn’t seem to coherently draw his conclusions from those illustrations. I think this stems from a view of inspiration that is too limited given the biblical data on the subject.

So overall, while I found Enns interesting, I didn’t find him compelling nor particularly credible in some of these matters.

Why did I read Enns? Because as a student with some interest in the OT (and particularly in the early second temple era … Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi), this is an idea that is getting some traction outside of its normal liberal habitat. It is working its way into evangelicalism (as evidenced by coming from someone who taught at Westminster for years).

Should you read Enns? No, I think there are better things to do with your time … like read the phone book or count the hairs on your head.

FYI – The Minor Prophets and Historical Context

The following chart shows the minor prophets in canonical order, with the the dominant world power, and OT historical context.

Prophetic Book	World Power	Parallels from Historical Books
Hosea	Assyria	2 Kings 14:23–18:12
Joel	(Pre) Assyria	2 Kings 12:1–21; 2 Chronicles 24:1–27
Amos	Assyria	2 Kings 14:23–15:7
Obadiah	(Pre) Assyria	2 Kings 8:16–24; 2 Chronicles 21:1–20
Jonah	(Pre) Assyria	2 Kings 13:10–25; 14:23–29
Micah	Assyria	2 Kings 15:32–19:37; 2 Chronicles 27:1–32:23
Nahum	Assyria; Babylon	2 Kings 21:1–18; 2 Chronicles 33:1–20
Habakkuk	Babylon	2 Kings 23:31–24:7; 2 Chronicles 36:1–8
Zephaniah	Babylon	2 Kings 22:1–2; 2 Chronicles 34:1–7
Haggai	Medo-Persia	Ezra 5:1–6:15
Zechariah	Medo-Persia	Ezra 5:1–6:15
Malachi	Medo-Persia	Nehemiah 13:1–31

Some suggest that the canonical order was intended to reflect the general chronological order as designated by the dominant world power.

In the previous chart on the dates of the minor prophets, the dating of Joel was briefly discussed. One of the arguments for an early date is its place in the canonical order. If Joel is a late pre-exilic (Babylonian), or a post-exilic book (Medo-Persian), its place in the canon would be out of order in terms of the world power.

While this is hardly conclusive for the date of Joel, it is a piece of the puzzle that should be considered.

FYI – Dates of Authorship of the Minor Prophets

Here is a chart of commonly accepted dates for the authorship of the Minor Prophets.

Canonical Order	Chronological Order (Number is Canonical Order)	Dates (B.C.)
Hosea	Obadiah (4)	845
Joel	Joel (2)	835
Amos	Jonah (5)	782
Obadiah	Hosea (1)	760
Jonah	Amos (3)	760
Micah	Micah (6)	735
Nahum	Nahum (7)	650
Habakkuk	Zephaniah (9)	640
Zephaniah	Habakkuk (8)	609
Haggai	Haggai (10)	520
Zechariah	Zechariah (11)	520
Malachi	Malachi (12)	433

As you can see the canonical order is not strictly chronological.  However, there is a general chronological arrangement in that Hosea through Micah occur during the Divided Kingdom, Nahum to Habakkuk during the period of the single Judean Kingdom, and Haggai to Malachi during postexilic period.

Some of the minor prophets are relatively easy to date since they give clues in the books, such as identifying the reign king or kings during whose reign the prophet ministered, or Amos’ dating his writing to “two years before the earthquake” (Amos 1:1; of course you have to figure out when the earthquake was, probably 760 B.C.). Haggai and Zechariah are the easiest to date since they give exact days (which work out to the autumn of 520 B.C.)

The dates of a few minor prophets are greatly disputed, such as Joel where even conservative scholars conclude differently on the date of authorship (Archer (SOTI), Feinberg, Freeman, and Garrett hold to the early date; Chisholm, Dillard, Hubbard holds to a post-exilic date, and there are others in between).

FYI - Persian Kings and the OT

The following charts helps to place the post-exilic portions of the OT into the context of the Persian Kings

King	Dates (B.C.)	OT Books
Cyrus II, the Great	558-529	Daniel
Cambyses II	529-523
Pseudo-Smerids	523-522
Darius I	522-485	Ezra 1-6, Haggai, Zechariah
Xerxes 1 (Ahasuerus)	484-464	Esther
Artaxerxes I	464-424	Ezra 7-10, Nehemiah
Darius II	423-406
Artaxerxes II	404-359	Malachi

The post-exilic history of Israel begins in 538/9 B.C., when Cyrus II conquered Babylon and subsequently issued a decree that allowed the Jews to return to Palestine. The post-exilic era continued to the close of the OT with the writing of Malachi.

FYI - Periods of Israel's History

Note: I decided to start a new series of posts entitled simply "FYI." As you can guess, they will be merely informative posts about different topics. I welcome any correction.

It is important, in the study of the OT, to recognize the historical context. The following chart will help to grasp a general timeline for the history of OT Israel. The dates given are those generally held by conservative scholars. Less conservatives scholars generally use later dating, particularly in the earlier part of Israel's history.

 

The Patriarchs	c. 2200-1800 B.C.	Genesis 12-50
The Slavery and Exodus	c. 1800-1407 B.C.	Exodus-Deuteronomy
The Conquest	c. 1407-1380 B.C.	Joshua
The Judges	c. 1380-1050 B.C.	Judges and Ruth
The United Kingdom	c. 1050-931 B.C.	1 and 2 Samuel, 1 Kings 1-11, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles 1-9*
The Divided Kingdom	931-586 B.C. 931-722 B.C (Northern) 931-586 B.C. (Southern)	2 Kings, 2 Chronicles*
The Exile	606-536 B.C.	Daniel
The Restoration	538-396 B.C.	Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah

 

*1 and 2 Chronicles were most likely written after the exile, and are therefore generally called "post-exilic." They were perhaps written by Ezra, though the authorship of many of the historical books is unknown.