The Pneumatology of the Minor Prophets From the Perspective of Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics

THESIS STATEMENT
Although specific references to the Spirit of YHWH are few in the Minor Prophets, the Book of the Twelve, when read from the perspective of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, has a rich pneumatology rooted in the Torah and pointing to the pneumatological experience of the first century church.

PART ONE: READING OPTIONS
Is there meaning in a text? If not, what are we to do with the text? If so, where is meaning located? During the past century, literary critics have focused on three orientations as it relates to the location of meaning, although these orientations may be shaded in a variety of ways. The three primary foci are author-oriented, text-oriented, and reader-oriented approaches.[1] Each has its own emphases. Author-oriented approaches to reading include historical criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, psychological (attempts to get inside the mind of the author in order to determine authorial intention), and speech-act theory (the theory that language has the capacity to perform acts[2]). Author-oriented approaches are intended to discover authorial intention. Text-oriented approaches to reading include “new” literary criticism (the text is viewed as an autonomous, self-referential entity), discourse analysis (also known as text linguistics), formalist/archetypal, structuralist/semiotic, and rhetorical criticism, all of which are concerned with the text’s form and structure, not with its origins or reference. Reader-oriented approaches to reading include reader-response and ideological criticism (e.g., feminist/womanist, liberationist, black, etc.). Reader-oriented approaches hold that meaning is not in the author or text; meaning “is only the extension of the reader’s psyche and the process of reading.”[3]
In addition to these three primary foci, a fourth view holds that there is no determinate meaning in the text. This is the logical outcome of reader-response theory. Emphases include poststructuralism, deconstructionism, and new historicism.
Canonical-compositional hermeneutics’ focus on the text places this approach to interpretation within the spectrum of discourse analysis.[4] The essential function of canonical-compositional hermeneutics is to analyze linguistic units larger than the sentence and their relationships to their contexts.[5] From a biblical standpoint, this is suggested by Paul’s claim that “all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16).[6] It is Scripture that is inspired. This indicates that Scripture itself—the text—should be the focus of investigation. Peter makes a similar assertion: “No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:20-21). It is commonly held by evangelicals and fundamentalists that the writers of Scripture were themselves “inspired,” but that is not precisely what these texts indicate. Although human authors were employed by the Holy Spirit in the process of writing Scripture, inspiration has to do with the final result, not with the mechanics of the delivery of Scripture or with concern for the contributions which may have been made by the person involved in the process of writing. This is not to deny that the Holy Spirit made use of the unique vocabularies, perspectives, and personal concerns of the human authors to communicate his message; it is to emphasize that it is the final product that is inspired.[7] Thus, the focus of interpretive efforts should be on the final product, not on the author (or his or her psyche), on literary sources, or on the readers who came along after the process of inspiration was complete.[8]



PART TWO: CANONICAL-COMPOSITIONAL HERMENEUTICS
In the view of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, the final shape of the Tanak is informative and part of the process of inspiration.[9] In contrast to historical criticism, canonical-compositional hermeneutics rely not on the events behind the text to determine meaning; meaning is found in the text itself.[10]
The compositional strategies of the biblical books offer essential clues to meaning. These clues point beyond their immediate historical referent to a future, messianic age. By looking at the text rather than the events behind the text, we find textual clues to meaning. These clues point to the messianic and eschatological focus of the text. In this view, the messianic sense of the Hebrew Scriptures picked up by the New Testament is the spiritual and literal meaning of the Scripture.[11]
There is no consensus as to the definition of canonical criticism,[12] but scholars working in this field agree that “the context of the final canon is more important than the original author.”[13] Canonical criticism includes four common emphases: (1) Since the church has received the Bible as authoritative in its present form, the focus should be on that canonical form rather than on a search for the sources behind the text; (2) the text must be studied holistically to determine how it functions in its final form; (3) the theological concerns of the final editor(s) must be explored; and (4) in later texts, the canon provides clues in the use of earlier biblical texts.[14]
According to Brevard Childs, “the lengthy process of the development of the literature leading up to the final stage of canonization involved a profoundly hermeneutical activity on the part of the tradents.”[15] Those involved in the preservation of literary tradition shaped the text in such a way that the shape influences interpretation.
Canonical-compositional hermeneutics are concerned with “in-textuality,” “inner-textuality,” “inter-textuality,” and “con-textuality.” “In-textuality” has to do with an examination of the “cohesive nature of the strategy of the smallest literary” units.[16] “Inner-textuality” has to do with the “strategies within the smallest units of text [that] make up the whole fabric of biblical narrative books.”[17] There is an “inner-linkage binding narratives into a larger whole.”[18] This calls for alertness to “clues lying along the seams of . . . larger units that point to the author’s ultimate purpose.”[19] “Inter-textuality” is concerned with “the study of links between and among texts.”[20] Sailhamer points out that if “there is an authorially intended inter-textuality, then it stands to reason that some loss of meaning occurs when one fails to view the text in terms of it.”[21] “Con-textuality” has to do with “the semantic effect of a book’s relative position within the OT Canon.”[22] What interpretive effects do the books of the Bible have on each other?
This paper has to do with the application of canonical-compositional hermeneutics to the Minor Prophets in order to determine the hermeneutical significance and influence of those texts that do refer in some way to the Spirit of YHWH. It is to this purpose that we now turn.

PART THREE: THE SPIRIT OF YHWH IN THE MINOR PROPHETS
Specific references to the Spirit of YHWH in the Minor Prophets are found in Joel, Micah, Haggai, and Zechariah, with a possible reference in Malachi. Joel’s promise of the pouring out of the Spirit of YHWH (Joel 2:28-32) is claimed by Peter as fulfilled in the event of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21).[23] Micah declares that the Spirit of YHWH is not restricted[24] (Mic 2:7) and that he is full of power by the Spirit of YHWH (Mic 3:8).[25] In Haggai, YHWH declares that His Spirit remains among His people (Hag 2:5). Zechariah has four references: First, YHWH informs Zerubbabel that the building of the temple will not be “by might nor by power, but by My Spirit” (Zech 4:6)[26]; second, an angel, speaking on behalf of YHWH, informs Zechariah in a vision, “See, those who go toward the north country have given rest to My Spirit in the north country” (Zech 6:8); third, YHWH informs Zechariah that He sent His words by His Spirit through the former prophets (Zech 7:12); and, fourth, YHWH promises, “I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication: then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn” (Zech 12:10).[27] John sees this promise as connected with the events involved in the crucifixion of Christ (John 19:37) and alludes to it in conjunction with the coming of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:7). Since YHWH declares “they will look on Me” in this apparently messianic text, YHWH is identified with the Messiah.[28]
Malachi 2:15 is difficult to translate, but it seems to refer in some way to a remnant of the Spirit.[29]
These are the only direct references to the Spirit of YHWH in the Minor Prophets, but some see indirect awareness of the Holy Spirit in the form of “puns and word play.”[30] For example, Williams sees the references to h;Wr in Hosea as word play, with “spirit of whoredom” (Hos 4:12; 5:4) played against the “man of the spirit” (Hos 9:7) and the “blast from the Lord” (Hos 13:15).[31] McQueen notes that there is no direct reference to the Holy Spirit in Amos; the only use of h;Wr refers to wind as created by God.[32] The source of prophetic inspiration in Amos is rbd, not h;Wr.[33] The image of fire is associated with YHWH in Amos (Amos 5:6), and this image is frequently connected with the Holy Spirit elsewhere in Scripture.[34] Rebecca Hestrom acknowledges that there is no direct reference to the Spirit of God in Habakkuk, but sees the presence of God in view in the dialogue between God and Habakkuk.[35] Hestrom also points out that although the Spirit of God is not specifically mentioned in Zephaniah, the word of the Lord (hwhy rbd) is Zephaniah’s source of inspiration (Zeph 1:1).[36] She also speculates that the “pure language” of Zephaniah 3:9 may anticipate the events of the Day of Pentecost in a reversal of the events at the tower of Babel.[37] In addition to the specific references to the Holy Spirit in Zechariah, Hannah K. Harrington sees further references in the images of fire and glory.[38] Zechariah’s reference to the Spirit as the agent of the words of YHWH (Zech 7:12) reaches out to include nine of the Minor Prophets, including four that have no specific reference to the Spirit, in a pneumatological embrace.[39] Harrington points out that the restoration of Israel to God in Zechariah is a work of the Holy Spirit.[40] Larry McQueen reads Malachi 2:15 as a reference to human spiritual life rather than to the Spirit of God, but he sees the activity of the Spirit implied in Malachi in the prophetic nature of the writing and in the eschatological promises which are typically associated with the Spirit and the future of God’s people.[41]
Since four and possibly five of the Minor Prophets include specific references to the Spirit of YHWH, and since all but two (Obadiah and Nahum) may contain indirect references, is there any sense in which these references cohere? The answer to this question depends on the answer to another question: Should the Book of the Twelve be read as one cohesive work? If so, it will be possible to discuss the pneumatology of the Minor Prophets. If not, it will be possible to discuss only the pneumatology of the specific writings that do contain references to the Spirit. Therefore, we will now address the evidence for cohesion in the Minor Prophets. This is a literary question for which canonical-compositional hermeneutics are uniquely suited.

PART FOUR: THE COHESION OF THE MINOR PROPHETS
It is widely recognized that although the Minor Prophets consist of twelve books, they form, in some way, one integrated work.[42] But there is debate as to how the unity of the twelve is achieved. Barry Alan Jones, who sees evidence for three ancient versions of the Book of the Twelve, acknowledges the agreement among scholars on issues related to the unity of the Minor Prophets.[43] This agreement extends to the recognition of substantial literary relationships between the books that contribute to their cohesion, the view that the arrangement of the books as found in the Masoretic Text (MT) is coherent and intentional, and that the formation of the Minor Prophets is connected with the canonical history of the Hebrew Scriptures.[44] There is also, however, nearly universal acknowledgement that much work is yet to be done to determine the nature of the relationships between the books.[45]
In David L. Peterson’s view, a complicated process was involved in the ordering of the books which resulted in a thematic anthology focusing on the Day of YHWH.[46] Paul Redditt sees the Book of the Twelve as a production “for educated readers by custodians of prophetic voices influenced by Deuteronomy, Joel, and cultic language.”[47] For Redditt, there are three reasons to read the Book of the Twelve as a whole: (1) The reader is forced to recognize “the pervasiveness of the redactional processes”; (2) to read the Twelve as a whole is to read canonically, glimpsing the canonical process; and (3) to read holistically is to see that the whole of the Minor Prophets is greater than the sum of its parts.[48]
Aaron Schart offers five hermeneutical implications from his study of redaction history: (1) In the process of literary transmission, the original words of the twelve prophets were transformed; (2) this transformation assumed the fulfillment of the original writings; (3) the process of transmission, although expanding tradition in keeping with new experiences, adhered to the established history of prophecy; (4) previously existing writings were collected in the transmission process, with these writings combined so as to give holistic meaning beyond that contained in the original, isolated text; and (5) the final shape of the Book of the Twelve embraces deviation, tension, and contradiction, lending itself readily to a postmodern reading.[49]
Marvin A. Sweeney evaluates both the Septuagint (LXX) and MT shapes of the Minor Prophets for hermeneutical purposes. He sees both shapes as intentional and informative, although with different interpretive purposes. Both the LXX and the MT share a chronological ordering from the eighth to the sixth centuries, but the LXX order begins with an emphasis on judgment against the northern kingdom (Hosea/Amos), moves to the implications for the southern kingdom (Micah), then focuses on the judgment of the nations as the Day of YHWH and on the restoration of Zion (Joel). Next, specific nations are treated (Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum). The final five writings address Babylon’s judgment of Jerusalem (Habakkuk, Zephaniah), Jerusalem’s restoration (Haggai, Zechariah), and a review of the themes of the corpus (Malachi). The MT shape sees Hosea and Joel as both programmatic, mixing the themes of judgment on the people of YHWH and on the nations, with the details of these judgments developed in the remainder of the writings.[50]
Accepting the unity of the Book of the Twelve, Rolf Rendtorff sees a chronological framework provided by the dated superscriptions, with the writings with undated superscriptions linked by the themes of the Day of YHWH and the repentance of the nations. To trace the interrelationships of these themes, one must read the Twelve in their canonical order.[51]
From the perspective of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, James D. Nogalski’s treatment of Joel as the “literary anchor” of the Book of the Twelve is intriguing.[52] This is due to his preference for reading the Book of the Twelve in a synchronic rather than a diachronic fashion. A synchronic approach focuses on questions of literary shape—which are essential to canonical-compositional hermeneutics—rather than on speculations about the dates of the original writings and the order of their incorporation into the corpus.[53] John Sailhamer, in a discussion of the relative merits of diachronic and synchronic approaches to Old Testament theology, points out that a diachronic approach may be more helpful if the theology is meant as a guide to reading the Bible, but a synchronic approach is more helpful for understanding the Old Testament as a whole.[54]
Nogalski’s argument for Joel’s function as an essential interpretive key for the literary unity of the Book of the Twelve is based on the dovetailing of Joel with Hosea and Amos, the vocabulary of Joel that recurs in other writings, and “the presumption of a ‘historical paradigm’ that ‘transcends’ the chronological framework of the dated superscriptions.”[55] Since Nogalski’s thesis holds promise for a canonical-compositional approach to the pneumatology of the Minor Prophets, we will examine his proposals more fully in the next section.

PART FIVE: JOEL AS THE LITERARY ANCHOR OF THE MINOR PROPHETS
Nogalski’s first concern is with the interpretive relationship—the “dovetailing”—of Joel with Hosea and Amos. Drawing on the work done by Jörg Jeremias,[56] Nogalski points out that Hosea 14:2-9 features a two-part call to repentance, with verses 2-3 offering the appropriate words for the prayer of repentance and with verses 4-8 revealing what YHWH’s response to such a prayer would be. Verse 9 is a “word to the wise” which presupposes that Israel’s response to the appeal for repentance is not known.[57] Thus, Hosea concludes with an appeal for repentance without revealing whether Israel responds to the appeal.
Joel is the only prophetic literature to begin with a call to repentance.[58] Thus, its placement immediately following Hosea is informative. Although there are significant differences between the calls to repentance in Hosea 14 and Joel 1-2 as to the “addressees, the presumption of guilt, the threat of punishment, and the eschatological dimension,”[59] indicating the individual integrity of each book as originally written, there are also substantial similarities. These include the fact that Joel, like Hosea, promises bounty as a consequence of repentance, but never indicates whether the call to repentance was heeded.[60] Also, both calls to repentance make strong use of agricultural fertility images.[61] Most convincing to Nogalski is the reversing of Hosea 9:2 in Joel 2:24.[62]
But not only is Joel connected with the book preceding it in a way that expands the meaning of Hosea, it is also connected with the book that follows it in a way that shapes the meaning of Amos.[63] This connection may be seen by comparing Joel 3, with its message of judgment on the nations, with Amos 1:3-15; 2:1-3 with its similar message. Thus, Amos begins with the same message with which Joel concludes. This connection is strengthened by a comparison of Joel 3:16a (“The Lord also will roar from Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem”) with Amos 1:2a (“The Lord roars from Zion, and utters His voice from Jerusalem”). The close proximity of identical phrases links these books, as further seen in the similarity between Joel 3:18b (“That the mountains shall drip with new wine, the hills shall flow with milk”) and Amos 9:13c (“The mountains shall drip with sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it”). These links suggest that Amos is to be read, in some sense, as a continuation of Joel, further developing the themes found in Joel.
For Nogalski, Joel’s interpretive influence on Hosea and Amos is twofold. First, Joel’s emphasis on Zion expands the context beyond the northern focus of Hosea and Amos. Second, Joel’s transcendent eschatology, with its cosmic dimension, enlarges the contextual concerns beyond that of the eighth century.[64]
Nogalski recognizes that much work remains to be done to develop the concept of Joel as the literary anchor for the Book of the Twelve. He offers three observations to advance the dialogue: (1) We must investigate Joel’s role in the Book of the Twelve more closely rather than viewing it as a collection of unrelated postexilic messages; (2) we must recognize that Joel transcends the chronological context of Hosea and Amos rather than ignoring it, thus transforming many theological emphases of the Minor Prophets; and (3) we must acknowledge in Joel a paradigm of history that develops as the Book of the Twelve is read, providing both prophetic revelation and clues to the cohesiveness of the entire corpus.[65]
But Nogalski does not address the possible influence of Joel’s pneumatology on rest of the Minor Prophets. Instead, after pointing out that there is a shift within Joel after Joel 2:11 in which references to the Day of YHWH include the outpouring of YHWH’s Spirit, he writes, “No direct verbal connections tie this text to others within the twelve, though thematic similarities to other texts exist.”[66] But if Nogalski is correct about Joel’s role as the literary anchor for the Book of the Twelve, the possibility that Joel’s reference to the Spirit provides a pneumatological focus for the entire corpus must be explored. It is to this that we now turn our attention.[67]

PART SIX: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JOEL FOR THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF THE MINOR PROPHETS
Although a case could be made for a broad pneumatology in the Minor Prophets by the collating of all possible references to the Holy Spirit—both direct and indirect—the most fruitful course for investigation will be to focus on those texts that are directly and overtly concerned with the Spirit of YHWH. For example, it may be that although Habakkuk does not directly speak of the Spirit of God that the presence of God is nevertheless prevalent in the writing, as Hestrom observes.[68] But for interpretive purposes, this does not rise to the level of specific textual references to the Holy Spirit. Further, from the perspective of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, if direct references to the Holy Spirit are linked with other significant themes within a specific writing and then linked with the same themes in other writings within the Book of the Twelve, this is noteworthy for interpretive purposes.
One of the strongest themes found in Joel, in terms of frequency, is the Day of YHWH. For Nogalski, this “adds to the impression of Joel’s function as literary anchor for the Book of the Twelve.”[69] To demonstrate, Nogalski provides a chart showing that of the eleven verses in Joel containing references to the Day of YHWH, ten have virtually precise parallels elsewhere in the Minor Prophets.[70] The actual references to the Day of YHWH in the Minor Prophets, or to terms approximating the Day of YHWH, indicate that this is the major theme of the corpus. All told, the phrase “Day of YHWH” appears fourteen times, “that day,” forty-three times, and “the day” fifty-four times. A contextual examination of each occurrence suggests that many of these references have to do with the “day of YHWH.” Only Jonah contains no such reference.
In the individual books of Scripture as they were originally written, the Day of YHWH should not be understood as having a single, consistent referent. Although each use of the term has something to do with the judgment of God, the judgment is sometimes on the nations (e.g., Joel 3:12-14) and sometimes on Israel (e.g., Amos 5:18-20). The Day of YHWH may describe judgments past (e.g., Jer 46:2-12) or future (e.g., Joel 1:15; Zeph 1:14-18). It is important to note that in Joel’s view, the Day of YHWH is not limited to judgment. It is also a day of salvation (Joel 2:28-32; 3:14-16; 18-21).[71] As Larry R. McQueen puts it, “The view of the Day of Yahweh as judgment upon the nations cannot be fitted neatly into the salvation oracles of Joel. Universal judgment stands as the outer circle within which to understand the salvation of the people of Judah and the promise of the Spirit.”[72] The repentance called for by Joel “merely changes the Day of Yahweh as it relates to the people of Judah from a day of judgment to a day of escape.”[73] Thus, the Day of YHWH remains a day of judgment for the unrepentant, but it becomes a day of the Spirit for the repentant. As Nogalski points out following an examination of over 100 texts using various idiomatic expressions referring to the Day of YHWH, although the majority of the terms refer to judgment and punishment, the terms also appear in contexts having to do with salvation or deliverance.[74]
The significance of this for the pneumatology of the Minor Prophets is that Joel, with his interpretive influence on the entire corpus, sees the pouring out of the Spirit occurring as at least a precursor to the Day of YHWH (Joel 2:28-31). If this outpouring of the Spirit does not begin in the era known as the Day of YHWH, it will apparently continue into that era, thus becoming simultaneous with that day (Joel 2:32; 3). This is indicated in Zechariah, the only other writing in the corpus to make reference to the pouring out of the Spirit. Although the precise phrase “Day of YHWH” does not appear in the immediate context of Zechariah 12:10, the phrase “in that day” appears five times in Zechariah 12:1-9 and follows immediately in Zechariah 12:11. The contextual influence of Zechariah 14:1 indicates that each of these references is to the Day of YHWH. Thus, the pneumatology of both Joel and Zechariah is connected with the Day of YHWH.
Therefore, the only two writings that refer to the pouring out of the Spirit in the Minor Prophets, Joel and Zechariah, do so in such a way as to indicate that this pneumatological promise is an essential characteristic of the Day of YHWH. Many other events are connected with the Day of YHWH, but that day is not fully realized apart from the pouring out of the Spirit. Because of Joel’s interpretive influence, it would be redundant for each writing to refer to the pouring out of the Spirit in each iteration of the Day of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve. For Joel, the Day of YHWH is not just the Day of Judgment; it is also the Day of the Spirit. Thus, the Day of YHWH is also the Day of the Spirit for the entire corpus, as confirmed by Zechariah.[75] From the perspective of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, although the Day of YHWH may not have been envisioned as the Day of the Spirit by the individual writings in the Book of the Twelve as they were originally written, the new context in which the writings are found enlarges and expands the scope and meaning of that day. Said another way, if for Joel and Zechariah the Day of YHWH is the Day of the Spirit, it is impossible to say—if there is any meaningful interpretive connection at all between and among the twelve writings—that the Day of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve is not the Day of the Spirit. That the Day of YHWH is characterized as the Day of Judgment does not exclude the fact that it is also characterized as the Day of the Spirit.
Without the interpretive influence of Joel on the rest of the Minor Prophets, an influence confirmed by Zechariah, it would be possible to read the Day of YHWH texts in the Book of the Twelve as promises only of gloom and doom, as hopeless jeremiads. For example, Amos, which has no specific reference to the Holy Spirit, reads, “Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! For what good is the day of the Lord to you? It will be darkness, and not light. It will be as though a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him! Or as though he went into the house, leaned his hand upon the wall, and a serpent bit him! Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light? Is it not very dark, with no brightness in it?” (Amos 5:18-20). Read in isolation from its context in the Book of the Twelve, this text leaves one with a sense of despair. But when Amos is read in the larger context of the Minor Prophets and specifically in conjunction with Joel’s treatment of the Day of YHWH, hope springs forth: the Day of YHWH will indeed be a bleak day, but those who repent will be empowered by the Holy Spirit to endure. In Amos, this connection is strengthened by the parallel to Joel’s locust swarms (Amos 7:1) and the promise of the restoration of the tabernacle of David, a promise that gave direction and assurance to the first century church. (See Amos 9:11-12; Acts 15:13-18.)
In the case of Obadiah, which also has no direct reference to the Holy Spirit, the Day of YHWH is a day of reprisal for unrepentant Edom, but it is a day of deliverance on Mount Zion (Obad 15-18). Because of the specific textual influence of Joel, we know that this deliverance will be by the Holy Spirit.
Malachi may or may not have a specific reference to the Spirit of YHWH.[76] But Malachi does refer to the Day of YHWH as a “great and dreadful” day preceded by the transformation of hearts: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse” (Mal 4:5-6). Again, we don’t know from Malachi what the agent of this transformation will be, but the contextual influence of the Minor Prophets indicates that it will be the Holy Spirit. This is very much like Joel, whose order of events proceeds from repentance to renewal to judgment upon the unrepentant.[77]
Hosea, containing neither a direct reference to the Holy Spirit nor the formulaic Day of YHWH language, nevertheless refers to “that day” four times. “That day” will be a day of judgment (Hos 4:4-5), but it will also be a day of restoration (Hos 2:16, 18, 21). The language of restoration is remarkably similar to Joel’s promise of forgiveness upon repentance: “‘It shall come to pass in that day that I will answer,’ says the Lord; ‘I will answer the heavens, and they shall answer the earth. The earth shall answer with grain, with new wine, and with oil; they shall answer Jezreel. Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, and I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; then I will say to those who were not My people, “You are My people!” And they shall say, “You are my God”’” (Hosea 2:21-23). The literary link between Hosea and Joel is quite clear: “Be glad then, you children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God; for He has given you the former rain faithfully, and He will cause the rain to come down for you—the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month. The threshing floors shall be full of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with new wine and oil” (Joel 2:23-24). Although Hosea does not inform the reader of the agent of this restoration, we learn from Joel that it is the Holy Spirit that brings renewal.
Jonah stands alone among the Minor Prophets as having no direct reference to the Holy Spirit, to the Day of YHWH, “that day,” or even “the day.” But the narrative does present a story of repentance and renewal. The words of the king as he encouraged his people to repent are quite similar to the words of Joel: “Who knows if He will turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind Him—a grain offering and a drink offering for the Lord your God?” (Joel 2:14). The king of Nineveh said, “Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?” (Jonah 3:9). There may be here a subtle promise of the Spirit for Gentiles who repent; this is certainly how Peter read Joel, with his promise of the Spirit to all who are “afar off” (Acts 2:39).
Micah’s references to the Spirit of YHWH are complemented by five references to “that day” (Mic 2:4; 4:6; 5:10; 7:11, 12). “That day” is a day of judgment (Mic 2:2-4; 5:10), but it is also a day of the Spirit: “You who are named the house of Jacob: ‘Is the Spirit of the Lord restricted? Are these His doings? Do not My words do good to him who walks uprightly?” (Mic 2:7). Micah, in words remarkably similar to those of Jesus in Acts 1:8, says, “But truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord, and of justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin” (Mic 3:8). “That day” is a day of healing, regathering, and forgiveness: “‘In that day,’ says the Lord, ‘I will assemble the lame, I will gather the outcast and those whom I have afflicted; I will make the lame a remnant, and the outcast a strong nation; so the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion from now on, even forever” (Mic 4:6-7).[78] Micah’s references to the Spirit of YHWH and to “that day” as a day not only of judgment but also of restoration fits well with these themes as they are seen elsewhere in the Minor Prophets.
Nahum has no direct reference to the Holy Spirit, the Day of YHWH, or “that day,” but it does twice mention “the day,” once as “the day of trouble” (Nah 1:7) and once as “the day of his preparation” (Nah 2:3). “The day” is clearly a day of judgment, but it is also a day when the Lord’s goodness is demonstrated to those who trust him: “The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; and He knows those who trust in Him. But with an overflowing flood He will make an utter end of its place, and darkness will pursue His enemies” (Nah 1:7-8). Although Nahum does not tell us specifically, we gather from the context of the Minor Prophets that the goodness of the Lord is experienced by the work of his Holy Spirit.
Habakkuk has no direct reference to the Holy Spirit, the Day of YHWH, or “that day,” but it does mention “the day of trouble” in a dramatic context of renewal: “When I heard, my body trembled; my lips quivered at the voice; rottenness entered my bones; and I trembled in myself, that I might rest in the day of trouble. When he comes up to the people, He will invade them with his troops. Though the fig tree may not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines; though the labor of the olive may fail, and the fields yield no food; though the flock may be cut off from the fold, and there be no herd in the stalls—Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. The Lord God is my strength; He will make my feet like deer’s feet, and He will make me walk on my high hills” (Hab 3:16-19). Like the rest of the Book of the Twelve, Habakkuk sees “the day” as a day of trouble for the wicked, but as a day of rest and renewal for those who know the Lord. The context of the Minor Prophets indicates this rest and renewal springs from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Zephaniah does not specifically mention the Holy Spirit, and the Day of YHWH is painted in the bleakest of terms. It is a day of punishment, mourning, wailing, wrath, trouble, distress, devastation, desolation, darkness, and gloominess (Zeph 1:7-18). Still, there is an opportunity for the meek of the earth the seek the Lord “before the day of the Lord’s anger” (Zeph 2:1-3). There is the possibility of forgiveness and empowerment: “It may be that you will be hidden in the day of the Lord’s anger” (Zeph 1:3b). Judgment is not all that awaits. There is the promise that the Lord “will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one accord” (Zeph 3:9). This language is similar to Joel’s promise that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Joel 2:32a). As a consequence, there will be forgiveness, meekness, humility, trust in the name of the Lord, and a lack of fear (Zeph 3:11-17). Zephaniah, which begins with destruction, ends with restoration. From the contextual influence of the rest of the Minor Prophets, it is indicated that the Holy Spirit is the agent of this restoration.
Haggai specifically mentions the Spirit of the Lord: “According to the word that I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt, so My Spirit remains among you; do not fear!” (Hag 2:5). The phrase “Day of YHWH” is not used, but the term “that day” is found with the same meaning: “Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying: ‘I will shake heaven and earth, I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms; I will destroy the strength of the Gentile kingdoms. I will overthrow the chariots and those who ride in them; the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother. In that day,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel My servant, the son of Shealtiel,’ says the Lord, ‘and make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you,’ says the Lord of hosts’” (Hag 2:21-23). Once again, “that day” is a day of devastation for unbelievers, but a day of blessing for the faithful. This blessing is due to the fact that the Spirit of the Lord remains among his people.
But the pneumatology that Joel brings to the Minor Prophets does more than provide a unifying theme among these writings. It reaches back to the earliest pneumatological anticipations of the Hebrew Scriptures and forward to the realized pneumatology of the first century church.

PART SEVEN: THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF THE MINOR PROPHETS AS ROOTED IN THE TORAH
Joel’s influence on the rest of the Book of the Twelve is significant not only in that it is the first to quote Exodus 34:6 (see Joel 2:13) in a way that shapes meaning for the Twelve, but also for its use of other interpretive links with the Torah.[79] If Joel is the “literary anchor” for the Book of the Twelve, these links connect the entire corpus with the Torah.[80]
First, Joel’s locust plague brings to mind that this is YHWH’s promised response to disobedience to the Law of Moses.[81] Joel is not alone in his use of the locust theme; Nahum uses similar terminology in his warning to Nineveh.[82] In addition to the fact that Joel and Nahum are included in the same corpus, the connection between the two writings is indicated by the acrostic found in Nahum 1:2-8, an acrostic that extends precisely halfway through the Hebrew alphabet, with strong allusions—perhaps even quotations—from Joel 2:13 and Joel 3:21 inserted between the a and b. These words are originally found in Exodus 34:6, and Joel is first in the Minor Prophets to quote them.
Second, the rain of the land would be changed “to powder and dust”[83] as a consequence of disobedience. In Joel, the new wine and the vine are dried up, the trees are withered, the seed shrivels under the clods, and the brooks are dried up.[84] But the open pastures will spring up, the trees will bear fruit, and the fig tree and vine will produce following repentance.[85] YHWH will cause the former and latter rain to come down.[86] Joel is not alone in his description of drought as punishment for sin and the promise of rain upon repentance. Hosea, Amos, and Zechariah use similar terms.[87]
Third, disobedience to the Law of Moses would result in groping “at noonday, as a blind man gropes in darkness” (Deut 28:29). In Joel, “the sun and moon grow dark, and the stars diminish their brightness” (Joel 2:10b).[88]
Fourth, there are grammatical and structural links between Joel and Deuteronomy 32, in addition to thematic links.[89] These links indicate that Joel is structured to reflect the Deuteronomic consequences of departure from the Law of Moses and the promises of restoration upon repentance, creating an interpretive relationship between Joel and Deuteronomy. This interpretive relationship is then extended to the entire Book of the Twelve by virtue of Joel’s interpretive function in that corpus.
Fifth, Joel’s promise of the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28-29) is apparently the answer to Moses’ prayer in Numbers 11:29.[90] Moses’ prayer anticipated a day when all YHWH’s people—not merely selected male leaders among the Israelites—would receive the prophetic Spirit regardless of gender or social standing.
The intertextuality between Joel and the Torah is significant not only because it links Joel to the past, pneumatologically and otherwise, but also because Joel pulls the pneumatology of the Torah to the future. Joel becomes a link between the Torah and Pentecost.

PART EIGHT: THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF THE MINOR PROPHETS ANTICIPATES PENTECOST
Peter’s use of Joel 2:28-32 on the Day of Pentecost establishes a tangible connection between the pneumatologies of the Minor Prophets and of the first century church.[91] The book of Joel is foundational to Peter’s sermon, appearing not only in direct quotes, but also in verbal links and allusions. In addition, Luke intentionally connects the events leading up to Peter’s sermon with Joel. For example, it was essential for the disciples to be in Jerusalem in order to receive the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4, 8); Joel promised that deliverance would originate in Jerusalem (Joel 2:32). Jesus promised that the disciples would be recipients of the Holy Spirit, as did Joel (Acts 1:5, 8; Joel 2:28). Luke notes that those waiting on the promise included women (Acts 1:13-14); Joel’s prophecy was egalitarian (Joel 2:28). Luke carefully lists those who were in Jerusalem, describing them as “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5-11); Joel’s event would happen in connection with YHWH’s promise to “gather all nations” (Joel 3:1-2). Joel described the new wine as having been dried up, but promised that repentance would result in an abundance of new wine (Joel 1:5, 10; 2:24; 3:18); on Pentecost, those who mocked declared that the recipients of the Spirit were “full of new wine” (Acts 2:13). In Acts 2:16-22, Luke records Peter quoting the entirety of Joel 2:28-32 to explain the events of Pentecost. Peter did not terminate his quote after Joel’s reference to the Spirit. By immediately following his quote from Joel with a declaration that Jesus was attested by God “by miracles, wonders, and signs,” Peter connected these events in the life of Jesus with Joel’s prophecy, offering both the events of Pentecost and the life of Jesus as the fulfillment of Joel.
Comparison of Joel 1:3; 2:12-13, 32 with Acts 2:38-39 suggests that in Peter’s answer to the question, “What shall we do,” there are thematic links and direct quotes from Joel. Peter’s command to repent mirrors Joel’s call to repentance. Peter’s promise of forgiveness of sins captures Joel’s promise that God is gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and that he relents from doing harm. Peter’s command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is linked to Joel’s promise that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Peter’s statement that the promise of the Spirit is not only to those present, but also to their children and to all who are afar off is at least verbally linked with Joel’s multigenerationalism. The final words of Peter’s statement, “as many as the Lord our God will call,” are virtually identical to the LXX of Joel 2:32, “among the remnant whom the Lord calls.”[92]
Joel’s connections with the events of Pentecost, in view of his interpretational influence on the entire Book of the Twelve, suggest a link between the entire corpus and the pneumatology of Pentecost. Not only does Joel give the Minor Prophets a look backward to the Torah, he gives them a look forward to the era of the New Covenant. Thus, all of the promises of forgiveness and renewal found in the Minor Prophets may be read as anticipating Pentecost, even if such a reading does not exhaust their prophetic implications. As William Dumbrell points out, the theology of Joel is “the new-covenant theology of the exilic period.”[93]

CONCLUSION
Although little has been done specifically addressing a cohesive pneumatology of the Minor Prophets,[94] there is sufficient pneumatological content in the Book of the Twelve to merit investigation of this theme. From the perspective of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, the most promising approach is to investigate thematic links between the writings included in the Minor Prophets and to look for evidence of compositional work that occurred in the process of the final collecting of the writings. Little is to be gained by applying the techniques of historical criticism; canonical-compositional hermeneutics are concerned with the shape of the canon as it has been received by the church, not with theoretical reconstructions of the history of the text.
Paul Redditt points out that sufficient evidence exists “to warrant reading the Twelve canonically as a coherent unit, in addition to reading them individually.”[95] To read the text canonically as opposed to chronologically or in other ways has the advantage of attending to matters missed by non-canonical readings.[96]
With its temporal ambiguity which rises above the specific temporal limitations of other writings among the Twelve, and with its role as an interpretational influence on the rest of the corpus, the book of Joel extends its rich pneumatological influence throughout the Minor Prophets. In this, Joel is supported by Zechariah.
Joel demonstrates that the Day of YHWH is not limited to YHWH’s judgment on the disobedient or even to generalized blessings on the obedient; it includes the specific promise of the Spirit for those who repent. This promise, rooted in the Torah and realized on the Day of Pentecost, gives Joel—and thus the entire collection of the Twelve—a privileged status in Biblical pneumatology. Joel collects the pneumatological hopes of the past, preserves them for the people of God who had seen hope diminish in their days of captivity, and delivers them into the hands of the apostolic community. Although God will judge the disobedient and unrepentant, the gospel according to Joel and all of the Minor Prophets is that God relents, forgives, and pours out the Holy Spirit on all who repent.
This paper demonstrates the adequacy of thematic links to establish the possibility of a pneumatology of the Minor Prophets. Additional work must be done to discover how this pneumatology is developed by the final composition of the Book of the Twelve. Clearly, however, we can no longer say that the “Old Testament prophets do not see the time gap between the first and second comings of Christ.”[97] If the prophets saw the most significant event of the church era, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, they are released from the captivity of Scofieldian Dispensationalism; they are loosed to edify the church in its “Day of the Spirit.”[98]

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achtemeier, Paul J., ed. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.

Baker, David L. Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991.

Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. 1. Edited by J. A. Emerton, et al. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994.

Blaising, Craig A. and Darrell L. Bock, eds. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992; reprint 1993.

Dumbrell, William J. The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. The Major Messages of the Minor Prophets. New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1948.

Goldingay, John. Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.

Hafemann, Scott J., ed. Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

________. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995.

Hildebrandt, Wilf. An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

Horton, Stanley M. What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit. Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1976.

House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Jeremias, Jörg. Der Prophet Hosea. Göttingen: Vandenboeck & Ruprecht, 1983.

Jones, Barry Alan. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. SBL Dissertation Series 149. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

Lee, Andrew Yueking. “The Canonical Unity of the Scroll of the Minor Prophets.” Ph.D., Baylor University, 1985.

Lubeck, Raymond J. “An Introduction to Canonical Criticism.” Evangelical Theological Society Papers. Portland, Ore.: Theological Research Exchange Network, 1995.

________. “Swallowing Jonah—Strategies of Reading Biblical Narratives.” Th.D., University of South Africa, 2001.

Marshal, I. Howard, et al., eds. New Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

McQueen, Larry R. Joel and the Spirit: The Cry of a Prophetic Hermeneutic. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Metzger, Bruce M. and Michael D. Coogan, eds. The Oxford Companion to the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Nogalski, James D., and Marvin A. Sweeney, eds. Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.

Radmacher, Earl D., ed. The Nelson Study Bible. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1997.

Redditt, Paul L., and Aaron Schart, eds. Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.

Rendtorff, Rolf. The Old Testament, An Introduction. Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress Press, 1991.

Sailhamer, John H. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995.

Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Edited by Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress , 1984.

Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubarbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998.

Schultz, Samuel J. The Old Testament Speaks. 5th ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000.

Scobie, Charles H. H. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.

Society of Biblical Literature 2001 Seminar Papers 40. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.

Stuart, Douglas. Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 31. Edited by David A. Hubbard. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987.

Sweeney, Marvin A. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. Vol 1. Edited by David W. Cotter. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2000.

Zuck, Roy B., ed. A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

ENDNOTES
[1] This discussion follows Raymond J. Lubeck, Swallowing Jonah—Strategies of Reading Biblical Narratives (Th.D., University of South Africa, 2001), 24-29.
[2] Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 16.
[3] Lubeck, Swallowing Jonah, 28.
[4] Scholars working in the field of discourse analysis include the following: Robert de Beugrande and Wolfgang Dreßler, Introduction toText Linguistics (New York: Longman, 1981); David Alan Black, ed., Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (Nashville: Broadman, 1992); Gillian Brown and George Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1989); Teun A. van Dijk, Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse (New York: Longman, 1977); Joseph Grimes, The Thread of Discourse (Mouton: The Hague, 1975); Robert Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse (New York: Plenum, 1983) and “Interpreting Biblical Stories” in Teun A. van Dijk, ed., Discourse and Literature: New Approaches to the Analysis of Literary Genres (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1985), 169-185; Wilbur Pickering, A Framework for Discourse Analysis (Dallas: SIL, 1981); Moises Silva, God, Language and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).
[5] See http://www.csa.com/hottopics/linglaw/gloss.php. Accessed April 17, 2005.
[6] Author’s translation. Although the KJV and NKJV translate the phrase Pa/sa Grafh. qeo,pneustoj as “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” there is no word for “given” in the text. Because there is also no “to be” verb in the verse, it is necessary to insert “is” somewhere. The ASV translates the verse, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” This is also the translation of Origen, the Vulgate, the Syriac, Martin Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, and Cranmer. Because qeo,pneustoj is an adjective, this is certainly an acceptable—even if very unpopular—translation. If qeo,pneustoj is read as a predicate adjective, the result will be “all Scripture is inspired by God.” But regardless how the verse is translated, there is nothing to describe the process of inspiration. There is no indication the human authors were inspired. The focus is on the final result. (See Ralph Earle’s discussion in Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 410, n. 16.
[7] It is outside the scope of this paper to discuss the identity of the final product. Is it, for the Old Testament, the Masoretic Text, a proto-Masoretic Text, the LXX, or some other text? Is it, for the New Testament, the latest edition of the UBSGNT, the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, or something else? For my purposes, the focus is on the Book of the Twelve as it is found in the Masoretic Text.
[8] If our focus is to be on the author, how are we to understand a text like Romans 16:22: “I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord”? Obviously, the letter to the Romans was written by Tertius, not by Paul. Apparently Paul dictated the bulk of the letter to Tertius. At verse 22, did Paul dictate these words to Tertius? If not, did inspiration temporarily lift from Paul and go to Tertius? Or do we have a verse in the New Testament that is not inspired? If it is the text that is inspired, these problems vanish.
[9] An explanation of canonical-compositional hermeneutics is also included in the author’s papers “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament: An Introduction to Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics,” presented to Dr. Graham Twelftree in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course RTCH 751 Interpreting Scripture, “This is That: An Examination of Peter’s Use of Joel from the Perspective of Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics,” presented to Dr. Dale Irvin in partial fulfillment for the requirements for the course RTCH 701 Critical Methods for Theology Inquiry and to Dr. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen in partial fulfillment for the requirements for the course RTCH 741 Spirit, Christ, and Church in a Renewal Perspective, and “Gadamer’s Hermeneutical Circle, Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics, and Paul’s ‘Mystery of Christ,’” presented to Dr. Peter Gräbe in partial fulfillment for the requirements for the course RTCH 753 Hermeneutical Philosophy and Its Implications for Renewal Theology. Each course is offered by Regent University in the curriculum for the Ph.D. in Renewal Studies. The explanation is included here because this paper’s topic requires a brief introduction to canonical-compositional hermeneutics.
[10] A thorough explication of canonical-compositional hermeneutics’ focus on text rather than event and canon rather than criticism is offered by John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), 36-114.
[11] John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology, 154.
[12] Canonical criticism is essentially the same hermeneutical approach as canonical-compositional hermeneutics.
[13] Ray Lubeck, “An Introduction to Canonical Criticism,” Evangelical Theological Society Papers 1995 (Portland, Ore.: Theological Research Exchange Network), 3. Emphasis in original.
[14] Ibid., 1-2.
[15] Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992; reprint 1993), 70.
[16] John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology, 207. A discussion of these concepts is included in the author’s papers “This is That: An Examination of Peter’s Use of Joel from the Perspective of Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics”and “Gadamer’s Hermeneutical Circle, Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics, and Paul’s ‘Mystery of Christ,’” referred to in note 9. It is included here because it is necessary to demonstrate the application of canonical-compositional hermeneutics to the Minor Prophets.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid., 209.
[19] Ibid., 210.
[20] Ibid., 212. This may be similar to Sanders’ assertion that the “true shape of the Bible as canon consists of its unrecorded hermeneutics which lie between the lines of most of its literature” (James A. Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism, Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series [ed. Gene M. Tucker; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 46).
[21] Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology, 213.
[22] Ibid.
[23] The links between Joel and Acts, which go beyond Peter’s quote on the Day of Pentecost, are explored in the author’s paper “This is That: An Examination of Peter’s Use of Joel from the Perspective of Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics,” referenced in note 9. A full treatment of these links is beyond the scope of this paper.
[24] rc;q', translated “restricted” by the NKJV, includes within its range of meaning the ideas of to “be short, impatient, vexed, grieved” (ed. R. Laird Harris, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2 [Chicago: Moody Press, 1980], 809.
[25] Especially in view of Peter’s specific dependence on Joel 2:28-32, it may be possible that there is at least an echo of Mic 3:8 in Acts 1:8.
[26] All quotations from the Bible are from the New King James Version unless otherwise indicated.
[27] Since Zech 12:10 has to do with the Messiah pouring out the Spirit, there may be an anticipation of Acts 2:33, where the Messiah has poured out the Spirit.
[28] Although these are the only direct references to the hw"hy> x;Wr in the Minor Prophets, x;Wr appears in a variety of other contexts with the apparent meanings of “wind” (Hos 4:19; 8:7; 12:1; 13:15; Amos 4:13; Jonah 1:4; 4:8; Zech 2:6), “mind” (Hab 1:11), and “breath” (Hab 2:19).
[29] The phrase Al x;Wr ra'v.W hf'[' dx'a,-al{w> is variously translated: “And did he not make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit” (KJV); “But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit?” (NKJV); “But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit” (NASB); “Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life?” (RSV); “Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his” (NRS); “And did he not do well? and there was the residue of his spirit” (LXX). A literal, though rough, translation of the phrase reads, “And did he not make one and a remnant of spirit to him . . . ?”
[30] William Williams, “Hosea” in The Twelve (PCS; ed. J.C. Thomas; Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim, forthcoming).
[31] Ibid.
[32] Larry McQueen, “Amos” in The Twelve (PCS; ed. J.C. Thomas; Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim, forthcoming).
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Rebecca Hestrom, “Habakkuk,” in The Twelve (PCS; ed. J.C. Thomas; Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim, forthcoming).
[36] Rebecca Hestrom, “Zephaniah,” in The Twelve (PCS; ed. J.C. Thomas; Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim, forthcoming).
[37] Ibid.
[38] Hannah K. Harrington, “Zechariah,” in The Twelve (PCS; ed. J.C. Thomas; Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim, forthcoming).
[39] References to hwhy rbd in the Minor Prophets include Hos 1:1, 2; 4:1; Joel 1:1; Amos 7:16; Jonah 1:1; 3:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Hag 1:1, 3; 2:1, 10, 20; Zech 1:1, 7; 4:6, 8; 6:9; 7:1, 4, 8; 8:1, 18; 9:1; 11:11; 12:1; Mal 1:1. Of these books, only Joel, Micah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi have specific references to the Holy Spirit.
[40] Harrington, “Zechariah.”
[41] Larry McQueen, “Malachi,” in The Twelve (PCS; ed. J.C. Thomas; Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim, forthcoming).

[42] See, for example, Marvin A. Sweeney, Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry, vol. 1 (ed. David W. Cotter; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2000), xv-xvii; Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, eds., Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), v; Barry Alan Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon (SBL Dissertation Series 149; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 1-42; James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, eds., Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (Symposium Series 15; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 3-87;
[43] Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve, 40. The three versions include the Masoretic text (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi), the Septuagint (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi), and 4QXIIa (Jonah follows Malachi, concluding the Minor Prophets). See Jones, 3-6. Jones argues for the priority of the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ibid.
[46] David L. Peterson, “A Book of the Twelve?”, in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, xi, 3-10.
[47] Nogalski and Sweeney, Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, xi.
[48] Paul L. Redditt, “The Production and Reading of the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, 11-33.
[49] Aaron Schart, “Reconstructing the Redaction History of the Twelve Prophets: Problems and Models,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, 34-48.
[50] Marvin A. Sweeney, “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, xi-xii, 49-64.
[51] Rolf Rendtorff, “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, xii, 75-87.
[52] See James D. Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, 91-109.
[53] Ibid., 91. This does not mean that Nogalski is unconcerned about the order in which the books are found in the canon; for Nogalski, the sequence of the books is informative. Rather, he does not view the date each book was added to the collection as significant for interpretation. As Nogalski points out, “Diachronic models have difficulty . . . talking about the literary aims of the larger corpus, because they get bogged down in issues of development” (Ibid., 92).
[54] John Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology, 193.
[55] Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve,” 92.
[56] Jörg Jeremias, Der Prophet Hosea (ATD 24/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 169-70.
[57] Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve,” 95-96.
[58] Ibid., 95.
[59] Ibid., 97.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid., 98.
[62] Ibid., 99. “The threshing floor and the winepress shall not feed them, and the new wine shall fail her” (Hos 9:2); “The threshing floors shall be full of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with new wine and oil” (Joel 2:24).
[63] Aaron Schart, Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubarbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse (BZAW 260; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 105-8.
[64] Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve,” 100.
[65] Ibid., 105-7.
[66] Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, 202.
[67] Richard L. Schultz offers further evidence that Joel is the literary anchor for the Book of the Twelve: Joel is the first of the Minor Prophets to use Exodus 34:6 explicitly. Exodus 34:6-7 is also used in Jonah 4:2 [Jonah follows Joel even to the inversion of the word-pair “gracious and merciful” and the addition of the phrase “relents from doing harm,” probably from Exod 32:12, 14], Mic 7:18, and Nah 1:2-3. See Richard L. Schultz, “The Ties that Bind,” in Society of Biblical Literature 2001 Seminar Papers, 40 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 50-51.
[68] Hestrom, “Habakkuk.”
[69] Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve,” 104.
[70] Ibid., 106.
[71] For treatment of the Day of YHWH, see I. Howard Marshal et al., eds., New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed.; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 261; Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 157-8; Paul J. Achtemeier, ed., Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 516-7; Earl D. Radmacher, ed., The Nelson Study Bible (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 1466.
[72] Larry R. McQueen, Joel and the Spirit: The Cry of a Prophetic Hermeneutic (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 8; eds., John Christopher Thomas et al.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 34. See also Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twleve, in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, 193-203.
[73] McQueen, Joel and the Spirit, 34.
[74] Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve,” 195.
[75] Schart observes, “Within a given collection, the writings were combined in such a way that the meaning of the whole overruled the meaning that a certain text had in its original historical setting. The theological position held by the last redactors was inferred into every part of the collection. For example, within the Joel-related layer, all passages dealing with the Day of YHWH were interpreted as references to the scenario described in Joel, no matter what the original meaning of those passages would have been. Therefore, it is imperative that the interpreter not isolate one prophetic writing against others; rather, the interpreter should read the prophetic writing as part of a collection and see that it contributes to a consistent meaning” (Schart, “Reconstructing the Redaction History of the Twelve Prophets,” 47).
[76] See Malachi 2:15 and footnote 29.
[77] This literary structure of Joel is developed by McQueen in Joel and the Spirit.
[78] See also Micah 7:11-12.
[79] See note 67 for a discussion of the use of Deut 34:6 in the Minor Prophets.
[80] The links between Joel and the Torah are discussed more fully in the author’s paper “This is That,” referenced in note 9.
[81] Deut 28:38, 39, 42. Compare with Joel 1.
[82] See Nah 3:15, 17.
[83] Deut 28:24.
[84] Joel 1:10, 12, 17, 20.
[85] Joel 2:12-14, 22.
[86] Joel 2:23
[87] Hos 6:3; 10:12; Amos 4:7; Zech 10:1; 14:17-18.
[88] See also Joel 2:31a; 3:15.
[89] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, vol. 31, Word Biblical Commentary (ed. David A. Hubbard; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 228.
[90] See, e.g., C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the The Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols., vol. 1 (The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; ed. J. A. Emerton, C. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 24; Charles Lee Feinberg, The Major Messages of the Minor Prophets, (New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1948) 28; Andrew Yueking Lee, The Canonical Unity of the Scroll of the Minor Prophets (Ph.D., Baylor University, 1985), 64.
[91] The links between Joel and Pentecost are explored in the author’s paper “This is That,” referenced in note 9. In this section, these ideas are summarized and revised.
[92] LXX: proske,klhtai ou]j ku,rioj (whom the Lord has called); Acts: proskale,shtai kurioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n (the Lord our God shall call).
[93] William J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002), 188.
[94] An Internet search using the Google search engine for the phrase “the pneumatology of the Minor Prophets” or “the pneumatology of the Book of the Twelve” fails to return any results from over eight billion web pages!
[95] Paul Redditt, “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 2001, 79.
[96] Ibid., 80.
[97] Stanley M. Horton, What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1976), 55.
[98] An example of the limitations placed on Joel by the dispensational hermeneutic of C. I. Scofield may be seen in this comment on Joel 2:28 in the New Scofield Reference Bible: “Peter did not state that Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The details of Joel 2:30-32 (cp. Acts 2:19-20) were not realized at that time. Peter quoted Joel’s prediction as an illustration of what was taking place in his day, and as a guarantee that God would yet completely fulfill all that Joel had prophesied. The time of that fulfillment is stated here (“afterward,” cp. Hos. 3:5), i.e. in the latter days when Israel turns to the Lord” (C.I. Scofield, ed., The New Scofield Study Bible, New King James Version [Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989], 1045).