Center for Oneness Research and Education

A Good Oneness Statement

2012-01-02T18:32:00.002-06:00

In the process of updating my Library Thing account, I noticed this statement by Alister McGrath:

"Revelation is God's self-disclosure and self-involvement in history, and supremely God's decision to become incarnate in Jesus Christ, so that whoever has seen Jesus Christ has seen the Father. Revelation concerns the oracles of God, the acts of God, and the person and presence of God" (Alister McGrath, A Passion for Truth: The Intellectual Coherence of Evangelicalism [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996], 107).

Dissertation now available

2011-12-05T18:57:00.002-06:00

Copies of my PhD dissertation, titled "Andrew D. Urshan: A Theological Biography," are now available for purchase from Proquest at http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb. At this web address, type "Segraves" into the "Author" box. The precise title should be typed into the "Title" box. PDF downloads are $37; unbound paper copies are $44; softcover paper copies are $59, and hardbound paper copies are $75. The dissertation is nearly 500 pages long, with 1371 footnotes.

So you can see the scope of the work, here is the table of contents:

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IX

CHAPTER 1 1

Introduction 1

A. Thesis 3

B. Literature Survey 5
Primary Sources Related to Urshan 5
Autobiographies 5
Sermon Collections 15
Treatises 20
Periodicals 33
Secondary Sources Related to Urshan 35
Histories of Oneness Pentecostalism 39

C. Conclusion 51

PART 1: LIFE AND HISTORY OF ANDREW D. URSHAN 53

CHAPTER 2 54

Early Years in Persia 54
A. Introduction 54
B. Life in Persia 54
C. Birth and Early Life 60
D. Youthful Rebellion 78
E. Conversion While Attending American Presbyterian School 79
F. Teaching in a Presbyterian School 82
G. Summary 83

CHAPTER 3 85

Early Years in the United States 85
A. Introduction 85
B. Journey to America 86
C. Life in New York 89
D. Life in Chicago 92
E. Baptism in the Brethren Church 100
F. Membership in The Moody Church 101
G. Urshan’s Experiences during His Membership at The Moody Church 105
H. Sanctification in a Holiness Church 109
I. First Encounter with Pentecostalism 115
J. Urshan Ponders Pentecostalism 125
K. Separation from The Moody Church 132
L. Persian Pentecostal Mission 139
M. Arroyo Seco Campmeeting 150
N. Summary 156

CHAPTER 4 159

Return to Persia 159
A. Introduction 159
B. Ministry in Persia 160
Adda 162
Abajalu 167
Karajalu 168
Shirabad 169
Threatened with Prison 170
A Vision of War 171
Geogtapa 172
The Massacres 174
Martyrs 186

C. Ministry in Russia 194

Tiflis 195
Armavir 196
Leningrad 196
Division over the Formula for Baptism 198
Urshan Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ 201
D. From Russia to America 203
E. Summary 204

CHAPTER 5 206

Return to North America 206
A. Introduction 206
B. Ministry in the United States and Canada 208
C. Marriage 211
D. Ministry in Los Angeles 214
E. Separation from the Assemblies of God 227
F. Ministry of Evangelism 237
G. Urshan’s Marriage Fails 261
H. The Move to New York 262
I. A New Marriage and a Renewed Evangelistic Ministry 264
J. Andy’s Death 267
K. Faithful until the End 269
L. Going Home 274
M. Summary 276

PART 2: THEOLOGY, CHRISTOLOGY, AND SOTERIOLOGY OF ANDREW D. URSHAN 278

CHAPTER 6 279

Theological Influences 279
A. Introduction 279
B. Church of the East 281
C. Presbyterianism 284
D. Brethren 288
E. The Moody Bible Church 289
F. Holiness 291
G. William H. Durham 292
H. Pentecostalism 294
I. Summary 295

CHAPTER 7 298

The Mystery of the Godhead 298
A. Introduction 298
B. The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ 300
C. Doctrine of Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ 342
D. The Witness of God 358
E. The Church of the East 363
F. Summary 383

CHAPTER 8 388

Doctrine of Salvation 388
A. Introduction 388
B. The Witness of God 389
C. Apostolic Faith Doctrine of the New Birth 400
D. Summary 405

CHAPTER 9 407

Responses to Theological Criticism 407
A. Introduction 407
B. Misunderstood 409
C. The Work of the Enemy 412
D. Summary 416

CHAPTER 10 418

Conclusion 418

BIBLIOGRAPHY 429

Seminar at General Conference

2011-09-29T16:24:00.002-05:00

At the upcoming general conference of the United Pentecostal Church, at 10 a.m. on Saturday, October 15, I will give a seminar titled "If God Loves Me, Why Am I Hurting: An Apostolic and Pastoral Veiw of Suffering." The seminar will be in room B104 of the south wing B Conference Center in the Kentucky Exposition Center in Louisville, Kentucky.

I have chosen to refer to this presentation as an apostolic view because I believe it is the view of the first century church, the apostolic church. This was a church that believed in signs, wonders, and miracles, which they frequently experienced. But it was also a church that recognized God sometimes accomplishes His purposes in the absence of such phenomena.

This presentation is a pastoral view because it values the role of the pastor – a shepherd’s role – in helping people prepare for and go through the full spectrum of experiences of suffering.

Video Interview with Carlton Coon

2011-05-22T22:08:00.002-05:00

I was recently interviewed for two episodes of Home Missions Live, a video interview sponsored by the Home Missions Division of the United Pentecostal Church. The first interview is currently available, with the second coming next week. They can be viewed at http://www.homemissionsdivision.com/hmlive/

Successful Dissertation Defense

2011-03-01T22:53:00.004-06:00

I am happy to report the successful defense of my dissertation, titled "Andrew D. Urshan: A Theological Biography." I enrolled in the PhD program in the School of Divinity at Regent University in 2003 and completed all course requirements and the written and oral comprehensive examinations by 2008. Then I began work on the dissertation, gathering what I think is the largest single collection of materials by and about Urshan that exists in any one place on planet earth. Someday I will donate this to the Center for the Study of Oneness Pentecostalism. In the meantime, I have future writing projects related to Urshan, including an article for Pneuma and a revision of the dissertation for publication as a book. The publication of these projects should not be expected for at least a year and perhaps even longer.

I would have been happy just to pass the defense. At Regent University, there are four possible outcomes of one's attempt to defend the dissertation: (1) Pass with distinction; (2) Pass; (3) Pass with revisions required; (4) No pass. If one does not pass, it is the end of the PhD program, and the student is awarded a master's degree. I was sincerely grateful when my committee chairman, Dr. Dale Coulter, announced that I had passed with distinction.

The PhD experience at Regent University was rich and rewarding, and I do recommend looking into this program to those who are thinking of earning a seminary PhD.

Dissertation Defense

2011-02-08T18:27:00.004-06:00

On February 23, 2011, from 12:00 noon until 2:00 p.m., I will defend my dissertation at the Regent University School of Divinity, located at 1000 Regent University Drive in Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464. The School of Divinity is located in Robertson Hall. The defense is open to the public and will be located in room 101.

The dissertation is titled "Andrew D. Urshan: A Theological Biography." It runs nearly 500 pages, with well over 1300 footnotes. Approximately half is concerned with Urshan's biography and the other half with his theology, Christology, and soteriology.

My dissertation committee consists of Dale Coulter, D. Phil., as chair. Dr. Coulter is Associate Professor of Historical Theology at Regent University. The other two members are Vinson Synan, Ph.D., Professor of Church History and Dean Emeritus of the School of Divinity, and David Reed, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Pastoral Theology and Research Professor, Wycliffe College.

Presentation at General Conference

2010-09-26T20:10:00.002-05:00

I am scheduled to present "Apostolic Hermeneutics: Things Hard to be Understood" next Saturday at the general conference of the United Pentecostal Church International (October 2, 2010). Join me at 3:30 p.m. in Grand Ballroom F at the Hilton Americas Houston. The presentation will follow the paper posted below.

Apostolic Hermeneutics: Things Hard to be Understood

2010-09-26T18:13:00.005-05:00

The title of this paper is not intended to suggest that Scripture cannot be understood. It does acknowledge, however, that Peter was right when he said that Paul wrote some things that are hard to understand and that there are “untaught and unstable people [who] twist [these things] to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). Several ideas arise from this verse: (1) Paul’s letters are Scripture; (2) it is spiritually dangerous to be “untaught” and “unstable”; (3) some things Paul wrote are hard to understand, apparently even for those who are taught and stable. This does not mean they cannot be understood. Peter’s following words suggest that with spiritual alertness understanding is possible, and this understanding will result in growth in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (See 2 Peter 3:17-18.)

Peter’s reference to growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ connects with important statements on biblical interpretation made by Jesus Himself. To the disciples on the Emmaus road, Jesus said, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25). Jesus began “at Moses and all the Prophets” and expounded “to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). Later, when Jesus vanished from the sight of the disciples as they were sharing a meal, they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32). These disciples understood the Hebrew Scriptures only when Jesus explained the Scriptures in terms of what they said about Him.[1]

Similarly, Jesus opened the understanding of the larger group of gathered disciples. He enabled them to comprehend the Scriptures, saying, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me. Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:44, 46-47).

These words, which Jesus spoke just before His ascension, tell us that the essential story of redemption is found in the Old Testament before it is ever found in the New Testament. Indeed, there are details about Christ’s life and work recorded in the Old Testament that never found their way into the New Testament.

The release of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 had a profound influence on the hermeneutics adopted by many early twentieth century Pentecostals. Although Scofield had no empathy for the Pentecostal movement, his “dispensationalism with its intense emphasis on futuristic eschatology had a strong appeal to them.”[2] It was typical for Pentecostals to believe that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a sign that the Second Coming was just around the corner. They embraced an eschatological focus, and Scofield’s neatly mapped out eschatology provided them a ready template.

It was immediately necessary, however, for Pentecostals to modify Scofieldian dispensationalism, because although the “system . . . provides a convenient method of organizing biblical history and teaches that it is possible to fit the full range of prophetic Scripture into something like a complicated puzzle,”[3] it also asserted “that the gifts of the Spirit, especially what has been called ‘the sensational gifts’ or ‘sign gifts’ (healing, faith, working of miracles, and tongues), were confined to the apostolic age.”[4] Although cessationism was rejected by Pentecostals, “the dispensational understanding of the church, as well as its eschatology, has influenced pentecostal theology.”[5]

Not only did Scofield confine the supernatural dimension of Pentecost to the first century. He also saw the church as a mystery not anticipated in the Hebrew Scriptures.[6] But if there is a disconnect between the church and the Old Testament, the value of the Old Testament for the church is minimized. How are we to view the fact that the New Testament quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to the Old Testament nearly 800 times, especially when these references to the Old Testament are often in the category of fulfillment motifs? In a textbook used in many Pentecostal Bible schools during the mid-20th century, the author claimed, “Except that blessing was promised to the Gentiles . . . the church was unknown to the prophets.”[7] In view of Peter’s declaration that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was “what was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16, NKJV), it is doubtful that the denial of any meaningful connection between Joel and Pentecost will be satisfying to Pentecostals.[8]

Implicit in Jesus’ explanation of the Hebrew Scriptures is that they are rich in Christology, soteriology (doctrine of salvation), pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit), and ecclesiology (doctrine of the church). A reading of the New Testament indicates that the apostles and others involved in writing Scripture understood and fleshed out these themes. An examination of Paul’s use of Scripture demonstrates this point.

Paul and the Mystery of Christ

For Scofieldian dispensationalism, these words of Paul mean that there is no anticipation of the church in the Old Testament:

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles – if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power (Ephesians 3:1-7).

The phrase “which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed” is taken to mean that there was no revelation of the church in the Hebrew Scriptures.[9] Ultradispensationalism goes so far as to say that there was no revelation of the church before Paul.[10]

A thorough reading of Paul indicates, however, that these views are incorrect. Rather than disavowing any revelation of the church prior to his, Paul’s point is that he enjoyed a fuller understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures than that of the original writers of those Scriptures. For the consideration of hermeneutics, this validates the idea that the part must be interpreted in view of the whole. Paul could understand only from his situation, or from his hermeneutical horizon, but his horizon was wider than that of the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, not only because he possessed something never possessed by any but the final writers of the Hebrew Scriptures – the entire Hebrew canon – but also because his horizon included the knowledge that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah and a fullness of the Holy Spirit never enjoyed by those who lived before the era of the New Covenant (Acts 9:17). But his horizon extended even beyond this to include the portion of the New Testament that was written during his lifetime.

The revelation to which Paul referred in Ephesians 3 was not something given by God to Paul apart from the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, this revelation was not something diverse from and superior to Scripture. It was not something that was unanticipated in Scripture. We know this because Paul’s ministry, from the very beginning, is rich in the use of the Hebrew Scriptures to proclaim Christ as the promised Messiah and the work being done by Christ in the church as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy. The revelation was not, therefore, something radically new; it was a perspective on the Hebrew Scriptures not fully enjoyed by those who wrote them or by those who interpreted them prior to the era of the New Covenant.

It is perhaps no surprise that dispensationalism denies any anticipation of the church in the Hebrew Scriptures; that is the nature of the system. But even F. F. Bruce, in his comments on Eph 3:5, asserts that although the Hebrew Scriptures anticipated blessing of God upon the Gentiles, the fact that this “blessing of the Gentiles would involve the obliteration of the old line of demarcation which separated them from Jews and the incorporation of Gentile believers together with Jewish believers” was something that “had not been foreseen.”[11] A. Skevington Wood, however, sees the revelation as a matter of degree: “Although the blessing of the Gentiles through the people of God was revealed in the OT from Genesis 12:3 onward, it was not proclaimed so fully or so extensively as under the new dispensation.”[12]

These views do not, however, address the possibility that the mystery described by Paul was indeed found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but that the reason it was “not made known to the sons of men” (Eph 3:5) was that the limited horizon available prior to the era of the New Testament prohibited the fuller understanding now available to Paul as well as to all of the holy apostles and prophets. That this is at least a possibility is evident not only from Paul’s Christological use of the Hebrew Scriptures but also from his ecclesiological use of the Old Testament. Again, the point may be that his revelation was not something new but that it was a wider and deeper grasp of what had already been revealed in Scripture. Otherwise, we would expect Paul to make no appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures in his declaration of the gospel, including the union of Gentiles and Jews into one body. But this is not the case. Paul roots his teaching exclusively in the Scriptures.

Paul declared that what he believed was that which was written in the Law and the Prophets (Acts 24:14). He had done nothing offensive against the law of the Jews or the temple (Acts 25:8). He was called before Agrippa “for the hope of the promise made by God to [the] fathers” (Acts 26:6). In a very clear appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures for his message, including the inclusion of Gentiles equally with the Jews, Paul told Agrippa that he said nothing other than those things “which the prophets and Moses said would come—that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22-23). Rather than claiming innovation for his message, Paul insisted that he said nothing new.[13] After arriving in Rome, Paul told the Jewish community there that he had done nothing against the Jewish people or the fathers (Acts 28:17). Instead, he was bound “for the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). He “explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets” (Acts 28:23).

When he wrote to the believers at Rome, a church that included Jews and Gentiles, Paul declared that the gospel of God was that “which he promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:1-2). The Law and the Prophets witness to the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ “to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference” (Rom 3:21-22). The letter to the Romans is a church letter; Paul establishes the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church from the Hebrew Scriptures. The fact that Abraham was justified before circumcision was for the purpose of demonstrating that Gentiles, not only Jews, are the recipients of imputed righteousness (Rom 4:11). Abraham is equally the father of believing Gentiles as well as of believing Jews (Rom 4:16-18). Hosea and Isaiah both anticipated the inclusion of believing Gentiles (Rom 9:24-29). Even Moses wrote about the righteousness of faith wherein there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Rom 10:5-12), as did Joel (Rom 10:13).[14] In an extended appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures to demonstrate the inclusion of Gentiles, Paul indicates that this inclusion “confirm[s] the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8-12, 21). As he concludes the letter, Paul writes that the gospel he preaches—which is identical with “the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began”—is made known to all nations “by the prophetic Scriptures” (Rom 16:25-26). This can only mean that the message he preached in the churches was firmly rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul explained that he spoke “the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages” (1 Cor 2:7). But this mystery was anticipated in the Hebrew Scriptures (1 Cor 2:9). It had now been revealed to Paul “through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes the deep things of God” (1 Cor 2:10). The story of Israel’s journey through the wilderness was written for the benefit of the church (1 Cor 10:6, 11). The essential gospel message is “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4).

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains that those who read the Hebrew Scriptures while rejecting Christ are hindered by a veil; their minds are blinded (2 Cor 3:14). Isaiah prophesied of the church age, the “day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2). Ezekiel anticipated the way God would dwell in the church (2 Cor 6:16). Even the Pentateuch called for the church to be holy (2 Cor 6:17-18). That these Hebrew Scriptures belong to the church is quite clear when Paul immediately follows these references with these words: “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1).

In his letter to the believers in Galatia, Paul declared that the Hebrew Scriptures foresaw “that God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal 3:8a). By doing so, the Scripture “preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand” (Gal 3:8b). In receiving “the blessing of Abraham,” Gentiles are also receiving “the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal 3:14). When “the Scripture . . . confine[s] all under sin,” Gentiles are included along with Jews, so “that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal 3:22). Thus, “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). To be Christ’s is to be Abraham’s seed “and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). If Gentiles in the church are heirs of a biblical promise, it is difficult to say that the Old Testament in no way anticipated the church.

To the Ephesians, Paul wrote that God had made known to him “the mystery of His will” which involved the “gather[ing] together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in him” (Eph 1:9-10). We come now to Paul’s discussion of the revelation of “the mystery . . . which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Eph 3:3-6). In view of all that precedes this canonically, it is difficult to read this to mean that the Hebrew Scriptures include nothing about the Gentiles becoming fellow heirs.[15] Indeed, Paul in the very next chapter quotes Ps 68:18 to explain the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to the church (Eph 4:7-14). We can certainly question whether the author of Ps 16 or even the final composer of the Psalter understood Ps 68:18 as a reference to the ascension gift ministries, but Paul’s horizon was broader than theirs. He lived in the era of fulfillment and of the Spirit, an era that released the text of the Hebrew Scriptures to a dimension of fullness unavailable to those with a limited horizon. This does not mean that the author of Ps 68 or the composer of the Psalter were wrong; it means that there was a depth of meaning in the text that awaited fulfillment to be fully released. Since Paul uses the psalm this way in the same letter where he discusses the revelation of mystery, it is apparent that he does not mean that the mystery is not based on Scripture. He even sees Gen 2:24, a statement that in isolation seems to refer only to the marriage relationship, as “a great mystery” that “concern[s] Christ and the church” (Eph 5:31-32).

Again in his letter to the Colossians, Paul discusses “the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints” (Col 1:26). This is the same mystery Paul has in view in his letter to the Ephesians; it concerns “the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27). But again Paul refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as the source of this mystery. Specifically, he sees the regulations concerning food, drink, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths—all integral to the Law of Moses—as being “shadow[s] of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Col 2:16-17).

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul describes the church as “the house of God . . . the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It would seem strange to think that such a high evaluation would be made of an institution that has no place in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul declares that the Holy Scriptures—the Hebrew Scriptures that Timothy has known from childhood—“are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15). It is precisely these Scriptures which are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). If the Hebrew Scriptures are profitable for church doctrine, for the reproof, correction, and instruction of church members, and if they are capable of bringing a man of God who is in the church to completion, they surely are not bereft of any reference to the church. Before closing his letter, Paul appeals to Timothy for “the books, especially the parchments” (2 Tim 4:13). No doubt these parchments were Old Testament Scriptures written on leather scrolls.16 If the Hebrew Scriptures contained nothing specific to the church, one wonders why Paul wished to have them as desperately as he wished to have his cloak.

Interpretations of Ephesians 3:5 that focus only on exegesis of the immediate context miss the influence on understanding available from the broader horizon of the use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament and specifically from Paul’s consistent Christological and ecclesiological use of the Old Testament.

Conclusion

Paul’s use of the Old Testament demonstrates the validity of the approach to understanding characterized by the hermeneutical circle. Because his horizon has been widened by his personal encounter with Jesus Christ, because he enjoys the fullness of the Spirit, and because he has access to the entire Hebrew canon, he reads the Hebrew Scriptures in a way they could not be read by those who rejected Christ or by those to whom only portions of the text were available. This was not unique to Paul. As he affirmed, the revelation of the mystery of Christ “has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Eph 3:5). His approach to the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures is mirrored by all of the New Testament writers.[17]

Theoretically, it may be possible to say that we are in a better position to understand both the Old and New Testaments than were the writers of either testament, because our horizon includes the perspective of the New Testament writers on the Old Testament, a horizon unavailable to the writers of the Old Testament, and because we have access to a wholeness or fullness of written revelation, including the New Testament, that the writers of the New Testament never enjoyed. Our horizon is widened not only by the complete canon, but also by the fullness of the Spirit and by the effect of the history of Christian interpretation and the impact of Scripture on the church.

Our apostolic heritage includes an approach to the interpretation of Scripture that is quite different from the hermeneutics adopted by those who limit the supernatural dimension of the Christian life to the first century and who separate the two testaments so radically that there is no ecclesiology – with its attendant pneumatology – in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is agreed by many, including non-Pentecostals, that the Old Testament is rich in Christology. It should be recognized, however, that where Christ is found, so is the Holy Spirit, and so is the anticipation of the church, which comes into being when Christ pours out the Holy Spirit upon waiting believers, whether Jew or Gentile.

Discussion of exegesis, authorial intent, context, reader response, genre, and the entire range of hermeneutical concern has its place, but will fall short if Scripture is not approached as it was by the first century apostles and others who wrote Scripture. This includes their belief that all Scripture, including the Hebrew Scriptures, belonged to the church. Until the end of the first century, no Christian in the apostolic era had access to the entire New Testament. For about fifteen years after the Day of Pentecost, New Testament Scripture did not exist. When it did begin to develop, it was in bits and pieces and scattered widely over the geographical expanse of spreading Christianity. There were no printing presses constantly collating freshly written Scripture to assure that all New Testament believers were kept up to date on the latest revelations.

How, then, did first century Christians believe and understand the gospel, and what was their authoritative source for its declaration? As Paul pointed out to Timothy, this was the function of the Hebrew Scriptures Timothy had known from his childhood:

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:14-17, NKJV).

Since the writers of the New Testament so fully embraced the Hebrew Scriptures as their source for the doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, and since they believed it was profitable for a full range of teaching, including the reproof, correction, and instruction of New Testament Christians, bringing the people of God to completion and thoroughly equipping them for all they needed to do, it should be no surprise to find the New Testament standing in complete solidarity with the Old Testament. The way this works out may sometimes be hard to understand, as Peter indicated, but the reward is worth the effort. Oneness Pentecostals, of all people, should rejoice in the opportunity to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This growth will not come from minimizing the value of the Old Testament. It will result from reading the Hebrew Scriptures as the Scriptures of the church, feasting on the richness of their testimony to Christ, partaking of the fullness of the Holy Spirit promised therein, and celebrating the fulfilled fellowship of the gathered believers (i.e., the ekklēsia, the church) thus anticipated.

Endnotes

1 Luke 24:33-35.
2 F. L. Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” in The New Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas; rev. and exp. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Zondervan, 2002), 585.
3 Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” 585.
4 Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” 585.
5 Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” 585. Ryrie acknowledges that “ecclesiology . . . is the touchstone of dispensationalism” (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today [Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1965], 132).
6 It has long been noted that dispensationalism sees the church as a parenthesis, bearing no relationship to what preceded it or to what will follow it in God’s plan. (See Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1960], 26, 28, 43, 129.) For normative dispensationalism, the church and Israel are “completely distinct.” The church “was not revealed in the Old Testament,” and God has two purposes, “one for the church and one for Israel” (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], 174).
7 Frank M. Boyd, Ages and Dispensations (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1955), 53-54. See also Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 134, n. 4, where Ryrie quotes James M. Stifler’s interpretation of Ephesians 3:5 as denying “that there was any revelation at all of the mystery in that former time . . . .”
8 In its comments on Joel 2:28, the New Scofield Reference Bible disassociates Joel’s prophecy from any fulfillment on the Day of Pentecost: “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” (E. Schuyler English, ed., The New Scofield Study Bible [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1967], 1045).
9 Scofield’s comment on Ephesians 3:5-10 includes the claim that “the church is not once mentioned in Old Testament prophecy” (C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth . Cited 2 December 2004). Online: http://www.raptureme.com/resource/scofield/s1.htm. Although this view has been softened by adherents of Progressive Dispensationalism (See, e.g., Robert L. Saucy, “The Church as the Mystery of God,” Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 127-155), those who embrace Scofieldian dispensationalism continue to insist that “no revelation of this mystery was given in the Old Testament but that this mystery was revealed for the first time in the New Testament” (Harold W. Hoehner, “Ephesians,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty (ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck; New Testament edition; Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Book, 1983), 629.
10 See G. R. Lewis, “Ultradispensationalism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Walter A. Elwell, ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 1120-21.
11 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (ed. Gordon D. Fee; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 314.
12 A. Skevington Wood, “Ephesians,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1 (ed. Frank. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 45.
13 See also Acts 26:27.
14 See also Rom 10:19-21.
15 The New Scofield Study Bible comments on Eph 3:6: “That Gentiles were to be saved was no mystery . . . . The mystery ‘hidden in God’ was the divine purpose to make of Jew and Gentile a wholly new thing—‘the church, which is His [Christ’s] body,’ . . . and in which the earthly distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears . . . .” (C. I. Scofield, ed., The New Scofield Study Bible: New King James Version [Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989], 1437, n. 2). But we have seen several places where Paul appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures to establish this very point.
16 Ralph Earle, “2 Timothy,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1(ed. Frank. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 415.
17 For example, Peter sees the establishment of the church on Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21). James sees the inclusion of Gentiles in the church as having been anticipated by Amos (Acts 15:13-18). The author of Hebrews weaves texts from the Hebrew Scriptures throughout the letter to indicate that Christology and ecclesiology are rooted in the Old Testament.

Another Look at "Delivering Up the Kingdom"

2010-07-30T09:43:00.002-05:00

“Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For ‘He has put all things under His feet.’ But when He says ‘all things are put under Him,’ it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all” (I Corinthians 15:24-28, NKJV).

After all opposition to Christ’s rule has ended, He will deliver the kingdom to God the Father. The subjection of everything to Christ excludes God the Father, for the Son Himself will be subject to God in order that God may be “all in all.” Several questions arise from I Corinthians 15:24-28: Since a time will come when Christ delivers the kingdom to God the Father, does this mean Christ will no longer reign? If God the Father has put all things under the feet of Christ with the exception of Himself, what is the relationship of Christ and God the Father? Does this refer to ontological or functional subordination? Does the statement “then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him” mean that the Son is not now subject to Him? What is different about this future subjection of the Son from His present subjection? Is God not “all in all” prior to this event?

Christ’s reign is eternal.

Christ must reign “until” He subdues all enemies, but this does not mean His reign will end. It means His reign will extend up to the point when His enemies are subdued, without addressing what will occur afterwards. If I Corinthians 15:24-28 indicates changes in Christ’s reign or in the relationship between God the Father and Christ, it suggests that Christ’s reign is temporary. This cannot be the case, as seen in Revelation 11:15: “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” (NKJV). The eternal throne is the throne “of God and of the Lamb” (Revelation 22:3, NKJV). Whatever it means for Christ to deliver the kingdom to God the Father and for Christ to reign until He has subjugated all enemies, it cannot mean there comes a time when the reign of Christ is terminated.

The context of I Corinthians 15:24-28 is the resurrection of the dead. In spite of the claims of some of the Corinthians, there is a resurrection, of which Christ’s resurrection is proof. Furthermore, if Jesus rose bodily, He still exists and will continue to exist throughout eternity as the God-man. The bodily resurrection of Christ, therefore, guarantees the permanence of the Incarnation; and because the Incarnation is permanent, the relationship between the Son and God the Father is constant.

Is Christ’s subordination ontological or functional?

In order to maintain the position that God is three co-equal persons, Trinitarian theology describes Christ’s subjection to the Father as functional subjection. [1] In other words, since Christ—viewed as the second person in the Godhead—is co-equal with God the Father—viewed as the first person in the Godhead—His subjection to the Father is not based on His being (ontological), for He is co-equal with the Father. Rather, it is a functional subjection for a specified purpose.

However, the subjection of Christ to God the Father is both functional and ontological. The Incarnation is certainly functional. God was manifest in the flesh for the express purpose of redemption. We also know that Jesus Christ—God incarnate—will judge the world.

However, there is more to the subjection of Christ than the functions of redemption and judgment. I Corinthians 15:24-28 addresses the role of Christ after His works of redemption and judgment are completed. Since Christ is fully man and fully God, the humanity of Christ is also ontologically subject to God the Father. Once the purpose for the Incarnation is completed, the subjection is no longer functional, for the function has been accomplished. At the point when Christ delivers the kingdom to God the Father, His subjection will be purely ontological.

The Son is and will always be subject to God the Father.

Human nature is, by definition, ontologically subordinate to God. Christ is one integrated person who is both divine and human. In order for His humanity to be meaningful, it was necessary for Christ to voluntarily limit Himself within the parameters of that which is essentially human. All references to the subjection of Christ to God, whether past, present, or future, depend upon Christ’s solidarity with the human race.

The use of “Christ” emphasizes the Incarnation. In verse 28 Christ is referred to as the “Son.” The identification of the Son as “Lord” calls attention to His deity as Yahweh. To identify the Son as Christ emphasizes His humanity and the fact that He is the anointed One. Paul’s primary Christological focus in I Corinthians is on the Son as Messiah. Except for four references (I Corinthians 5:5; 6:11; 11:23; 12:3), Paul identifies the Son as Christ. In I Corinthians the Son is identified as “Christ” forty-four times, as “Lord Jesus Christ” ten times, as “Jesus Christ” four times, as “Christ Jesus” four times, as “Jesus Christ our Lord” three times, and as “Christ Jesus our Lord” once.

The God-man will terminate all opposition and deliver the kingdom to God the Father. “God the Father” refers to God transcendent—God above and beyond the Incarnation. [2] God will conquer sin’s consequences not by means of His transcendence or immanence, but by means of His manifestation in the flesh. Redemption is rooted in the Incarnation.

The subjection of all things to Christ fulfills Psalm 8:6: “You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.” This subjection includes only the created realm; God the Father is not subjected to the Messiah. The use of Psalm 8 in I Corinthians 15:25-27 and Hebrews 2:5-9 indicates that although the created realm is ontologically subordinate to the Messiah, it is not presently subjected because of the sin problem. The Fall was not just the fall of humans, but of the entire created realm. Creation, now subjected to futility because of sin, “will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (See Romans 8:19-24.) Because the final defeat of death is yet future, and because death is the consequence of the Fall, we could say that the created order is at this time ontologically subordinate to the Messiah, but not behaviorally subordinate. Sin is now in its death throes, something like a snake whose head has been cut off, but who continues to flail about. On the other hand, Christ is presently subordinated to God the Father, because no sin problem is involved.

When all things are made subject to Christ, “then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all” (verse 28). This statement must be understood so as to avoid suggesting that the Son is not now subject to the Father.

No essential change in Christ’s nature is indicated in this passage. He will always be as He has always been. The relationship between Christ and God the Father as described in this passage is the same as elsewhere. The Son is always submitted to God transcendent. This is due to the human existence in which God humbled Himself.

The word translated “then” (tote, as opposed to eita in verse 24) need not mean “thereupon” or “thereafter.” It can mean “at that time,” with no idea of a point of origin. [3] It may mean that the state of things at this time will be as described. What is presently true continues to be true into eternity.

Even though hypotagesetai (“will be subjected”) is a future passive indicative, this may still indicate only that this is how things will be in the future. If hypotagesetai is read as a future passive indicative, it means in the future Christ’s subjection will be accomplished by someone outside of Himself. But this future passive indicative may function as a middle instead of a passive, with the subject represented as doing something for, to or by himself. [4] This is the same status that the Son of God assumed during His days on earth.

Jesus is not just an historical figure. He will continue to exist throughout eternity in His human existence as well as in His deity. This means that all human beings will continue to exist, for Christ’s essential humanness is no different than our humanness. Because He stands in solidarity with us, we stand in solidarity with Him. If He had discarded His humanity at death, not only would He not have experienced bodily resurrection, but neither would we have any certainty about our future.

1 See Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 760.
2 This is from the perspective that “God the Father” is a reference to God transcendent, the Son of God is a reference to God incarnate, and Holy Spirit is a reference to God immanent. In the final analysis, however, God is One. The same God who is transcendent is incarnate and immanent. The KJV has, “God, even the Father.”
3 F. Wilbur Gingrich, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965), 219.
4 See A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934), 809.

New book to be released June 1

2010-04-17T21:16:00.002-05:00

My newest book, If God Loves Me, Why Am I Hurting? will be released June 1. The book deals with the problem of suffering. The price is $13.99, but those who order before June 1 will receive a 10% discount. Information is available here: http://www.facebook.com/notes/pentecostal-publishing-house/new-release-daniel-l-segraves-if-god-loves-me-why-am-i-hurting/383693153966

New Book Available as Kindle Download

2010-01-25T10:04:00.002-06:00

My most recent book, Reading Between the Lines, is now available as a Kindle download on Amazon.com. The cost of the print edition is $20.00, but the Kindle download is only $9.99. If you don't have the Kindle reader, you can download the software free from Amazon so that you can read books on your desktop or laptop.

Women in Ministry 2

2009-10-21T12:53:00.001-05:00

This is a message I preached at Open Door 2005. Open Door is a conference designed to encourage women to identify and exercise their spiritual gifts and to fulfill their ministerial callings. To hear the message, click on the title "Women in Ministry 2."

Women in Ministry 1

2009-10-21T12:49:00.001-05:00

This is a message I preached at Open Door 2004. Open Door is a conference designed to encourage women to identify and exercise their spiritual gifts and to fulfill their ministerial callings. To hear the message, click on the title "Women in Ministry 1."

Twitter

2009-10-06T22:40:00.001-05:00

I've decided to join the Twitter community. If you're interested, the address is www.twitter.com/danielsegraves.

A Further Response to Calvin Beisner

2009-09-22T22:35:00.002-05:00

Some time ago I wrote a response to Calvin Beisner’s explanation of Acts 2:38 as found in his book “Jesus Only” Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998). That response appears on this BlogSpot in the January 2005 archives.

Recently I discovered that Beisner has written a partial response to my comments as they appeared earlier on a web site at http://www.clc.edu/askdr/Archive/Acts238.htm. Although that site is no longer available, the essence of my comments there is incorporated into the article that appears on this BlogSpot. Beisner’s response can be found at http://www.equip.org/articles/does-acts-2-38-teach-baptismal-remission-.

In his article “Does Acts 2:38” teach baptismal remission, Beisner notes Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox insistence that water baptism itself remits sins. By contrast, he points out that Evangelical churches see baptism’s importance as the sign and seal of justification by faith and as the sacrament that initiates one into the visible church, but not as a means of remission of sins. Finally, he says that “[c]ertain cults and even some descendants of Protestantism . . . have embraced the sacerdotal views of Romanism and Orthodoxy and taught that sins cannot be forgiven apart from baptism, though they have insisted that baptism cannot be effective for remission of sins apart from faith.”

Beisner acknowledges that “[o]n the surface, in English, it seems that Peter [in Acts 2:38] meant that the purpose of baptism was to effect the remission of sins.” Then he quotes from two sources published by the United Pentecostal Church International. One of the quotes, from J. L. Hall’s The United Pentecostal Church and the Evangelical Movement (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1990) misidentifies the page number (Beisner’s footnote says it is from page 53; it is from page 33) and by being lifted from its context ignores Hall’s emphasis on the necessity of faith. Beisner presents Hall’s statement as follows: “United Pentecostals recognize that water baptism is ‘for the remission of sins’ (Acts 2:38).” The full statement by Hall adds important perspective:

Although United Pentecostals recognize that water baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), they believe that baptism is effective only by faith in Jesus Christ and by calling upon His name, for there is no salvation without faith and the name of Jesus Christ (Hebrew 11:6; Acts 2:21; 4:12; 10:43; 22:16).

Although he appeals to the rootedness of Evangelical churches in the Protestant Reformation, Beisner does not note Hall’s direct quotes from Martin Luther’s Small Catechism that confirm Luther’s belief that baptism “works forgiveness of sins” (Hall, 32). Nor does he acknowledge Hall’s reference to Luther’s recognition of the validity of the use of the words, “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ” (Hall, 32).

Beisner argues that lexical and grammatical considerations “undermine the value of Acts 2:38 as evidence for the doctrine of baptismal remission and point to another, more likely interpretation.” As it relates to what he calls “the lexical objection,” Beisner notes that the Webster’s New International Dictionary offers eleven possible definitions for the preposition “for.” He asserts that “baptismal remissionists” assume that “for” as used in Acts 2:38 means “in order to obtain the forgiveness of your sins.” He suggests, however, that one could just as well choose the definition that would mean we are baptized because our sins have been forgiven, so that baptism is a sign of the reality.

The discussion of the English language is interesting, but it is relatively pointless as far as understanding the issues here, since the inspired text is in the Greek language. Beisner moves from a consideration of the English translation to a discussion of the Greek text when he writes, “We can make a similar case about the Greek preposition translated for.” Then he notes that eis, translated “for,” has a variety of possible meanings, one of which is “to denote reference to a person or thing for, to, with respect or reference to” (Walter A. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], s.v., eis, 230). Then he says, “If this is the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38—and the option cannot be ruled out—then the verse would indicate that baptism is performed with reference to, that is, as a sign or symbol of forgiveness of sins, not for the purpose of or in order to obtain forgiveness of sins.” Even though Beisner makes this point, it is only under the assumption that baptism is connected with remission of sins in Acts 2:38, a connection Beisner thinks unlikely.

What Beisner does not note in his use of Bauer’s lexicon is that the lexicon connects Acts 2:38 with the definition that “denote[s] purpose in order to”: “eis aphesin hamartiōn for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven Mt 26:28; cf. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Ac 2:38” (Bauer, 229). [Throughout this article I am transliterating the Greek due to problems with posting the Greek font to BlogSpot.]

Beisner is of the opinion that the “plausibility of . . . alternative understandings of for reduces the evidential value of Acts 2:38 for the doctrine of baptismal remission of sins.” The article does not concern itself with the meaning of the identical Greek phrase eis aphesin hamartiōn in Matthew 26:28, Mark 1:4, or Luke 3:3 where it is certain that the meaning has to do with effecting the forgiveness of sins. The same phrase appears on the lips of Jesus in Luke 24:47, connecting forgiveness of sins with repentance in a significant anticipation of Peter’s words in Acts 2:38, further indicating the solidarity between repentance and baptism in effecting forgiveness. If the phrase eis aphesin hamartiōn in Acts 2:38 has nothing to do with effecting the forgiveness of sins, this is the only place in the New Testament where it does not. Contrary to Beisner’s opinion, this does not reduce the evidential value of Acts 2:38, nor does it, as Beisner claims, “dispossess the baptismal remissionists of Acts 2:38 as proof of their doctrine.” Instead, the consistent meaning of the phrase everywhere else it is found strengthens the evidential value of Acts 2:38.

But Beisner has another objection to the idea that Acts 2:38 connects baptism and forgiveness. In what he calls “the grammatical objection,” Beisner points out that the verb repent in Peter’s command is a second-person plural, whereas the verb be baptized is third-person singular. Although this is correct, the conclusions drawn are not.

To help his readers get the point of the significance of the second-person plural, Beisner adopts a Southern dialect in his translation, “Y’all repent.” He then points out that in the phrase for the forgiveness of your sins, the word your is second-person plural and offers the translation “for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins.” For Beisner, this means that it is repentance, not baptism, that is connected with the forgiveness of sins. [Since I have commented on this at length in the previous article “A Response to Calvin Beisner’s Explanation of Acts 2:38” which is found in the January 2005 archive of this BlogSpot, I will not deal with it further here, except to point out that his entire argument rests on a textual variant. The word translated “your” (humōn) in the phrase “for the forgiveness of your sins” appears in the critical text but not in the Majority Text. If humōn in this phrase is not the original reading, Beisner’s entire argument as it relates to excluding baptism from any connection to remission of sin collapses.]

Beisner writes:

Imagine the implications of ignoring this switch from second-person plural to third-person singular and back. Since the command be baptized is third-person singular, and the pronoun your in your sins is second-person plural, the sense would be that each one should be baptized for the forgiveness of not only his own sins but also for the sins of all the others there.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that the second-person plural humōn is the original reading, Beisner’s comment begs the question as to what the implication is of making this switch. Using Beisner’s reasoning, the implication would be that all of those present should repent for the forgiveness of the sins of all of those present. This is certainly not Peter’s meaning. Although the ancient Jewish people tended to think in more corporate terms than individualistic cultures, what was done corporately required individual participation. According to Beisner’s perspective, all of those who heard Peter had to repent for the sins of all of those who heard him. Thus, repentance is a group event, whereas baptism is an individual response. That this is Beisner’s understanding is seen in the translations he offers:

In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number in the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular) . . . .” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each of you be baptized . . . .”

Beisner does not note the context of Acts 2:38 in the overall scope of Peter’s message with its rootedness in the book of Joel. [See my paper “This is That: An Examination of Peter’s Use of Joel from the Perspective of Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics” in the December 2004 archive of this BlogSpot.] Although Joel’s call to repentance was certainly a communal call (see Joel 2:12-13, where plural forms are used), it was a call that required individual participation (see Joel 2:32, where singular forms are used). If Beisner’s reading is followed, would the forgiveness of sins that is effected by communal repentance be invalidated if even one person who heard Peter’s command failed to repent?

It is at this point in the article that Beisner refers to my comments:

Some object to this reasoning by pointing out that be baptized is followed by every one of you (hekastos humōn), and that in that phrase you (humōn) is second-person plural. Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the connection is between this you and the forgiveness of your sins?

That ignores the grammar, too. In Greek, every one of you is comprised of the adjective for each (hekastos), which is used as a noun here, and the partitive genitive pronoun for you (humōn). . . . You identifies the class of which every one is a part. The command [let him] be baptized, moreover, is third-person singular, and its subject is not you but every one. For you to have been the subject of the command to be baptized, it would have to have been in the nominative, or subject, case (humeis), not in the genitive, or possessive, case (humōn), and the command be baptized would have to have been in the second-person plural (baptisesthe), not in the third-person singular (baptistheitō).

This is to over read the function of the partitive genitive. As Dana and Mantey point out, in the use of a partitive genitive, “A noun may be defined by indicating in the genitive the whole of which it is a part” (H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament [New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1955], 79). In another use of the same grammatical structure, Jesus said, “You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?” (Luke 13:15, NIV). The word transliterated “hypocrites” is a masculine plural noun in the vocative case. The words translated “each of you” are the same as those found in Acts 2:38: hekastos humōn. Although individuals are addressed, they are addressed as part of a group.

It may be most helpful to understand this point by looking at the use of a similar grammatical structure earlier in Acts 2: “And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language” (Acts 2:6). In this verse, “everyone” is translated from heis hekastos. Heis is a nominative masculine singular, as is hekastos, both here and in Acts 2:38. But the verb translated “heard” (ēkouon) is a third person plural. Although this is not precisely the same grammatical structure as in Acts 2:38, it demonstrates how singular and plural forms can be used together. It is reading too much into the grammar of Acts 2:38 to separate baptism and its effects from repentance and its effects on the basis of singular and plural forms, just as it would be in Acts 2:6 to say that it could not have been all of those who heard the newly Spirit baptized believers speaking in their own languages because “everyone” is translated from singular forms.

This issue is well addressed by A. B. Caneday:

Peter’s double imperative presents the call of the gospel, requiring all to “repent and be baptized . . . for the forgiveness of your sins.” The fact that there is a shift of persons, from second person plural . . . to third person singular . . . hardly warrants restricting connection of the phrase “for the forgiveness of your sins” . . . to “repent” and not to “let each one be baptized.” Actually, the grammatical switch in person and number may intensify the bond between the two imperatives so that they should be read as joined—“repent and let each one be baptized.” Together they bring about what is expressed in the purpose statement, “for the forgiveness of your sins” (A. B. Caneday, “Baptism in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ [eds. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright; Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2006], 311-12).

As Beisner brings his article to a close, he mentions that he showed his translation of Acts 2:38 to the late Julius Mantey, who approved his translation and signed his name next to it in the margin of Beisner’s Greek New Testament. This is quite interesting in view of Mantey’s comment on Acts 2:38 in A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.

When one considers in Ac. 2:38 repentance as self-renunciation and baptism as a public expression of self-surrender and self-dedication to Christ, which significance it certainly had in the first century, the expression [eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn humōn] may mean for the purpose of the remission of sins. But if one stresses baptism, without its early Christian import, as a ceremonial means of salvation, he does violence to Christianity as a whole, for one of its striking distinctions from Judaism and Paganism is that it is a religion of salvation by faith while all others teach salvation by works (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 104).

In other words, Mantey recognized the possibility that repentance and baptism could be understood as both connected with the purpose of the remission of sins. His concern was apparently that when baptism was viewed without its early Christian significance as a mere ceremony that resulted in salvation, baptism was no longer a response of faith but a work thought to produce salvation.

Because of his concerns, Mantey suggested what he called an “unusual” meaning for the preposition “for” (eis). His idea was to read eis as “causal” in Acts 2:38. That is, baptism is because of the remission of sins, not for the purpose of remission of sins. (See Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 104.) Caneday comments:

Many have looked to Julius R. Mantey’s theologically controlled explanation of “unto the forgiveness of sins” . . . as authoritative. He admits that the expression may mean “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” but prefers to adopt what he calls an “unusual meaning,” “because of the remission of sins.” This understanding of the preposition eis (“into, unto”) is lexically doubtful. Murray Harris rightly views the causal sense as “unlikely” (Caneday, Believer’s Baptism, 310).

Beisner’s response to my observations does not settle the issue in favor of his perspective. Instead, it further demonstrates the inadequacy of the idea that Peter connected the forgiveness of sins exclusively with repentance. But if Beisner’s response had indeed proved his point, it would not necessarily have meant that repentance was instrumental in effecting forgiveness, for Beisner is apparently of the opinion that the word “for” (eis) may in Acts 2:38 mean “with reference to, that is, as a sign or symbol of forgiveness of sins, not for the purpose of or in order to obtain forgiveness of sins.” If this were the case, neither baptism nor repentance would have anything to do with forgiveness. Even repentance would be only a sign that our sins had been forgiven prior to repentance.

Copyright © 2009 by Daniel L. Segraves

Revision of Book: God in Flesh

2009-08-24T17:45:00.002-05:00

In 2001 I wrote a short book titled God in Flesh: Was Jesus' Flesh Heavenly or Earthly? The book began as a response to three pages of notes taken by students during my days as a Bible college teacher. These students had visited a church where a Bible study was taught claiming that Jesus had "heavenly" flesh and denying any biological connection between the virgin Mary and Jesus. The students took notes during the Bible study and brought them to me for a response.

Now in its fifth printing, I have revised and expanded the book with the addition of my response to the "heavenly" flesh teaching found in a book titled Bible Writers' Theology by Teklemariam Gezahagne. This has approximately doubled the content of the book, which is available at www.pentecostalpublishing.com.

The manifestation of God in human existence is a great miracle. As such, it is a mystery beyond human understanding or explanation. It is the nature of miracles to transcend our comprehension. They cannot be reproduced in a science laboratory. They defy logic. But we are curious creatures.

Throughout church history, the miracle of the Incarnation has been the subject of heated debates. If Jesus is really a human being, how can He be God? As they have wrestled with this question, some have minimized or denied the deity of Christ. Others have minimized or denied his humanity. Many terms have survived these debates to describe the variety of views that have developed: Ebionism, Arianism, Docetism, Apollinarianism, Monophysitism, Monotheletism, Adoptionism, Cerinthianism, and others. Ideas like these keep cropping up under new names.

The book God in Flesh is in response to the notion that Jesus' flesh was "heavenly" rather than "earthly." Historically, this idea is similar to Monophysitism, the teaching that Jesus had only one nature. It is even more radical, however, for it denies any biological relationship between the virgin Mary and Jesus.

The testimony of Scripture is that Jesus is fully God and fully man. In the Incarnation, God stands in solidarity with humanity. Like all miracles, this is one we must accept by faith.

Matthew 28:19 and Granville Sharp’s Sixth Rule

2009-02-27T12:39:00.002-06:00

Does Granville Sharp’s sixth rule require Matthew 28:19 to indicate that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons?

Sharp’s sixth rule says that when nouns of the same case are joined by kai [and] and each noun is preceded by the article [the], the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality than the first noun. Here is the exact wording:

And as the insertion of the copulative kai between nouns of the same case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from the preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when each of the nouns are preceded by articles: . . .

As with some of Sharp’s other rules, there is an exception to the sixth rule. It is as follows:

Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeable to the three first rules, but appears as an exception to this sixth rule . . . the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate.

One such exception that is commonly agreed upon, and that is offered by Sharp himself, is John 20:28. In this text, Thomas says to Jesus, “Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou.” A literal translation would be “the [ho] Lord [kurios] of me [mou] and [kai] the [ho] God [theos] of me [mou].” Even though this conforms to Sharp’s sixth rule (two nouns, Lord and God, are joined by “and,” and both are preceded by the article), Sharp rightly determined that this is an exception to the rule. The reason for this is that the context clearly indicates that Thomas was speaking to one person, Jesus, and that he was identifying Jesus as both Lord and God.

The relevant phrase in Matthew 28:19 reads as follows: “eis to onoma tou patros kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos.” The literal translation would be “into [eis] the [to] name [onoma] of the [tou] Father [patros] and [kai] of the [tou] Son [huiou] and [kai] of the [tou] Holy [hagiou] Spirit [pneumatos].”

Here there are three nouns (Father, Son, and Spirit [“holy” is an adjective modifying “Spirit”), all joined by “and” and each preceded by the article. The question is whether this text qualifies for Sharp’s exception. Is there anything in the context to indicate that one person is in view rather than three?

The word “name” is a singular noun. In the Jewish mind, “name” is virtually synonymous with “person.” In other words, Jesus’ Jewish disciples would have understood Him to mean that they were to baptize believers into the “person” (God Himself) who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Some trinitarian scholars have recognized, based on the grammar of the text, that Matthew 28:19 is about a singular name. For example, J. Oliver Buswell, a Presbyterian theologian, wrote, “The ‘name,’ not ‘names’ of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in which we are to be baptized, is to be understood as Jahweh, the name of the Triune God.” F.W. Beare, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies in Trinity College, University of Toronto, in his comments on Matthew 28:19, wrote,

From Acts and the Pauline epistles, we gather that in the earliest days, converts were baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), or of “the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16); “into Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:3), or “into Christ” (Gal. 3:27). . . . The triple formulation . . . is not, properly speaking, “trinitarian”; there is no element of speculation about the divine essence or the relations between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It reflects the modes in which the divine is manifested in Christian faith.

Marvin R. Vincent wrote, “The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer . . . is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person.”

Sharp’s sixth rule (without the exception) calls for a radical distinction to be made between persons, things, or qualities. This is a grammatical device to indicate that two persons or things or qualities are in no way the same. Although trinitarianism teaches that God exists as three persons, it teaches that God is one being. The doctrine sees the three persons as being distinct, but not separate. In other words, trinitarianism does not call for the kind of radical distinction between the persons that would be required if Sharp’s sixth rule is applicable to Matthew 28:19. Sharp’s sixth rule, logically applied, would require the Father to be one being, the Son another being, and the Holy Spirit a third being. This is not what trinitarianism teaches. It would actually be tritheism.

Those who wish to apply Sharp’s sixth rule, without its exception, to Matthew 28:19 have misunderstood either the rule itself or the doctrine of the trinity. There is no indication in Granville Sharp’s Remarks that Sharp himself applied the rule to Matthew 28:19.

Since, according to the grammar of Matthew 28:19, there is but one name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that means there is but one person – one God – who is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The God that we know as the Son is the same God that we know as the Father and the same God that we know as the Holy Spirit. Sharp’s rule does not require a fragmentation of God into three radically distinct persons.

W. D. McBrayer, ed., Granville Sharp’s Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek New Testament (Atlanta: The Original Word, 1995), 25.
Ibid., 28.
J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 123.
F. W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), 545.
Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Volume 1 (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, n.d.), 149-150.

Oneness-Trinitarian Pentecostal Dialogue

2009-01-20T19:14:00.006-06:00

During the years 2002-2007, leading Oneness Pentecostal and Trinitarian Pentecostal theologians engaged in a Oneness-Trinitarian Pentecostal dialogue sponsored by the Society for Pentecostal Studies. The final report that emerged from this dialogue was published in Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, volume 30, number 2 (2008). Copies of the journal can be obtained from www.sps-usa.org.

This edition of Pneuma contains not only the final report; it also includes the following responses: James A. Johnson, the presiding bishop emeritus of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, "A Brief Oneness Pentecostal Response"; Kenneth F. Haney, the general superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International, "A Brief Oneness Pentecostal Response"; George Wood, the general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, "A Brief Trinitarian Pentecostal Response"; William W. Menzies, "A Trinitarian Pentecostal Response"; Daniel L. Segraves, "A Oneness Pentecostal Response"; Richard Shaka, "A Trinitarian Pentecostal Response"; Daniel Ramirez, "A Historian's Response"; Ralph Del Colle, "A Catholic Response"; and David Reed, "An Anglican Response."

Since I am one of the contributers, I am able to post my response here. I encourage all who are interested to read all of the articles, including Frank D. Macchia's editorial, in Pneuma.

A Oneness Pentecostal Response

Daniel L. Segraves

Introduction

Our Lord must be pleased that Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals are talking after nearly a century of virtual separation. Surely the silence of those with a common heritage, a common experience in Holy Spirit baptism, and a common sense of the eschatological significance of that experience has not pleased Him. Our differences are significant and enduring, but, as indicated in several sections of the Final Report, there is much that we share. This is cause for celebration. In 1916, we focused on those things that separated us. In 2008, we still acknowledge our distinctives, but we are seeking to understand each other even in our disagreements. Willingness to discuss Scripture in a thoughtful and respectful way is a sign of spiritual health. Nothing is to be gained by heated rhetoric. As Paul pointed out, we should be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave us (Eph 4:32).

Are risks involved in this conversation? No doubt. But some risks are worth taking. Whatever these risks may be, however, they were recognized and minimized by the goal of the dialogue, which was to gain “a clearer understanding of their positions and not the winning over of one side to the other or the adoption of a compromise position.” If we cannot talk, we cannot communicate. If we don’t communicate, there is little opportunity for old wounds to heal and healthy relationships to develop. Although no compromise is reflected in the Final Report, signs of mutual respect are evident. One such sign is seen in the joint conclusion on the baptismal formula: “Neither side compromised the respective teaching of their churches on baptism but agreed to the importance of continued discussion of the significance, mode, and formula of water baptism.” Another is seen in the joint conclusion to the discussion of Christology and the Godhead: “. . . both sides agreed that God’s nature requires additional discussion between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals.” We are separated by many years and substantial emotional distance, to say nothing of our understanding of key biblical texts. But we have started something good that must continue until we both know we have completed our task.

Comments and Recommendations
The chief purpose of the dialogue was “to allow for a clearer understanding of Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostal perspectives, including the variations possible within them, as well as both the commonalities and differences between them.” As this purpose statement indicates, it is important to note that there are variations among both Oneness and Trinitarian perspectives. The United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) cannot and does not claim to speak for all Oneness Pentecostals, and it is recognized that there are various perspectives within the UPCI. This is acknowledged in the second paragraph of the Fundamental Doctrine of the UPCI: “We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.” The merging conference of the Pentecostal Church, Incorporated (PCI) and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ (PAJC) in 1945 placed supreme value on the unity of the Spirit, abstaining from contention over divergent understanding. Oneness theology is not monolithic; neither is Trinitarian theology. As discussion continues, it will be important to maintain the attitude of mutual respect demonstrated in the opening dialogue while broadening the scope to include representation of various streams of thought. It is anticipated in the Final Report that it “would function as a launching pad for further discussion by a number of persons, from various contexts.” As this project proceeds and enlarges, we must maintain the purpose and goal of the original dialogue.

From the Oneness perspective, a significant achievement of the dialogue was the dispelling of “the idea that the Oneness/Trinitarian division had to do with a ‘new revelation’ by the Oneness intentionally proposed as an insight beyond the teaching of Scripture.” The misguided claim that Oneness Pentecostals embrace extra-biblical revelation has long served to caricature the Oneness perspective and to hinder communication with Trinitarians. As indicated in the Preamble to the Articles of Faith of the UPCI, “The Bible is the only God-given authority which man possesses; therefore, all doctrine, faith, hope, and all instruction for the church must be based upon, and harmonize with, the Bible.”

Since the purpose of baptism has been a point of disagreement, it is encouraging from the Oneness view to see that the Trinitarian team affirmed that the relationship between baptism and salvation “requires further study and discussion among Trinitarian Pentecostals” especially “in light of specific passages which appear to make a direct link between baptism and salvation . . . .” As it relates to the meaning of baptism, the Oneness team affirmed that the “complete experience of forgiveness/remission of sins comes through repentance and water baptism together. Repentance deals with a person’s sinful lifestyle, opening the door to a personal relationship with God, while baptism deals with the record and consequences of sin.” The UPCI understands Acts 2:38 to indicate that water baptism is an essential part of the experience of full salvation.

One point of tension between Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals has been the claim by some on the Oneness side that Trinitarians believe in three gods. On the other hand, some on the Trinitarian side have asserted that the Oneness view is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism reborn. The Trinitarian team affirms, “We as Trinitarian Pentecostals wish to stress that we believe in One God and not in three gods. According to Trinitarian dogma, ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ are not three ‘separate’ or in any way ‘divisible’ persons but rather three distinct but inseparable persons of one divine nature.” Dialogue will be enhanced and the Golden Rule will be obeyed if both Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals refrain from claiming that others believe something they deny. It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do. On the other hand, Oneness Pentecostals do not embrace the sequential modalism of Sabellianism, and Trinitarian Pentecostals should acknowledge this.

The Trinitarian team affirms that the words “nature” and “person,” while helpful, are fallible attempts to understand the unity and relational life of the Godhead. Indeed, it is acknowledged that there are “Trinitarian theologians who would question the use of this language to describe the life of the one God who is eternally distinct as ‘Father, Son, and Spirit,’ especially in the light of the fact that ‘persons’ in ancient Trinitarian writings did not carry the same meaning that it does today (as referring to separate and individual consciousnesses).” This affirmation is a hopeful sign for further dialogue; a great deal of the debate centers around the use of the word “person.” In their criticism of Trinitarian theology, many Oneness Pentecostals have understood the word “person” in the modern sense. They suspect that some Trinitarians who – like many Oneness Pentecostals – are not schooled in the intricate and subtle nuances of ancient Greek and Latin theologians, also understand the word in the modern sense. When the word “person” is read this way, it is difficult to see how the idea of three “persons” in the Godhead avoids tritheism. Alister E. McGrath’s simplified answer to the question, “How can God be three persons and one person at the same time?” may be helpful.

The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ‘threefoldness of God’. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ‘person’ with a different meaning. The word ‘person’ originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor’s face-mask—and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play.

By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. . . . Confusing these two senses of the word ‘person’ inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee . . . .

The Final Report points out that “the language of ‘persons’ is not sacred in Trinitarian theology.” Although there are no doubt many Trinitarian theologians who would disagree with this statement, it may provide a way forward in ongoing discussions. The question asked by the Trinitarian team concerning A. D. Urshan’s 1919 acknowledgement that there is “a mysterious, inexplicable, incomprehensible three-ness” in the “plurality of God’s mysterious Being” must be explored more fully.

In a joint affirmation, both teams “recognized that ‘Spirit baptism’ is essential to the Christian life broadly conceived, involving the entire span of one’s conformity to Christ . . . .” The issue that is still of concern as it relates to salvation “has to do with the role of speaking in tongues in conversion/initiation.” The Oneness team affirmed “that repentance, water baptism, and the baptism in the Holy Spirit are integral aspects of conversion/initiation; and that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.” As David Bernard points out, “The early Pentecostals typically used ‘conversion’ to describe the time they turned from sin and joined a Christian church, which often occurred long before they received the Holy Spirit.” In practice, some pastors in the UPCI continue to refer to repentance as conversion, although they refer to repentance, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit as full salvation, regeneration, or the new birth.

The joint conclusion on salvation includes a discussion of the significance of the term “full salvation” as found in the Fundamental Doctrine of the UPCI. It was affirmed by the Oneness team “that salvation is a process which begins with a profession of faith and repentance and that the fullness of salvation includes both water baptism in Jesus’ name and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues. Thus, they acknowledged that many people have entered into a relationship with Jesus Christ based on faith and repentance but should continue their experience to receive everything that God has commanded and provided. . . . They held that most Oneness Pentecostals do not make a strong separation between ‘salvation’ and the ‘full salvation’ but affirm the apostolic proclamation in Acts 2:38 as the New Testament message of salvation.”

A Look to the Future

Those who participated in the five-year study leading up to this Final Report are to be commended for their willingness to invest themselves in this effort. For much of the twentieth century, it seemed impossible that such an event could ever take place. This is of historic significance, it provides the possibility of the healing of wounded relationships—both personally and organizationally, and there is the potential for increased understanding not only of opposing points of view but also of Scripture. The road ahead is long, possibly filled with unforeseen obstacles, and no one knows where it will end. But it is a road worth taking, for it is always right for good and sincere people to sit together before their open Bibles, searching them as did the Bereans, asking God to guide them in their study by his Holy Spirit. I think it would be appropriate to conclude this response with words I have written elsewhere.

On a practical level, the adherents of Oneness theology face the challenge of thoroughly investigating the historic doctrine of the Trinity so as to accurately understand and represent its views rather than succumbing to popular misconceptions and misrepresentations. Only by making the effort to understand a perspective with which they do not agree can they have meaningful interaction with those who hold an opposing view.

On the other hand, it is to be hoped that those who embrace Trinitarian theology will reciprocate by carefully examining the claims of mainstream Oneness theology, even as it continues to develop, rather than focusing on abandoned extremes to justify a quick dismissal of legitimacy.

If Trinitarian and Oneness theologians can refrain from drawing caricatures of opposing viewpoints, seeking understanding and doing theology in a spirit of godly reverence and mutual respect, they may discover diminishing differences and increasing agreement on essential points. Although the two views will doubtless never coalesce, God would be honored by a decrease in heated rhetoric and an increase in prayerful and thoughtful interaction.

Notes

For some reason, I could not transfer the article's footnotes to this post. Most of the direct quotes are from the Final Report referenced above. The quote from Alister E. McGrath can be found in his Understanding the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 130-131. The quote from my work is located in Stanley M. Burgess, ed., Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity (New York and London: Routledge, 2006), 344-345.

New Book: Reading Between the Lines

2008-10-28T09:43:00.000-05:00

My newest book, Reading Between the Lines: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament, has been recently released by Word Aflame Press. It is available both in print and audio format. The book explores connections between the testaments to the biblical witness of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. These connections demonstrate the application of a method of interpretation that could be called canonical-compositional hermeneutics. Specifically, the book examines inner-textuality (where a biblical book refers back to earlier texts within the same book in an interpretive way) and inter-textuality (where later books of the Bible refer back to earlier texts in an interpretive fashion).

Did Jesus and the New Testament writers use the Old Testament in a creative way, reading new meaning into the Hebrew Scriptures, or did they correctly interpret these texts, reading them as they should be read in their final Old Testament context? The New Testament refers to the Old Testament with nearly 800 quotes, paraphrases, or allusions. The Old Testament was the only Bible of the first century church for quite a few years. The New Testament was not complete until near the end of the first century. Yet the early church was able to preach the gospel and live the Christian life based on their reading of the Old Testament. If we minimize the value of the Old Testament for the Christian faith, we may come close to the error of Marcion, who disregarded the Old Testament and purged from the New Testament all of the texts he perceived to be connected with the Hebrew Scripture. In the final analysis, Marcion reduced the Bible to an edited version of Luke and Paul's letters.

Reading Between the Lines demonstrates the value of the Old Testament for Christology. The book is available at www.pentecostalpublishing.com.

Thoughts on John 17:5

2008-08-01T20:05:00.000-05:00

In His prayer just before He was betrayed and arrested in Gethsemane, Jesus said, “And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). Do these words prove that the Son was eternally a divine person distinct from the Father?

When we consider the prayers of Jesus, we must keep in mind that His prayers are unique to the Incarnation. What this means is that we have no biblical record of the Son praying to the Father prior to the Incarnation. Although some prayers of the Messiah are recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures and specifically in the Psalms, these prayers form part of the prophetic content of the Old Testament. In other words, they do not reflect prayers that had been prayed before the text was written, nor do they provide the content of prayers being prayed at the time they were written. Instead, they are prophecies of prayers the Messiah would pray when He came into the world. For example, the words of a messianic prayer are recorded in Psalm 40:6-8a: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, ‘Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God.’” The writer of Hebrews recorded this prayer, which Jesus prayed “when He came into the world” (Hebrews 10:5). The point is that the words of the prayer were first written by David, a prophet,[1] but they were not actually prayed until Jesus came into the world as God manifest in human existence.[2]

Another example is found in Hebrews 1:6. This demonstrates that not only the prayers of Jesus, but also the words of the Father concerning the Son as they are found in the Old Testament are prophetic. According to Hebrews 1:6, God said, “Let all the angels of God worship Him [the Son[3]].”[4] But these words were not spoken by God prior to the Incarnation; they were spoken “when He again brings the firstborn into the world” (Hebrews 1:6).

John 17:5, like all of Jesus’ prayers, must be read in the context of the Incarnation. It must be taken into account that Jesus was at once both God and man. The deity and humanity of Jesus cannot be divided and considered in isolation from each other. Everything that Jesus did and said He did and said as who He was, God manifest in genuine and full human existence. Thus, when Jesus referred to “the glory which I had with thee before the world was,” these words refer to the glory that He had with His Father not as a distinct person in the Godhead, but to the glory that He had as God manifest in the flesh [human existence]. Since the Incarnation had not yet occurred before the world was, this was an anticipatory glory that was a reality to the extent that it existed already in the mind of God even though it had not yet occurred in time. This is much like John’s description of the Messiah as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). Although the word translated “slain” (esphagmenou) is a perfect passive participle, indicating that the slaying occurred in the past, Bible readers instinctively understand that this does not mean that Jesus was crucified at the time the world was created, but that His crucifixion was anticipated in the mind of God.

If Jesus’ words in John 17:5 do not take into account His humanity, that is, if they do not reflect the reality of the Incarnation, we are left with a Nestorian Jesus whose deity and humanity were not integrated in one person, but who could at one moment speak and act as a mere man with no regard for his deity and who could at the next moment speak and act as God with no regard for His humanity. In other words, when Jesus said, “I,” He referred to Himself as He really was: both God and man or the God-man. Jesus never said “I” to refer exclusively to His deity or to His humanity. In the Incarnation humanity was incorporated into the Godhead and everything Jesus said and did reflected this reality. As it has been said, we are body and soul, but Jesus is God and body and soul.

From the standpoint of Christology, what we have said here reflects the broad teaching of both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. But now we must consider whether John 17:5 can be read in a way that does not conflict with the integrity of Christ’s person.

First, even before examining the Greek text, we should ask, If Jesus was truly God, what need did He have of prayer? To some, the prayers of Jesus prove that He was not God. To others, the fact that He was God proves that His prayers were merely meant to be an example to us. But I think it is safe to say that most who believe in both the deity and humanity of Christ also believe that the prayers of Jesus were genuine and that they reflect the fact that Jesus was not only God but also man. It was not because He was God that Jesus needed to pray; it is because He was also human. In other words, Jesus prayed for the same reason we do; human beings need to pray. The fact that He was a human being in whom dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily[5] does not detract from the authenticity of His humanity. It did not render it unnecessary for Jesus to eat, sleep, or to participate in the full range of human activities. Neither did it render it unnecessary for Him to pray. This is bound up in the miracle of the Incarnation, and human attempts to explain this mystery will always fail. Miracles must be accepted for what they are; they lie completely outside the range of human understanding or explanation.

There are two words in the Greek text of John 17:5 that some insist prove that Jesus is distinct from the Father as the eternal Son. The first is eichon, translated “I had.” Since eichon is in the imperfect tense, active voice, and indicative mood (literally, “I was having”), and since the active voice means that it is the subject that is acting (in this case, Jesus), and since the indicative mood confirms the reality of the action from the viewpoint of the speaker,[6] it is claimed that this means that Jesus pre-existed the Incarnation as the eternal Son. Since He is the “doer” of the “having,” and since this was before the world was, then the Son must have possessed glory with the Father before the world was as an actual person distinct from the Father.

But if Jesus, who was both God and man, possessed glory with the Father before the world was – and He certainly did, as indicated in John 17:5 – He possessed it as who He was at the moment of His prayer: God manifest in flesh. Jesus could no more pray from the perspective of His deity while ignoring His humanity than we could pray from the perspective of the material part of our existence while ignoring the immaterial. No analogy is sufficient to explain a miracle, but Jesus cannot be bifurcated so that either His deity or humanity is irrelevant to any of His words or deeds. If before the creation of the world Jesus possessed glory with the Father as it relates to His deity, He also possessed glory with the Father at the same time as it relates to His humanity. Few would suggest that Jesus’ humanity pre-existed the Incarnation!

Those who wish to point to the imperfect active indicative form of eichon in John 17:5 to prove the eternality of the Son are reading more into the imperfect tense than is there. Although the imperfect tense expresses continuous action in the past, it says nothing about the origin or termination of the action or about how long the action continued. In other words, the imperfect tense is not an “eternal” tense. Although it does not specify the origin or termination of the action, it describes ongoing action that does indeed have a point of origin; that point is simply not within the scope of the imperfect tense. In this case, Jesus was having glory with the Father before the world was. The imperfect tense does not inform us about the beginning or duration of the possession of this glory.

To say that the imperfect tense indicates continuous action in the past is an incomplete description of its function. The imperfect may be descriptive, in that it vividly presents what was going on in the past. Like a motion picture, it shows the movement of an event. Nothing about this use of the imperfect addresses origin, ending, or even the idea of the lack of an origin or ending. On the other hand, the imperfect may be iterative, showing continual or repeated action in the past. In this case, the action occurs again and again. Then, the imperfect may be inceptive, emphasizing the beginning of the action rather than its progress.[7]

As far as the use of the imperfect is concerned, all that John 17:5 tells us is that at some point in the past, and specifically before the world was, Jesus was having glory with the Father. The verse does not tell us how long He had this glory, nor does it tell us whether He still had this glory after the creation of the world, although it may imply that He did not. Jesus did not say He was having this glory before the Incarnation. If He had said this, we could assume that the Incarnation was the reason He no longer had this glory.[8] But if the Incarnation was the reason Jesus no longer had this glory, how could the glory be restored to Him as long as the Incarnation endured (i.e., forever)?
It seems much more satisfying to understand Jesus to refer to the glory that belonged to Him in anticipation of the full range of His incarnational experiences, including not only His manifestation in the flesh, but also His death, burial, and resurrection. As Paul wrote, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead.[9] If the glory for which Jesus prayed involved both His deity and humanity, His prior possession of this glory also involved both His deity and humanity, or it would not have been the same glory.

In what sense did Jesus, as God manifest in the flesh, possess glory with the Father before the world was? The answer to this question may be found in the possible range of meaning in the words para soi, commonly translated “with thee.” The preposition para, when used in the dative case, includes the meanings “with” or “beside,” with position implied.[10] But this does not begin to exhaust the range of meaning possible with para in the dative case. Indeed, a red flag goes up immediately with the idea of physical position being indicated in Jesus’ prayer, whether one embraces a trinitarian or oneness view of God. It is widely understood that it is inadequate to think in terms of physical location or position when one thinks of God. For example, biblical scholars commonly explain references to the “right hand of God” in metaphorical terms. F. F. Bruce, for instance, comments on Hebrews 1:3:

That no literal location is intended was as well understood by Christians in the apostolic age as it is by us: they knew that God has no physical right hand or material throne where the ascended Christ sits beside Him; to them the language denoted the exaltation and supremacy of Christ as it does to us.[11]

To insist that we read para soi with its simplest and limited reference to position is to impose a literally materialistic meaning on the text. When we talk about God – again, from either a trinitarian or oneness point of view – in what sense could it be said that the Son was positioned with or beside the Father before the world was? If we go down this road, we shall soon embrace ditheism or tritheism.

But this choice is not necessary. Para, when used in the dative case, has a wider range of meaning than merely “with” or “beside.” As the Louw-Nida Lexicon points out, para with the dative includes within its range of meaning “in the opinion of,” from the viewpoint of a participant, marking a participant whose viewpoint is relevant to an event. Thus, para can be translated “in the sight of, in the opinion of, in the judgment of.”[12] Certainly Jesus, who understood more clearly than anyone that God is Spirit, did not mean by para soi that the Father has a physical location and that He, Jesus, was positioned beside the Father in that location before the world was. But nothing would prevent the translation “the glory which I had in Your sight” or “in Your opinion,” or “in Your judgment” before the world was. This avoids the problem of physical location within the Godhead and captures the essence of the same idea as Revelation 13:8. Jesus was with the Father before the world was in the same sense that He was slain from the foundation of the world. The slaying of Jesus required the Incarnation. The Incarnation did not occur in time and space until a specific date on the calendar. Yet John declared that the Lamb was slain long before this specific date. Indeed, the New Living Translation renders Revelation 13:8: “And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life, which belongs to the Lamb who was killed before the world was made.” If Jesus, the Lamb, could be killed before the world was made, He could also have glory with the Father before the world was. The one requires the other.

Jesus could say He “was having” this glory in the past just as surely as John could say He was slain in the past. That which exists in the mind of God is reality just as surely that which exists in the material world. The Lord knew Jeremiah before Jeremiah was formed in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5). He declared Cyrus to be His servant over a century before Cyrus was born (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). He renamed Abram (high father) Abraham (father of many) before Abraham had even one descendant. God can do this because he “gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did” (Romans 4:17). Jesus Himself is God. Therefore, He can say, “And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” But because He is God manifest in human existence, this prayer must be read in the context of His manifestation in the flesh. He had this glory as God manifest in the flesh. Since this did not come into existence in time and space until the Incarnation, it was an anticipated, prophetic glory, no less real than it would be when the anticipation was fulfilled.

If we read the text any other way, we are at best embracing a Nestorian Christology. At worst, we are forsaking the biblical witness to the one God in favor of a materialistic ditheism or tritheism.

When miracles are involved—like the Incarnation—rationalistic explanations can only lead us astray.

Notes
[1] See Acts 2:30.
[2] I Timothy 3:16.
[3] See Hebrews 1:2.
[4] This quote is from the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:43.
[5] Colossians 2:9.
[6] See Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1995), 11-12.
[7] See Summers, 57.
[8] See Philippians 2:5-11.
[9] Romans 1:4.
[10] To say that para is in the dative case here reflects the five case system. In terms of the eight case system, the meanings “with” and “beside” reflect the locative case.
[11] F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 7.
[12] See Louw-Nida Lexicon, Domain List 90, E, 90.20. BibleWorks 4.

On to the Dissertation!

2008-07-01T17:51:00.000-05:00

After passing the written and oral comprehensive examinations earlier this year, I am now beginning research for the dissertation in the Ph.D. in Renewal Studies program at the Regent University School of Divinity. The dissertation will be a theological biography of Andrew D. Urshan, an early to mid-twentieth century pioneer of Oneness Pentecostal theology.

New Radio Series

2008-01-18T10:46:00.000-06:00

During the months of January-April 2008, the Hope University radio program is airing my new teaching series "Finding Hope in a Broken World." The series addresses the problems of suffering and evil, including why bad things happen to good people. The lessons can be heard each Saturday at 8:30 A.M. (CST) on XM 170. They are also archived at www.thereishopefortoday.com.

Radio Programs

2007-08-01T18:08:00.000-05:00

Each weekday at 7:30 P.M. (Pacific Standard Time), the YCC Network airs "Principles for Today's Christian," featuring the Bible teaching of Daniel Segraves. You can locate the cities where this network airs and also listen online at www.kycc.org.

Daniel Segraves can also be heard each Saturday at 8:30 A.M. (Central Standard Time) on XM channel 170 during the months of May-August, 2007. The program, "Hope University," is also archived at www.thereishopefortoday.com.

My Newest Book: The Messiah in the Psalms: Discovering Christ in Unexpected Places

2007-08-01T17:33:00.000-05:00

Shortly before His ascension, Jesus explained the messianic content of the Psalms to His disciples. This opened their understanding, enabling them to comprehend the Scriptures. By implication, this means that if we are not aware of the way the Psalter testifies of the Messiah, our understanding of the Scriptures, and even of Jesus, is incomplete.

The Book of Psalms is quoted, alluded to, or paraphrased over 200 times in the New Testament. In the first Pentecostal declaration of the gospel, Peter quoted from the Psalms to point out that Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection were foretold by David. Peter’s message on the Day of Pentecost consists of twenty-six verses, twelve of which are direct quotations from the Book of Psalms or explanations of those quotations.

In The Messiah in the Psalms, Daniel Segraves explores the messianic content of the first seventy-two psalms, which comprise books one and two within the Psalter. He explains the vital role of the first two psalms as an introduction to the entire book, the important function of the superscriptions, and the significance of the psalms Jesus included in His prayers.

The Messiah in the Psalms will open your eyes to the Christology of the Book of Psalms, a Christology so thorough that it foretells the Messiah’s birth, life, sufferings, resurrection, ascension, and Second Coming. In addition, the Psalter anticipates Christ’s ascension gifts to the church and His continuing presence in the worshipping community.

Books by Daniel L. Segraves are available at www.pentecostalpublishing.com

Let Us Make Man

2005-08-26T23:57:00.000-05:00

The first time the word “God” is mentioned in Scripture (Genesis 1:1), it is translated from the Hebrew Elohim. This word, which appears 2250 times in the Old Testament, is translated “God” when used in reference to the one true God1, but it is also translated “god” when used in reference to a false god2, “gods” when referring to a multiplicity of false deities3, “god” or “gods” in reference to human beings4, “angels,”5 “judges,”6 “mighty,” in reference to a human prince7 and to thunder8, and “great,” in reference to Rachel’s competition with her sister.9

To understand how Elohim is used of the true God, it is essential to understand how it can be used in such a variety of ways. Elohim is a masculine plural noun. Eloah, the singular form of the word, appears 54 times and is also used in reference to both the true God and to false gods. Eloah is from the Hebrew El, which appears 226 times. El signifies strength and power.

The “im” ending on a Hebrew word (as in Elohim) makes the word plural, like putting an “s” on the end of many English words. But, unlike the English language, the plural form of a Hebrew word may not signify more than one. Though the Hebrew plural can certainly refer to more than one (and the Hebrew language also has a dual ending, signifying two), the Hebrew also uses plural forms when only one subject is in view, to indicate intensity (something like the “est” ending on some English words), fullness, something that flows, or multiplicity of attributes.

C.L. Seow points out that when Elohim is used “as a proper name, or when referring to Israel’s God, it is treated as singular. Elsewhere it should be translated as ‘gods.’”10 When Elohim is used of Israel’s God, “the form of the noun is plural, but the referent is singular. This is sometimes called ‘plural of majesty.’”11 Though Elohim is plural, it must be accompanied by plural modifiers and plural verb forms to function as a plural noun. If accompanied by singular modifiers and singular verb forms, it functions as a singular noun.12

Elohim can be accurately translated two ways: the singular “God” (or “god”) or the plural “gods.” If it is translated “gods,” it is referring to false gods, of which there are many. But if it is referring to the true God, it must be translated “God,” and in this case the plural form of the word must not be taken to indicate a plurality of gods, but a plurality of the majestic attributes of the one true God and that He is the supremely powerful one. The plural ending either makes a word plural, meaning more than one, or it makes a singular referent more intense. The latter is the case when Elohim refers to the one true God. Grammatically, then, Elohim does not suggest that Israel’s God is plural or more than one. If the reason for the plural ending is to indicate more than one, the word must be translated “gods.” This is not acceptable to the monotheism of the Old Testament. (See, for example, Deuteronomy 6:4.)

Whenever Elohim refers to the one true God, it is always accompanied by singular verbs, although Elohim is plural. Whenever Elohim refers to more than one false god, it is accompanied by plural verbs. This is significant. Grammatically, when Elohim refers to the one true God, the inspired use of singular verbs demands that Elohim refer to one God only, although the word is plural. If the reason Elohim is used of the true God is to indicate He is more than one, plural verbs would have to be used.

For example, in the first verse of the Bible, the third person masculine singular verb “created” is used with Elohim. Since the verb is singular, it is required that He who did the creating is singular. In this case, the only option left to explain the plural form of Elohim is that Elohim refers to the fullness and intensity of the many majestic attributes of the one true God.

In Exodus 32:4, where Elohim is used of a plurality of false gods, the verb “brought... up out” is third person common plural. The plural verb demands that Elohim be referring to more than one false god. Although in this case only one golden calf was made, it apparently represented to the Israelites the worship of cows, considered sacred by the Egyptians. Thus the one calf represented to them more than just itself; it represented the gods of the Egyptians. In Deuteronomy 4:28 a series of third person masculine plural verbs, “see,” “hear,” “eat,” and “smell,” are used to describe the inabilities of false gods (Elohim). This demonstrates that if the intention of Elohim is to indicate more than one, plural verbs will be used. If the intention of Elohim is to indicate one only, singular verbs are used.

It is helpful to note that when the inspired Greek of the New Testament quotes from an Old Testament reference where Elohim is used of the one true God, the Greek theos (God) is singular. (See Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9.) When the New Testament quotes an Old Testament reference where Elohim refers to people or false gods, the plural form of theos is used. (See Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-35 and Exodus 32:1; Acts 7:40.) The Greek language does not use plurals in the same way as the Hebrew, that is, to indicate intensity, fullness, and plurality of attributes. Since both the Hebrew and the Greek are inspired, if the point of Elohim, when used of the true God, was to indicate God is more than one, the Greek would use the plural form of the noun. The fact that the Greek uses the singular theos where the Hebrew scriptures use the plural Elohim of the true God settles any question as to the singularity of the true God. Indeed, in the example of Psalm 45:6, Elohim is used of the Messiah alone. There is only one Messiah, but the plural noun is used to indicate His immeasurable majesty.

All of this helps us to understand the plural “us” in Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8. Some might suppose that these plural pronouns indicate more than one god or that God is somehow more than one. But the grammar of the passages indicates otherwise.

In Genesis 1:26, Elohim (plural) said (third masculine singular), “Let us make13 (first person common plural) man (noun masculine singular) in our image (“image” is a masculine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix), after our likeness (“likeness” is a feminine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix).”

Grammatically, the words “make,” “us” and “our” in this verse cannot refer to Elohim alone, for the verb directly connected with Elohim (“said”) is singular. The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration means the Bible is inspired, even to its very words, and inspiration extends to every word in the Bible. This means even verb tense and number is inspired. If Elohim had intended here to include only Himself in His address, He would have used a singular verb and pronouns. If Elohim were more than one, it would be appropriate to use the plural form of “make” and the plural pronouns “us” and “our,” but in that case, the verb “said” would be plural as well.

Thus, the grammar makes clear that when the singular Elohim spoke, He included someone else in His statement. The Jewish people, who are of course strictly monotheistic, have long held that in Genesis 1:26 Elohim addressed the angels in a courteous consideration for the attendants at His heavenly court when He said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” This is not unreasonable, for Job 38:7 indicates the angels were present at creation, rejoicing in the works of God. Others suppose we should take the plural pronouns, like the plural Elohim, as a “plural of majesty.” Ezra 4:18 is appealed to for support. Here, in response to a letter, King Artaxerxes says, “The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.” The letter was to Artaxerxes alone, and in the same breath he uses both a plural and a singular pronoun of himself. Historically, kings of the earth have used plural pronouns of themselves. Perhaps that is the use the Great King makes of a plural verb and plural pronouns in the few verses of Scripture where they appear. But if so, one is left to wonder why, in thousands of cases, Elohim uses singular verbs and pronouns of Himself, and why He would use plural verbs and nouns in only four verses in the entire Bible. Why would He not use either singular verbs and pronouns exclusively or plural verbs and pronouns exclusively? The sparse use of plural verbs and pronouns must indicate some specific, limited purpose. The simplest explanation, and the one which agrees with the inspired grammar most closely, is that in these few verses Elohim is graciously including others, angelic beings, in His address. Angels did not actually make man, any more than believers today actually work miracles (see John 14:12; Matthew 10:8); God has graciously allowed us to be laborers together with Him (I Corinthians 3:9). Perhaps there is some similarity here to the way God included the angels in His work.

But regardless of the exact meaning of Genesis 1:26, it cannot mean Elohim is more than one. In Exodus 20:2, the one God of Israel declared, “I am the LORD your God.” The word “LORD” is “YHWH,” the third person singular form of the Hebrew verb “to be” (hayah). “YHWH” means “He is.” Again, a singular word is connected to Elohim, which is plural. Grammatically, the meaning of “I am the LORD your God” cannot be, “I am the ‘He is gods.’” A singular word cannot have a plural object, unless--in keeping with common Hebrew usage--the point of the plural is to indicate intensity, fullness, or multiplicity of attributes, not plurality of persons or things.

Since every verse leading up to Genesis 1:26 uses singular verbs and pronouns (see the singular pronouns in verses 5 and 10) exclusively of the creative work of God, and a singular verb (“said”) in verse 26, the introduction of a plural verb (“make”) and plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) in verse 26 must signify the fact that the singular God is including others in His address. Since there were no other intelligent beings created up until that time except the angels, His words must have been addressed to them.

Genesis 3:22 has a grammatical construction similar to 1:26. The LORD (third person singular form of YHWH) God (“Elohim”) said (third person masculine singular), “Behold, the man is become as one of us (first person common plural), to know good and evil.” Grammatically, the “us” must include someone other than God, for a plural pronoun cannot have a singular antecedent. Again, He must have included the angels in His address; they certainly were aware of matters of good and evil, since Lucifer had rebelled against God prior to this. (See Ezekiel 28:11-16.) The fact that, after His statement “man is become as one of us,” God placed cherubim (angels) at the east of the Garden of Eden with a flaming sword to prevent men from returning to the garden supports the idea that God used the plural “us” to include angels in His conversation.

The grammar of Genesis 11:6-7 is even more telling. Here, Elohim does not appear. Yahweh (translated “LORD”), whose name is the third person singular form of the verb “to be,” is recorded as having said (third person masculine singular), “Go to (second person masculine singular), let us go down (first person common plural) and there confound (first person common plural) their language.” It is fascinating to note that the word translated “go to” (havah) is an imperative, a command. It is a second person masculine singular imperative, which is understood to mean “You (second person singular) go to.” It could also be translated “come,” as in an imperative command, “You come.” The understood “you” is singular, not plural. Grammatically, at this point Yahweh is speaking to another person, giving that person a command. There is nothing here, according to the grammar, to indicate one divine Person is speaking to another. It would seem strange indeed if one divine Person commanded another divine Person to do something. Instead, Yahweh is speaking to someone else. When Yahweh says, “Let us go down,” the verb form is first person common plural. Thus, when Yahweh (the one true God whose name is a third person singular verbal form) goes down to confound the language of the people, He is accompanied by someone else. In this case, He was apparently accompanied by only one angel.

This should not be thought strange, for in Genesis 18 Abraham was visited by three “men” (verse 2), one of whom turned out to be the LORD (“Yahweh” [a theophany; God in angel form]) (verses 10, 13-15, 17) and the other two of whom were angels (verse 16; 19:1). If God wishes to be accompanied by angels in any of His activities, that is His prerogative. If He wishes to speak to them, to include them in His activity, He will doubtless use plural words to do so.

The only other case in Scripture where a plural pronoun is used in a way some think implies plurality in God is Isaiah 6:8. Here Isaiah says, “Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send (first person common singular), and who will go for us (first person common plural)?” The plural pronoun “us” cannot have the singular “I” as its antecedent. It seems apparent from the context of Isaiah 6:1-7 that there is a great deal of angelic activity in this vision. Apparently, the one true God is again including the heavenly angelic court in His address. It is significant that only He, God, does the sending, but someone is needed to go on behalf of all heaven’s inhabitants. God does not say, “Whom shall we send,” but “Whom shall I send.” The angels’ concern for God’s holiness in the context underscores the fact that Isaiah’s mission to backslidden Israel was of interest to them as well as to God. Indeed, the conversation Isaiah heard in verse 8 was apparently the Lord addressing the angels. In Isaiah 6:7, an angel speaks directly to Isaiah. There is no indication in verse 8 that the Lord was speaking directly to him. Instead, the Lord is addressing His heavenly court, and Isaiah volunteers his service. This strengthens the view that in Genesis 1:26, 3:22, and 11:7, God is addressing angels. That God does indeed address His heavenly court is indicated by I Kings 22:19-23. Here, Yahweh is sitting on His throne with all heaven’s host (angels) standing on His right and left. Yahweh asks, “Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” Various angels answered in different ways, until one came forth and stood before Yahweh and said, “I will persuade him.” Yahweh answered, “Wherewith?” The angel responded, “I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Yahweh answered, “Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.”

The grammar of Scripture is inspired. When Elohim refers to the one true God, singular verbs and pronouns are used. When the one true God reaches out to include others in His activities, plural verbs and pronouns are used. These do not indicate any plurality of gods or that the true God is more than one. “When [Elohim] refers to the God of Israel it is always singular in concept, even though it has a masculine plural ending.”14

Endnotes

1 In the first five books of the Bible, Elohim is used 682 times. In hundreds of these
references, it is to the one true God of Israel.
2 Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 32:39
3 Genesis 31:30, 32; 35:2, 4; Exodus 12:12; 18:11; 20:3, 23; 22:28; 23:13, 24, 32-33;
32:1, 4, 8, 23, 31; 34:15-17; Leviticus 19:4; Numbers 25:2; 33:4; Deuteronomy 4:28;
5:7; 6:14; 7:4, 16, 25; 8:19; 10:17; 11:16, 28; 12:2-3, 30, 31; 13:2, 6-7, 13; 17:3;
18:20; 20:18; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:18, 26; 30:17; 31:16, 18, 20; 32:17, 37.
4 Exodus 7:1; Psalm 82:6.
5 Psalm 8:5.
6 Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9.
7 Genesis 23:6.
8 Exodus 9:28
9 Genesis 30:8
10 C.L. Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987), 19.
11 Ibid.
12 Page H. Kelley, Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 32.
13 The word “make” is translated from the Hebrew asah (“to make” or “do”) as opposed to bara (“to create”). God allowed the angels to participate in the sense of asah, but not in the sense of bara.
14 Ethelyn Simon, et. al., The First Hebrew Primer for Adults, 2nd ed. (Oakland, CA:
EKS Publishing Company, 1983), 48.

Copyright © 2005 by Daniel L. Segraves

A Problem With Hebrew and Greek Fonts

2005-07-15T16:51:00.000-05:00

Please excuse any "nonsense words" in the articles posted here. I haven't figured out how to retain the Hebrew and Greek fonts when posting.

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

2005-07-15T16:39:00.000-05:00

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).

A Response to Calvin Beisner's Explanation of Acts 2:38

2005-01-03T17:34:00.000-06:00

E. Calvin Beisner in his book “Jesus Only” Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998) writes:

“Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is indispensable to remission of sins,(a) Grammatically, the command to be baptized is not connected with the promise of remission of sins. (i) The Greek verb translated repent is second person plural and in the active voice. (ii) The Greek verb translated be baptized is third person singular and in the passive voice. (iii) The Greek pronoun translated your (in “remission of your sins”) is second person plural. (iv) Therefore, the grammatical connection is between repent and for the remission of your sins, not between be baptized and for the remission of your sins” (page 58).

In response, I would like to point out that there are two things to consider in interpreting Acts 2:38. First is the textual evidence; second is the grammar.

As it relates to the textual evidence, the Textus Receptus (Received Text), upon which the King James Version and the New King James Version are based, does not include the second “your” (humon), nor does the Majority Text. The critical text followed by most modern English translations does include the second “your” in the phrase “for the remission of your sins.” This is interesting, for the critical text usually prefers the shorter reading. In this case, the longer reading is adopted by the critical text on the view that the shorter reading (without the second “your”) is “conformation to the solemn formula of the Gospels, not an original shorter reading” (see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, Corrected Edition, 1975], 301).

If the Textus Receptus and/or Majority Text reflect the original reading, there is no textual basis to suggest that the phrase “remission of sins” is connected only to repentance. But if the critical text reflects the original reading, does that connect “remission of your sins” only to repentance?

Here are the grammatical facts:

Petros [Peter] de [then] pros [to] autous [them: accusative masculine third person plural pronoun] Metanoesate [repent: aorist active imperative second person plural verb] phesin [said: present active indicative third person singular verb] kai [and] baptistheto [let be baptized: aorist passive imperative third person singular verb] hekastos [each: nominative masculine singular pronominal] humon [of you: genitive second person plural pronoun] epi [in: dative preposition] toi [the: dative neuter singular definite article] onomati [name: dative neuter singular noun] Iesou [Jesus: genitive masculine singular noun] Christou [Christ: genitive masculine singular noun] eis [for: accusative preposition] aphesin [forgiveness: accusative feminine singular noun] ton [of the: genitive feminine plural definite article] hamartion [sins: genitive feminine plural noun] humon [of you: genitive second person plural pronoun]. NOTE: This follows the critical Greek text; the second humon is not in the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text; it is found in the critical text].

Is Beisner’s claim accurate?

One wonders if he is completely convinced by his own argument, for he goes on to write: “…even if water baptism is connected with remission of sins, the sense is not that baptism is in order to obtain but rather with reference to (i.e., as a sign of, or because of) the remission of our sins. In other words, eis would denote only that baptism is related somehow to the remission of sins; it would not tell us the nature of that relationship” (page 59).

It seems that Beisner is willing to allow eis to mean “in order to obtain” only if the phrase “for the remission of sins” is connected exclusively to repentance. If it is connected to baptism, he is willing to allow only the meaning “with reference to.”

There can be no guarantee that the critical text, with its second humon, is the original text. If it is not, Beisner’s argument that remission of sins is connected only to repentance fails. But let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the critical text is the original reading.

Beisner’s argument is based on the fact that in Greek grammar, pronouns must agree with their antecedents in number. If the antecedent is plural, the pronoun must be plural. Since the command to repent is in the second person plural, and since the command to be baptized is in the third person singular, he reasons that the pronoun “your” in the phrase “for the remission of your sins” must have the command to repent as its antecedent.

His argument fails on a simple point: The pronoun “your” [humon] in the phrase “for the remission of your sins” is the second pronoun “your” [humon] in the sentence. The first humon appears in all Greek texts in the phrase “let each of you [humon] be baptized.” In this phrase, the antecedent of humon is the phrase “let each…be baptized.” In other words, even though the command to be baptized is in the third person singular, the plural humon is used to show that this command is to all of those present, even though they are addressed individually. Everything Peter said in this verse was said to “them” [autous], a third person plural pronoun. The antecedent of the first humon is singular, but it is understood as plural because it refers to all present.

It may be that Peter used the second person plural in his command to repent because the Jewish people generally thought in corporate terms; the prophets frequently called for national repentance. As a nation, the Jews had rejected Jesus. This was evident in Peter’s sermon. As a nation, they needed to repent. Of course, if the nation repented, the individuals were repenting as well. But baptism is not something that can be done corporately. It is an individual thing. Still, all of them were to be baptized. Since the first humon in Acts 2:38 refers undeniably to the command to be baptized, there is no grammatical reason that the second humon must have a different antecedent. There is no rule of Greek grammar that requires this. In fact, although the Greek language does not depend on word order to establish meaning, the ordinary connection of a pronoun would be to the closest antecedent, so long as that is grammatically possible. In this case, it is possible, and the closest antecedent is the command to be baptized.

If Beisner’s claim were accurate, and if eis does denote “in order to obtain,” as he is willing to allow so long as it is connected only with repentance, the verse would nowhere address the issue of personal, individual sin. The meaning would be something like, “Repent corporately…for the remission of your corporate sins.” There would be, in this case, no purpose at all expressed for baptism; it would simply be an individual act of obedience.

To follow Beisner’s treatment of Acts 2:38 a bit farther, he writes: “(b) The phrase for the remission of your sins need not mean ‘in order to obtain the remission of your sins.’ (i) For translates eis, a preposition with many meanings.” [At this point Beisner inserts a footnote to support his statement that eis has many meanings; the footnote points to Bauer, Lexicon, 228-30.]

As I pointed out above, this seems to indicate that Beisner is not convinced by his own argument about humon. If eis does not mean at this point “in order to obtain,” nothing in the verse is connected with the purpose of obtaining forgiveness, including repentance. In this case, would the command to repent mean something like “repent…with reference to the remission of your sins”? It is contextually evident from the general tenor of Peter’s sermon that he is commanding his hearers to take specific action that will result in the forgiveness of their sins. At the point he made his commands, their sins were not yet forgiven.

What is especially fascinating about Beisner’s last quote above is that the very reference he offers to indicate that eis need not mean “in order to obtain” specifically offers Acts 2:38 as an example of eis being used to mean “for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven.” This is an example of the use of eis “to denote purpose in order to,” according to Bauer. (See Walter Bauer, translated by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s Fifth Edition, 1958, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Second Edition [Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1979], page 229, f.)

A.T. Robertson, one of the most highly respected Greek grammarians of the twentieth century, wrote concerning the phrase eis aphesin ton hamartion humon [for the remission of your sins]: “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume III, The Acts of the Apostles [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1930], 35-36).

Robertson did not believe baptism is essential to the remission of sins, but he recognized it as a grammatical possibility in the verse. There is nothing in the verse to require the connection of the remission of sins with repentance alone.

I think Richard N. Longenecker’s statement is accurate:

“Peter calls on his hearers to “repent” (metanoesate). This word implies a complete change of heart and the confession of sin. With this he couples the call to “be baptized” (baptistheto), thus linking both repentance and baptism with the forgiveness of sins” (Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. Ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, volume 9 [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981], 283; at the time this commentary was published, Longenecker [A.B., Wheaton College; A.M., Wheaton Graduate School; Ph.D., University of Edinburgh (New College)], was Professor of New Testament, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto).

To summarize: If the second humon in Acts 2:38 is not original, Beisner’s argument ceases to exist. If it is original, there is no grammatical requirement that connects the remission of sins only to repentance. If the first humon is connected with baptism, and it is, there is no reason the second humon could not also be connected with baptism. In general, it seems best to understand everything Peter said to be addressed to the entire group present on the Day of Pentecost. All of them were to repent; each [another way of saying “all” with the emphasis on individual responsibility] was to be baptized, with both the repentance and baptism connected with the purpose of the remission of sins.

Gadamer's Hermeneutical Circle, Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics, and Paul's "Mystery of Christ"

2004-12-27T20:59:00.000-06:00

THESIS STATEMENT

There are significant points of commonality between Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle and canonical-compositional hermeneutics. This paper will explore the implications of these points of commonality for Renewal Theology.

In the first part of the paper, we will examine Gadamer’s development of Schleiermacher’s concept of the hermeneutical circle. This will include a discussion of the historicality of all understanding.

In the second part of the paper, we will define canonical-compositional hermeneutics and identify the similarities between this approach to biblical interpretation and the concept of the hermeneutical circle.

In the third part of the paper, we will examine Paul’s claim to have an understanding of the “mystery of Christ” superior to any preceding understanding (Eph 3:1-6). This will be done within the framework of the hermeneutical circle/canonical-compositional hermeneutics.

PART ONE

The idea of the hermeneutical circle as an approach to understanding is rooted in ancient rhetoric and the attempt to understand sentences. Friedrich Ast (1778-1841), F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834), and Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), hermeneuticists of Romanticism, identified the hermeneutical circle as the process of interpretation; Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) and Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) developed the implications of this idea.[1] The essence of the hermeneutical circle is the relationship between the whole and its parts. The parts cannot be understood in isolation from the whole, and the whole is understood by the coherence of the parts. As it relates to texts, interpretation moves in a circle between parts of the text and the whole text and between the whole text and parts of the text.[2] Viewed by some as a paradox, the theory of the hermeneutical circle asserts “that we cannot truly understand the text’s structural and linguistic parts except in the light of the whole, and yet we can only know the whole as it is expressed in its parts.”[3] As Gadamer points out, “this is a logically circular argument, insofar as the whole, in terms of which the part is to be understood, is not given before the part, unless in the manner of a dogmatic canon . . . or of some analogous preconception of the spirit of an age . . . .”[4]

SCHLEIERMACHER’S HERMENEUTICAL CIRCLE

In Schleiermacher’s view, context (i.e., the whole) determines the meaning of the part. This is consistent with Friedrich Ast and the traditional approach to hermeneutics and rhetoric. But Schleiermacher went beyond the tradition to include psychological understanding, understanding “every structure of thought as an element in the total context of a man’s life.”[5] Grammatical interpretation must be complemented by psychological interpretation, which explores the creative process and the subjectivity of the author. As Schleiermacher developed his perspective on the hermeneutical circle, he included in psychological interpretation “the analysis of ‘underlying’ and ‘collateral’ thoughts not fully articulated in the text.”[6] Schleiermacher’s famous statement that the aim is to understand the writer better than he understood himself[7] reflects his view that at “the psychological level . . . ‘subjective-historical’ reading reconstructs the author’s intention; but ‘subjective-divinatory’ reading projects a meaning not yet expressed in the text.”[8] The author brings to the text a holistic environment of which she is not consciously aware—an environment that includes, but is not limited to, her culture, values, and traditions—an environment that participates deeply in the shaping of meaning below, above, and around the grammatical structure of the text. Gadamer points out that for Schleiermacher, “the act of understanding [is] the reconstruction of the production. This inevitably renders many things conscious of which the writer may be unconscious.”[9]

The interpreter must put himself in the position of the author both objectively and subjectively. In order to do this, the interpreter must grasp not only the vocabulary and history of the author’s age, but also “the distinctive thought and experience of the author.”[10]

It is important to avoid a superficial view of Schleiermacher’s contrast between grammatical and psychological interpretation, for “he avoids giving absolute privilege either to focus on the text at the expense of forgetting the author, or on the author at the expense of the text. Meaning arises from the single unity of author-and-text.”[11] As Gadamer notes, “the text is revealed as a unique manifestation of the author’s life.”[12]

Thus, for Schleiermacher, the hermeneutical circle involves not only the textual journey from the part to the whole and back to the part; it also involves the psychological journey from the text to the author and back to the text. These journeys must be repeated again and again, for “the circle is constantly expanding, since the concept of the whole is relative, and being integrated in ever larger contexts always affects the understanding of the individual part.”[13] Only insignificant texts can be understood on the first reading.[14]

GADAMER’S DEVELOPMENT OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CIRCLE

Gadamer accepts as a “hermeneutical rule” the idea that “we must understand the whole in terms of the detail and the detail in terms of the whole.”[15] As an example, Gadamer offers the process of learning ancient languages. The “movement of understanding” constantly goes “from the whole to the part and back to the whole.”[16] Correct understanding is achieved when all details harmonize with the whole.

But Gadamer questions whether Schleiermacher’s hermeneutical circle is adequate. He brackets Schleiermacher’s “subjective interpretation,” denying that it is possible to “transpose ourselves into the author’s mind.”[17] Instead, “we try to transpose ourselves into the perspective within which he has formed his views.”[18] Understanding is “not a mysterious communion of souls, but sharing in a common meaning.”[19]

For Gadamer, Schleiermacher’s view of the objective side of the hermeneutical circle also is inadequate. Schleiermacher’s universalizing of historical consciousness in favor of a vain attempt at objectivity denies any validity to tradition as a basis for hermeneutical activity.[20] Although Schleiermacher was able to harmonize his hermeneutical circle with the ideal of objectivity seen in the natural sciences, it was at the expense of ignoring the “concretion of historical consciousness in hermeneutical theory.”[21] It is impossible for us to “be in the situation of a contemporary reader.”[22]

Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle is not formal; neither is it subjective nor objective. Instead, the circle describes “understanding as the interplay of the movement of tradition and the movement of the interpreter.”[23] We bring to the text an anticipation of meaning that proceeds from common tradition; this is not subjectivity. Tradition is not static; the interpreter participates in the development of tradition to the extent that he understands the text. Rather than being a methodological circle,[24] the hermeneutical circle has to do with the “ontological structure of understanding.”[25] Gadamer’s interest was not in developing a procedure of understanding, “but to clarify the conditions in which understanding takes place.”[26] For him, the essence of understanding is content-oriented, not author-oriented.[27] This is not only because it is impossible for us authentically to enter into the psyche of the author, but also because the meaning of a text always goes beyond its author.[28] This is not, as Schleiermacher suggests, better understanding, but understanding in a different way.[29]

THE HISTORICALITY OF ALL UNDERSTANDING

The psychological side of Schleiermacher’s hermeneutical circle calls for historical identity with the text’s author. This is a call to forsake the interpreter’s world for the world of the author; it is, in a sense, an attempt to be the author in the reproduction of the text. Further, it is an attempt to avoid all prejudices in approaching the text. For Gadamer, this is impossible. Prejudice is not inherently problematic. Indeed, “all understanding inevitably involves some prejudice.”[30] It is the Enlightenment’s prejudice that is problematic, “the prejudice against prejudice itself, which denies tradition its power.”[31]

In Gadamer’s view, the idea that temporal distance is something that must be overcome (i.e., by entering in to the world of the author) is “the naïve assumption of historicism.”[32] Rather than thinking that “we must transpose ourselves into the spirit of the age, think[ing] with its ideas and its thoughts, not with our own, and thus advanc[ing] toward historical objectivity,” we must acknowledge that “the important thing is to recognize temporal distance as a positive and productive condition enabling understanding.”[33] This is because
[e]very age has to understand a transmitted text in its own way, for the text belongs to the whole tradition whose content interests the age and in which it seeks to understand itself. The real meaning of a text, as it speaks to the interpreter, does not depend on the contingencies of the author and his original audience. It certainly is not identical with them, for it is always co-determined also by the historical situation of the interpreter and hence by the totality of the objective course of history.[34]

Gadamer rejects historicism in favor of “effective history” (Wirkungsgeschichte), which has to do with the effect of the interpreter’s history on the interpreter. This is an effect produced by vocabularies, plots, sets of issues, and our “thrownness” into the narrative of life itself.[35] The hermeneutical circle is historical not in the sense that it moves only between the text and ancient history, as in Schleiermacher, but in that “our understanding is oriented by the effective history or history of influences of that which we are trying to understand.”[36] Because history is not monolithic and our temporal position is constantly changing, the image of the hermeneutical circle captures not merely the circularity of understanding, but also the temporality of understanding. “Questions change and become part of different questions.”[37]

When a reader comes to a text, two horizons are in view: The horizon of the text and the horizon of the reader. “The horizon is the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular vantage point.”[38] Ones horizon does not limit vision to what is nearby. “A person who has an horizon knows the relative significance of everything within his horizon, whether it is near or far, great or small.”[39]

Historicism claims to “see the past in its own terms, not in terms of our contemporary criteria and prejudices but within it own historical horizon.”[40] This is impossible. Instead of forming one horizon from the two, the horizon the reader and of the text must be fused.[41] “The hermeneutic task consists not in covering up this tension by attempting a naïve assimilation of the two but in consciously bringing it out.”[42] To Gadamer, this is an “historically effected consciousness.”[43] On the other hand, when Gadamer says that the “text that is understood historically is forced to abandon its claim to be saying something true,”[44] he means that when meaning is limited to the historical horizon (i.e., when the attempt is made to enter fully and exclusively into the mind of the author in order to determine authorial intent and to read the text precisely and only as the author did), the text says nothing true to the reader in his horizon. It is impossible to read a text in a completely objective way. Thus, a claim to objectivity involves a misreading of the text by an imposition of meaning upon the text.

PART TWO

In the view of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, the final shape of the Tanak is intentional, informative, and part of the process of inspiration.[45] 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.[46]

The compositional strategies of the biblical books offer essential clues to the author’s intended 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.[47]

There is no consensus as to the definition of canonical criticism,[48] but scholars working in this field agree that “the context of the final canon is more important than the original author.”[49] 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.[50]

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.”[51] Those involved in the preservation of literary tradition shaped the text in such a way that the shape influences interpretation.

The question at hand in this paper has to do with the extent of correlation between canonical-compositional hermeneutics and Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle. It is to that question that we now turn.

COMMONALITIES BETWEEN GADAMER’S HERMENEUTICAL CIRCLE AND CANONICAL-COMPOSITIONAL HERMENEUTICS

The following points of correlation may be seen between Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle and canonical compositional hermeneutics:

(1) The whole must be understood in terms of the detail and the detail in terms of the whole. The “movement of understanding” constantly goes “from the whole to the part and back to the whole.”[52] Correct understanding is achieved when all details harmonize with the whole.

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.[53] “Inner-textuality” has to do with the “strategies within the smallest units of text [that] make up the whole fabric of biblical narrative books.”[54] There is an “inner-linkage binding narratives into a larger whole.”[55] This calls for alertness to “clues lying along the seams of . . . larger units that point to the author’s ultimate purpose.”[56] “Inter-textuality” is concerned with “the study of links between and among texts.”[57] 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.”[58] “Con-textuality” has to do with “the semantic effect of a book’s relative position within the OT Canon.”[59] What interpretive effects do the books of the Bible have on each other?

Like Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle, canonical-compositional hermeneutics go from the whole to the detail and back to the whole, seeking to harmonize the results of “in-textuality,” “inner-textuality,” “inter-textuality,” and “con-textuality.” Correct understanding is not achieved until all details are harmonized.

(2) It is impossible to “transpose ourselves into the author’s mind.”[60] Instead, “we try to transpose ourselves into the perspective within which he has formed his views.”[61]

Canonical-compositional hermeneutics are not concerned to establish a psychological dimension of the hermeneutical circle. The issue is the text itself, not the author of the text. We can gain the perspective within which the author formed his views, but we can do this only by reading the text itself.

(3) To attempt to be in the situation of a contemporary [original] reader is impossible, for this would ignore “the concretion of historical consciousness.”[62]

Canonical-compositional hermeneutics make no attempt to be in the situation of the original reader, not only because that would ignore “the concretion of historical consciousness,” but also because the view that the Scriptures in their canonical form are the result of composition over the entire era during which they were given means that the Scriptures read by the original readers (i.e., the first readers) were not at that time in the shape in which we now have them. Since they were not originally in the shape in which they now exist (i.e., with editorial, compositional, and redactional work done after the original manuscripts were written), no reader before the final compositional work was done could read them in the full context they eventually assumed. Meaning is determined by context.

We may, for example, question whether the original readers of Hos 11:1 would have understood that text to refer to Jesus’ return from Egypt as a boy upon the death of Herod. But that is how Matthew understood the verse (Matt 2:15). Matthew was apparently influenced in his interpretation of Hos 11:1 by textual links back to the Pentateuch. These links may not have been apparent to those who first read Hosea in isolation from the rest of the Hebrew canon, to say nothing of the unavailability of the New Testament canon with its interpretive influence on the Hebrew text.[63]

(4) The hermeneutical circle describes “understanding as the interplay of the movement of tradition and the movement of the interpreter.[64]

Gadamer includes in “tradition” the interpretational movements in various communities that serve to influence the prejudices we bring to the text. The “movement of the interpreter” refers to the ongoing revision that occurs in the interpretational process as the interpreter, influenced by the movement of tradition, becomes more fully aware of meaning.

In his “text model of the Old Testament,” Sailhamer offers three components in defining the final shape of the text. They are: “(1) the notion of the composition of a specific biblical text; (2) the notion of the canonical shaping of biblical texts and its influence on communities; (3) the notion of the consolidation of a text within a specific community.”[65] Thus, because the text was shaped in various ways in different communities,[66] a variety of traditions arose to influence meaning.[67] An example of this may be seen in a comparison of the Hebrew text with the Septuagint.[68]

(5) We bring to the text an anticipation of meaning that proceeds from common tradition.

Those who follow a canonical-compositional approach to the interpretation of Scripture bring to the text the anticipation that it is inspired of God (2 Tim 3:16) and that it thus speaks authoritatively. Further, they bring the anticipation that the Hebrew Scriptures, by their composition and shape, point ahead to the Messiah rather than merely pointing back to Israel’s history.

(6) The essence of meaning is content-oriented, not author-oriented.[69]

Canonical-compositional hermeneutics is concerned with the text, or the content, of Scripture, not with identifying the author. Thus, like Gadamer, this approach to interpretation has little interest in any attempt to reconstruct the psychology of the author. Nor is it interested in attempts to reconstruct the history behind the text. It is the text that is inspired, not the events behind the text.

(7) The meaning of a text always goes beyond its author.[70]

From the perspective of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, meaning developed as context developed. This means those who wrote earlier in the process of the development of Scripture could not have a full grasp of meaning that would be evident only when what they wrote became part of a greater whole. This does not mean their understanding would have been wrong; it means only that it would not have been exhaustive.

For example, the appendix to Deuteronomy (Deut 33-34), written by an anonymous author after Moses’ death, serves to give further shape and meaning to the Pentateuch beyond the shape and meaning it had when Moses completed his part of the project. The final four verses of the Pentateuch (Deut 34:9-12) serve the interpretive purpose of informing the reader that, although Joshua was full of the spirit of wisdom, he was not the promised prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15-10), nor were any of the prophets after Joshua until the closing words of Deuteronomy were written; that prophet was yet to come.[71]

(8) It is impossible to avoid prejudices in approaching a text.

With Gadamer, practitioners of canonical-compositional hermeneutics recognize the unavoidable prejudices involved in interpretation, although they may not use this terminology. There is the assumption, or prejudice, that the final canonical shape of Scripture is intentional and informative. From this prejudice, the interpreter is led to look intentionally for clues to the reason for this shape.[72]

(9) It is counterproductive to view temporal distance as something that must be overcome.[73]

For canonical-compositional hermeneutics, what we need to know to understand the text is found in the text itself. One reason temporal distance is not viewed as a problem to be overcome is that the Hebrew Bible is both text and commentary.[74] By interpreting earlier texts, later authors provide their own bridge across any hermeneutical chasm.

(10) In the process of understanding, two horizons are in view: The horizon of the text and the horizon of the reader. These horizons must be fused.[75]

From the perspective of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, the writers of Scripture could understand only from their situation. Thus, the horizon of the writer of any text was limited to the context of that time, but there is a broader horizon of the entire Hebrew Bible and the even broader horizon of the Christian canon. Gadamer’s philosophy of hermeneutical horizons underscores canonical-compositional hermeneutics, for the latter recognizes the ever-expanding horizon of Scripture as well as the horizon brought to the Scripture by the reader. The horizon brought by the reader includes the historically effected consciousness, a consciousness effected by the historical reading of the text in the church from its earliest days. Specifically, until the Enlightenment era, the rich depth of the messianic focus of the Hebrew Scriptures was embraced readily by the theologians of the church in a way quite similar to current practitioners of canonical-compositional hermeneutics.[76] This messianic focus mirrored the use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament, to which we now turn.

PART THREE

In the New Testament, Paul professed to have a fuller understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures than was enjoyed by the original writers of those Scriptures. This suggests the validity of the idea that the part must be interpreted in view of the whole. Paul could understand only from his situation, or from his hermeneutical horizon, but his horizon was wider than that of the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, not only because he possessed something never possessed by any but the final writers of the Hebrew Scriptures – the entire Hebrew canon – but also because his horizon included the knowledge that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah and a fullness of the Holy Spirit never enjoyed by those who lived before the era of the New Covenant (Acts 9:17). But his horizon extended even beyond this to include the portion of the New Testament that was written during his lifetime.

PAUL AND THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST

Paul professed that the stewardship of the grace of God had been given to him which involved a revelation of the mystery of Christ that “in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Eph 3:2-5). This mystery involved the Gentiles sharing fully with Jewish believers, as members of the same body, partaking “of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Eph 3:6).

It is evident that this revelation was not something given by God to Paul apart from the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, this revelation was not something diverse from and superior to Scripture. It was not something that was unanticipated in Scripture. We know this because Paul’s ministry, from the very beginning, is rich in the use of the Hebrew Scriptures to proclaim Christ as the promised Messiah and the work being done by Christ in the church as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy. The revelation was not, therefore, something radically new; it was a perspective on the Hebrew Scriptures not fully enjoyed by those who wrote them or by those who interpreted them prior to the era of the New Covenant.

This view of Paul’s revelation differs sharply from the early dispensationalism of C. I. Scofield, whose comment on Ephesians 3:5-10 includes the claim that “the church is not once mentioned in Old Testament prophecy.”[77] Although this view has been softened by adherents of Progressive Dispensationalism,[78] those who embrace Scofieldian dispensationalism continue to insist that “no revelation of this mystery was given in the Old Testament but that this mystery was revealed for the first time in the New Testament.”[79]

It is perhaps no surprise that dispensationalism denies any anticipation of the church in the Hebrew Scriptures; that is the nature of the system. But even F. F. Bruce, in his comments on Eph 3:5, asserts that although the Hebrew Scriptures anticipated blessing of God upon the Gentiles, the fact that this “blessing of the Gentiles would involve the obliteration of the old line of demarcation which separated them from Jews and the incorporation of Gentile believers together with Jewish believers” was something that “had not been foreseen.”[80] A. Skevington Wood, however, sees the revelation as a matter of degree: “Although the blessing of the Gentiles through the people of God was revealed in the OT from Genesis 12:3 onward, it was not proclaimed so fully or so extensively as under the new dispensation.”[81]

None of these views, however, address the possibility that the mystery described by Paul was indeed found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but that the reason it was “not made known to the sons of men” (Eph 3:5) was that the limited horizon available prior to the era of the New Testament prohibited the fuller understanding now available to Paul as well as to all of the holy apostles and prophets. That this is at least a possibility is evident not only from Paul’s Christological use of the Hebrew Scriptures but also from his ecclesiological use of the Old Testament. Again, the point may be that his revelation was not something new but that it was a wider and deeper grasp of what had already been revealed in Scripture. Otherwise, we would expect Paul to make no appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures in his declaration of the gospel, including the union of Gentiles and Jews into one body. But this is not the case. Paul roots his teaching exclusively in the Scriptures.

Paul declared that what he believed was that which was written in the Law and the Prophets (Acts 24:14). He had done nothing offensive against the law of the Jews or the temple (Acts 25:8). He was called before Agrippa “for the hope of the promise made by God to [the] fathers” (Acts 26:6). In a very clear appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures for his message, including the inclusion of Gentiles equally with the Jews, Paul told Agrippa that he said nothing other than those things “which the prophets and Moses said would come—that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22-23). Rather than claiming innovation for his message, Paul insisted that he said nothing new.[82] After arriving in Rome, Paul told the Jewish community there that he had done nothing against the Jewish people or the fathers (Acts 28:17). Instead, he was bound “for the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). He “explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets” (Acts 28:23).

When he wrote to the believers at Rome, a church that included Jews and Gentiles, Paul declared that the gospel of God was that “which he promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:1-2). The Law and the Prophets witness to the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ “to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference” (Rom 3:21-22). The letter to the Romans is a church letter; Paul establishes the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church from the Hebrew Scriptures. The fact that Abraham was justified before circumcision was for the purpose of demonstrating that Gentiles, not only Jews, are the recipients of imputed righteousness (Rom 4:11). Abraham is equally the father of believing Gentiles as well as of believing Jews (Rom 4:16-18). Hosea and Isaiah both anticipated the inclusion of believing Gentiles (Rom 9:24-29). Even Moses wrote about the righteousness of faith wherein there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Rom 10:5-12), as did Joel (Rom 10:13).[83] In an extended appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures to demonstrate the inclusion of Gentiles, Paul indicates that this inclusion “confirm[s] the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8-12, 21). As he concludes the letter, Paul writes that the gospel he preaches—which is identical with “the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began”—is made known to all nations “by the prophetic Scriptures” (Rom 16:25-26). This can only mean that the message he preached in the churches was firmly rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul explained that he spoke “the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages” (1 Cor 2:7). But this mystery was anticipated in the Hebrew Scriptures (1 Cor 2:9). It had now been revealed to Paul “through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes the deep things of God” (1 Cor 2:10). The story of Israel’s journey through the wilderness was written for the benefit of the church (1 Cor 10:6, 11). The essential gospel message is “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4).

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains that those who read the Hebrew Scriptures while rejecting Christ are hindered by a veil; their minds are blinded (2 Cor 3:14). Isaiah prophesied of the church age, the “day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2). Ezekiel anticipated the way God would dwell in the church (2 Cor 6:16). Even the Pentateuch called for the church to be holy (1 Cor 6:17-18). That these Hebrew Scriptures belong to the church is quite clear when Paul immediately follows these references with these words: “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (1 Cor 7:1).

In his letter to the believers in Galatia, Paul declared that the Hebrew Scriptures foresaw “that God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal 3:8a). By doing so, the Scripture “preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand” (Gal 3:8b). In receiving “the blessing of Abraham,” Gentiles are also receiving “the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal 3:14). When “the Scripture . . . confine[s] all under sin,” Gentiles are included along with Jews, so “that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal 3:22). Thus, “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). To be Christ’s is to be Abraham’s seed “and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). If Gentiles in the church are heirs of a biblical promise, it is difficult to say that the Old Testament in no way anticipated the church.

To the Ephesians, Paul wrote that God had made known to him “the mystery of His will” which involved the “gather[ing] together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in him” (Eph 1:9-10). We come now to Paul’s discussion of the revelation of “the mystery . . . which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Eph 3:3-6). In view of all that precedes this canonically, it is difficult to read this to mean that the Hebrew Scriptures include nothing about the Gentiles becoming fellow heirs.[84] Indeed, Paul in the very next chapter quotes Ps 68:18 to explain the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to the church (Eph 4:7-14). We can certainly question whether the author of Ps 16 or even the final composer of the Psalter understood Ps 68:18 as a reference to the ascension gift ministries, but Paul’s horizon was broader than theirs. He lived in the era of fulfillment and of the Spirit, an era that released the text of the Hebrew Scriptures to a dimension of fullness unavailable to those with a limited horizon. This does not mean that the author of Ps 68 or the composer of the Psalter were wrong; it means that there was a depth of meaning in the text that awaited fulfillment to be fully released. Since Paul uses the psalm this way in the same letter where he discusses the revelation of mystery, it is apparent that he does not mean that the mystery is not based on Scripture. He even sees Gen 2:24, a statement that in isolation sees to refer only to the marriage relationship, as “a great mystery” that “concern[s] Christ and the church” (Eph 5:31-32).

Again in his letter to the Colossians, Paul discusses “the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints” (Col 1:26). This is the same mystery Paul has in view in his letter to the Ephesians; it concerns “the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27). But again Paul refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as the source of this mystery. Specifically, he sees the regulations concerning food, drink, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths—all integral to the Law of Moses—as being “shadow[s] of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Col 2:16-17).

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul describes the church as “the house of God . . . the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It would seem strange to think that such a high evaluation would be made of an institution that has no place in the Hebrew Scriptures. In his second letter to Timothy, Paul declares that the Holy Scriptures—the Hebrew Scriptures that Timothy has known from childhood—“are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15). It is precisely these Scriptures which are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). If the Hebrew Scriptures are profitable for church doctrine, for the reproof, correction, and instruction of church members, and if they are capable of bringing a man of God who is in the church to completion, they surely are not bereft of any reference to the church. Before closing his letter, Paul appeals to Timothy for “the books, especially the parchments” (2 Tim 4:13). No doubt these parchments were Old Testament Scriptures written on leather scrolls.[85] If the Hebrew Scriptures contained nothing specific to the church, one wonders why Paul wished to have them as desperately as he wished to have his cloak.

Interpretations of Ephesians 3:5 that focus only on exegesis of the immediate context miss the influence on understanding available from the broader horizon of the use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament and specifically from Paul’s consistent Christological and ecclesiological use of the Old Testament.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial commonality between Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle and canonical-compositional hermeneutics. An exploration of Gadamer’s philosophical approach to understanding can contribute to and enhance the current development of canonical-compositional hermeneutics. Specifically, both approaches to understanding seek to understand the whole in terms of the detail and the detail in terms of the whole. Neither is consumed with attempts to enter the mind of the author or original reader. There is an interplay between the movement of tradition (as understanding is influenced by the development of interpretation throughout church history) and the movement of the interpreter (as the interpreter develops in understanding). The interpreter brings to the text an anticipation of meaning. This is the anticipation that the text should be read Christologically and ecclesiologically. For both hermeneutical approaches, meaning is found in the content, not in the author’s mind. Meaning goes beyond the author’s intention, for the author’s horizon was limited to his situation; he did not have available to him the broader horizon of the interpreter. Prejudices are embraced when approaching the text, prejudices that are shared by the writers of the New Testament. The temporal distance between the text and the interpreter is not seen as a problem; the text interprets itself, bridging the distance. The horizons of the text and of the reader must be fused. As Gadamer points out, this “is the problem of application, which is to be found in all understanding.”[86] As it relates to canonical-compositional hermeneutics, the Hebrew Scriptures are applied to Christ and to the church.

Paul’s use of the Old Testament demonstrates the validity of the approach to understanding characterized by Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle and canonical-compositional hermeneutics. Because his horizon has been widened by his personal encounter with Jesus Christ, because he enjoys the fullness of the Spirit, and because he has access to the entire Hebrew canon, he reads the Hebrew Scriptures in a way they could not be read by those who rejected Christ or by those to whom only portions of the text were available. This was not unique to Paul. As he affirmed, the revelation of the mystery of Christ “has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Eph 3:5). His approach to the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures is mirrored by all of the New Testament writers.[87]

Theoretically, it may be possible to say that we are in a better position to understand both the Old and New Testaments than were the writers of either testament, because our horizon includes the perspective of the New Testament writers on the Old Testament, a horizon unavailable to the writers of the Old Testament, and because we have access to a wholeness or fullness of written revelation, including the New Testament, that the writers of the New Testament never enjoyed. Our horizon is widened not only by the complete canon, but also by the fullness of the Spirit and by the effect of the history of Christian interpretation and the impact of Scripture on the church.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barr, James. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. Reprint, Revised and Enlarged.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Edited by John F. and Roy B. Zuck Walvoord. New Testament ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1983.

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

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

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Edited by Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 1984.

The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer. Edited by Robert J. Dostal. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

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

Cotterell, Peter and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. 12 vols. Vol. 11. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. Second Revised ed. New York: Continuum, 1998.

Goldingay, John. Models for Scripture. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1994.

Hall, Christopher A. Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Hasel, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. Fourth ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1995.

Holmgren, Fredrick C. The Old Testament and the Significance of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1999.

Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

Lubeck, Ray. “An Introduction to Canonical Criticism.” Paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society Papers, Portland, Ore. 1995.

New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Sinclair B. and David F. Wright Ferguson. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Palmer, Richard E. Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Edited by John Wild, Northwestern University Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1969.

Pinnock, Clark H. The Scripture Principle. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984.

Rajan, Tilottama. “Hermeneutics.” No pages. Cited 26 November 2004. Online: http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide-to_literary_theory/hermeneutics-_1.html.

Rendtorff, Rolf. Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1993.

Ricoeur, Paul. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Translated by John B. Thompson. Edited by John B. Thompson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Reprint, 1992.

Sailhamer, John H. “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15.” WTJ, no. 63 (2001): 87-96.

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

________. “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible.” JETS 44, no. 1 (2001): 5-24.

Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

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

Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1980. Reprint, 1993.

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Second Revised ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992.

Tracy, David. The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism. New York: Crossroad, 1981.

Wright, Christopher J. H. Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Zimmermann, Jens. Recovering Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theory of Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.

ENDNOTES

[1] A. C. Thiselton, “Hermeneutics,” New Dictionary of Theology (ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 295; Adrian Snodgrass and Richard Coyne, “Is Designing Hermeneutical?” Architectural Theory Review, Journal of the Department of Architecture, The University of Sydney, vol. 1, no. 1 (1997): p. 72, n. 33.
[2] Brice Wachterhauser, “Getting it Right: Relativism, Realism and Truth,” in The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer (ed. Robert J. Dostal; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 77-78, n. 4.
[3] Tilottama Rajan, “Hermeneutics,” in The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism (ed. Michael Groden and Martin Kreiswirth), n.p. [cited 26 November 2004]. Online: http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide-to_literary_theory/hermeneutics-_1.html.
[4] Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall; 2nd rev. ed.; New York: Continuum, 1998), 190.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Rajan, “Hermeneutics,” n.p.
[7] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 192. This statement is not original with Schleiermacher, although he invests it with new meaning (Ibid., 194-95).
[8] Rajan, “Hermeneutics,” n.p. Emphasis in original.
[9] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 192.
[10] Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 221.
[11] Ibid., 232. Emphasis in original.
[12] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 191.
[13] Ibid., 190.
[14] Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, 221.
[15] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 291.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid., 292.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid., 293.
[22] Ibid., 266, n. 187.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Gadamer rejected any “methodological” approach to understanding.
[25] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 293.
[26] Ibid., 295.
[27] Ibid., 294.
[28] Ibid., 296.
[29] Ibid., 296-97.
[30] Ibid., 270.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid., 297.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid., 296.
[35] Georgia Warnke, “Hermeneutics, Ethics, and Politics,” in The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer (ed. Robert J. Dostal; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 80.
[36] Ibid., 81.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 302.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid., 302-03.
[41] Ibid., 306.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid., 307.
[44] Ibid., 303.
[45] 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 and “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. 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.
[46] 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.
[47] John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology, 154.
[48] Canonical criticism is essentially the same hermeneutical approach as canonical-compositional hermeneutics.
[49] Ray Lubeck, “An Introduction to Canonical Criticism,” Evangelical Theological Society Papers 1995 (Portland, Ore.: Theological Research Exchange Network), 3. Emphasis in original.
[50] Ibid., 1-2.
[51] Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992; reprint 1993), 70.
[52] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 291.
[53] John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), 207. A discussion of these concepts is included in the author’s paper “This is That: An Examination of Peter’s Use of Joel from the Perspective of Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics” referred to in note 45. It is included here because it is necessary to demonstrate the commonalities between Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle and canonical-compositional hermeneutics.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid., 209.
[56] Ibid., 210.
[57] 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).
[58] Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology, 213.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid., 292.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid., 293, 266, n. 187.
[63] John H. Sailhamer explores this idea in “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15,” WTJ 63 (2001): 87-96. Sailhamer comments, “[T]he sensus literalis (historicus) of Hos 11:1 is precisely that of Matthew’s gospel. Hos 11:1 speaks of the future, not the past. . . . The messianic sense that Matthew saw in the words of Hos 11:1, ‘out of Egypt I have called my son,’ was already there in the book of Hosea. Matthew did not invent it” (88-89).
[64] Ibid., 266, n. 187.
[65] John H. Sailhamer, “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Scott J. Hafemann; Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2002), 27.
[66] Emanuel Tov discusses the variations in the text of Jeremiah, indicating that each shape was used by a different community. (See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2001], 320-321.)
[67] Sailhamer, “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible,” 27-32.
[68] With the finalization of the form of the Hebrew text by the Masoretic (“traditionalist”) scribes in about A.D. 1000, there arose a series of Jewish commentators who determined the meaning of the Hebrew text for the Jewish communities. One of the most influential of these commentators was Rashi, who was born in about A.D. 1040. Rashi did not believe that the Messiah had come. During this time of the Crusades, European Jews were being forced to convert to Christianity. Rashi’s mission was to give the Jewish people a biblical ground to resist conversion to Christianity. The way he chose to do this was to take passages that could be understood messianically and to explain them in light of some historical figure. He identified messianic prophecies as being fulfilled by David or Solomon. Rashi did this by introducing glosses in the margins of the Hebrew text with these interpretations. Rashi’s interpretation was called the Peshat, the Hebrew word that means “simple.” According to Erwin Rosenthal, a leading Rashi scholar of the twentieth century, Rashi was willing to sacrifice messianic hope to resist Christian interpretation. Sailhamer discusses Rashi’s influence in Introduction to Old Testament Theology, 132-142.
[69] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 294.
[70] Ibid., 296.
[71] See John H. Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” JETS 44:3 (2001), 5-23.
[72] See Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. John Bowden; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1991).
[73] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 297.
[74] Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” n.p.
[75] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 306.,
[76] See, e.g., Christopher A. Hall, Reading Scripture With the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998); Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988); Fredrick C. Holmgren, The Old Testament and the Significance of Jesus: Embracing Change—Maintaining Christian Identity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999).
[77] C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth . Cited 2 December 2004. Online: http://www.raptureme.com/resource/scofield/s1.htm.
[78] See, e.g., Robert L. Saucy, “The Church as the Mystery of God,” Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 127-155.
[79] Harold W. Hoehner, “Ephesians,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty (ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck; New Testament edition; Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Book, 1983), 629.
[80] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (ed. Gordon D. Fee; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 314.
[81] A. Skevington Wood, “Ephesians,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1(ed. Frank. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 45.
[82] See also Acts 26:27.
[83] See also Rom 10:19-21.
[84] The New Scofield Study Bible comments on Eph 3:6: “That Gentiles were to be saved was no mystery . . . . The mystery ‘hidden in God’ was the divine purpose to make of Jew and Gentile a wholly new thing—‘the church, which is His [Christ’s] body,’ . . . and in which the earthly distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears . . . .” (C. I. Scofield, ed., The New Scofield Study Bible: New King James Version [Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989], 1437, n. 2). But we have seen several places where Paul appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures to establish this very point.
[85] Ralph Earle, “2 Timothy,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1(ed. Frank. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 415.
[86] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 307.
[87] For example, Peter sees the establishment of the church on Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21). James sees the inclusion of Gentiles in the church as having been anticipated by Amos (Acts 15:13-18). The author of Hebrews weaves texts from the Hebrew Scriptures throughout the letter to indicate that Christology and ecclesiology are rooted in the Old Testament.

Copyright 2004 by Daniel L. Segraves

This is That: An Examination of Peter's Use of Joel from the Perspective of Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics

2004-12-27T13:04:00.000-06:00

THESIS STATEMENT

In the view of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, the use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament represents the literal meaning of the Old Testament, a meaning intended by the Old Testament authors.[1] If this is the case, Joel intended his prophecy in Joel 2:28-32[2] to include the events of the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.[3] This paper will explore the possibility that the use of Joel by Peter as reported by Luke in Acts 2:16-21 is more than sensus plenior,[4] double reference,[5] or midrashic application.[6] It will seek to answer this question: Did Peter read Joel as Joel intended to be read, or did Peter read meaning into Joel that Joel never intended? This will be a primary step in examining the possible significance of canonical-compositional hermeneutics for renewal theology.

CANONICAL-COMPOSITIONAL HERMENEUTICS

Canonical-compositional hermeneutics view the final shape of the Tanak as intentional, informative, and part of the process of inspiration. In contrast to historical criticism, canonical-compositional hermeneutics do not rely on the events behind the text to determine meaning; meaning is found in the text itself.[7]

John H. Sailhamer, a leading proponent of compositional hermeneutics, urges the “return to the notion that the literal meaning of the OT may . . . be linked to the messianic hope of the pre-Christian, Israelite prophets.”[8]

“By paying careful attention to the compositional strategies of the biblical books themselves, we believe in them can be found many essential clues to the meaning intended by their authors—clues that point beyond their immediate historical referent to a future, messianic age. By looking at the works of the scriptural authors, rather than at the events that lie behind their accounts of them, we can find appropriate textual clues to the meaning of these biblical books. Those clues . . . point to an essentially messianic and eschatological focus of the biblical texts. In other words, the literal meaning of the Scripture . . . may, in fact, be the spiritual sense . . . intended by the author, namely, the messianic sense picked up in the NT books.”[9]

Although there is no consensus as to the definition of canonical criticism,[10] scholars working in this field agree that “the context of the final canon is more important than the original author.”[11] 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.[12]

Brevard Childs asserts that “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.”[13] Those who were involved in the preservation of literary tradition shaped the text in such a way that the shape influences interpretation.[14]

The question for canonical-compositional hermeneutics in this paper has to do with the extent of correlation between Joel and Acts. Is Joel, in a sense, “Acts in advance”? Or is Acts a partial fulfillment of Joel? Or does Peter quote Joel merely to point out that the events of Pentecost, like the events foretold by Joel, included an outpouring of the Holy Spirit?

HOW MUCH OF “THIS” IS “THAT”?

Apart from a canonical-compositional approach, the significance of Luke’s reference to Peter’s quote from Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2:16-21 tends to be explained in two widely differing ways. Some scholars interpret the text in a way that minimizes correlation between Joel and Acts; others interpret it in such a way as to maximize correlation.

INTERPRETATIONS THAT MINIMIZE CORRELATION

Correlation between Joel and Acts is radically minimized by the dispensational hermeneutic of C. I. Scofield. In its comments on Joel 2:28, the New Scofield Reference Bible disassociates Joel’s prophecy from any fulfillment on the Day of Pentecost:

“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.”[15]

Another example of extreme minimalism is offered by Charles Lee Feinberg in his comments on Joel 2:28-32. In Feinberg’s view, Joel “cannot be fulfilled until Israel is returned to their own land.”[16] Although Feinberg acknowledges Peter’s reference to Joel, he asserts that

“that fact alone does not constitute a fulfillment. In the first place, the customary formula for a fulfilled prophecy is entirely lacking in Acts 2:16.[17] And even more telling is the fact that much of Joel’s prophecy, even as quoted in Acts 2:19-20, was not fulfilled at that time. We cannot take the position that only a portion of the prophecy was meant to be fulfilled at all, because this would work havoc with Bible prophecy. . . . The best position to take is that Peter used Joel’s prophecy as an illustration of what was transpiring in his day and not as a fulfillment of this prediction.”[18]

More recently, Graham S. Ogden similarly minimizes the connection between Joel and Acts.

“In Acts 2:16-18, Peter at Pentecost quotes Joel 2:28-29, giving the impression that what Joel had in mind was specifically the Pentecost event. We can see that Joel himself spoke to his contemporaries who were in need of comfort during a national crisis. Further, his vision was restricted to an event in Judah. He does not envisage this event embracing Gentiles; Peter does (Acts 2:39). From several points of view it is clear that Joel’s original intention and what the early Church understood it to be are not identical. Therefore, to say that the latter “fulfils” the former, in the sense that it is the direct result of a word spoken earlier by Joel, is inappropriate.”[19]

Is there, then, a meaningful connection between Joel and Acts? Ogden limits the connection to the essential nature of the events: “Peter publicly proclaims thereby that the God who was active in Joel’s day was similarly active in his own time . . . .”[20]

Robert B. Chisholm, Jr. comments that although Peter’s words in Acts 2:16 “may seem to indicate that he considered Joel’s prophecy as being completely fulfilled on that occasion . . . it is apparent that the events of that day . . . do not fully correspond to those predicted by Joel.”[21] Chisholm sees the early chapters of Acts as offering the kingdom of God to Israel again. Peter did not at that time understand “God’s program for the Gentiles in the present age,” and he apparently “believed that the kingdom was then being offered to Israel and that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit signaled the coming of the Millennium.”[22] Instead, “the complete fulfillment of the prophecy . . . was delayed because of Jewish unbelief . . . .”[23]

The minimalist view of the connection between Joel and Acts focuses on the idea that Joel is about events that concern Israel primarily, if not exclusively, and that these events are tied to an as yet unfulfilled restoration of Israel to the Promised Land. The strongest connection to be made is that Joel’s prophecy serves as an example of the kind of event that happened at Pentecost.[24]

INTERPRETATIONS THAT MAXIMIZE CORRELATION

In contrast to the minimalist view, some scholars hold that the Pentecost event is, to a lesser or greater degree, an actual fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Though he approaches the subject from a dispensational point of view, Thomas J. Finley writes, “Perhaps Pentecost can be called the time of the first fruits. It was the inauguration of the age of the Spirit. Joel’s prophecy can apply throughout the ‘last days.’ There is no inherent reason to restrict his statement about the gift of the Spirit to one particular occasion.”[25]

Ronald B. Allen suggests that “[b]iblical prophecy may be pictured as having a conical shape extending from the Old Testament occasion on the left, to the fully-opened bell with the kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth on the right. All along the way there may be fulfillment. It is all a part of the same prophecy.”[26] From this perspective, Allen sees similarities and dissimilarities between Joel’s prophecy and the Pentecost event. There are five similarities: (1) The principal issue in both texts is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the people of God; (2) in both Joel 2 and Acts 2 the outpouring of the Spirit is associated with spiritual gifts of unusual forms of speech; (3) the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost was associated with heavenly phenomena and paraphysical signs; (4) Pentecost was a time of tremendous evangelism; and (5) both Joel and Acts 2 share the common geographical center of Jerusalem.[27] There are three dissimilarities: (1) The special wonders and omens of which Joel prophesied were only minimally realized; (2) the egalitarianism of Joel 2 is only partially realized in Acts 2 and following; and (3) a major difference exists between the expectation of Joel 2 and the realization of Acts 2. This has to do with the concept of the time of the end and the Day of Yahweh. Since these days are yet ahead, Joel’s prophecy is not yet completely fulfilled.[28]

Allen is able to see Pentecost as “one of the great fulfillments” of Joel, with other fulfillments occurring with each outpouring of the Spirit in Acts and with the ultimate fulfillment still pending.[29]

In David Allan Hubbard’s view, “Peter sketches the sweep of the ‘those days’ which Joel saw coming and finds their fulfilment [sic] in the outpouring of the Spirit which constituted the church and demonstrated its unique qualities as God’s people.”[30]

F. F. Bruce comments that “Peter’s quotation of [Joel’s] prophecy means that these days, the days of the fulfilment [sic] of God’s purpose, have arrived.”[31] No longer must Christ’s followers search and inquire as to what person or time the prophetic Spirit pointed to, as did the Hebrew prophets[32]; instead, “they know: the person is Jesus; the time is now. The ‘last days’ began with Christ’s appearance on earth and will be consummated by his reappearance . . . . Hence the assurance with which Peter could quote the prophet’s words and declare ‘This is it.’”[33]

In the view of C. K. Barrett, “The Pentecostal event is the fulfilment [sic] of prophecy.”[34]

“That the events he describes were the fulfillment of Scripture is a central part of Luke’s understanding of them. . . . The quotation from Joel . . . is important for Luke’s understanding of eschatology: God has begun, but not completed, the work of fulfilment [sic]; Christians are living in the last days, but the last day has not yet come.”[35]

F. Scott Spencer sees Peter’s reference to Joel as having significance for the entire Acts story:

“Peter cites a prophecy of Joel about the outpouring of the Spirit as the key to understanding the day’s strange events: Joel’s announcement has just been fulfilled. . . . the Joel citation serves a programmatic function within Acts: what Joel announced sets the agenda for the entire Acts journey. Jesus’ Sabbath reading from Isaiah—focusing, like Joel, on the Spirit’s activity—served a similar function in Luke’s Gospel.”[36]

I. Howard Marshall points out that Peter’s quote from Joel is not limited to Acts 2:17-21; a reference to Joel 2:32 is found in Acts 2:39: “What was happening was to be seen as the fulfillment [sic] of a prophecy by Joel . . . Joel 2:28-32. A further phrase from the same passage is to be found in verse 39 . . . .”[37] But Marshall observes, “It is hard to know in what way Joel envisaged the fulfilment [sic] of his oracle.”[38] This is at the heart of the question for canonical-compositional hermeneutics. The issue of authorial intent is fundamental to the evangelical quest to interpret Scripture literally. Some evangelical scholars dismiss a canonical approach to hermeneutics because it seems to them to override authorial intent.[39] But if authorial intent and canonical intent are the same, as suggested by Sailhamer, the objection vanishes.

Typical of those who see fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy as beginning but not being completed on Pentecost is R. C. H. Lenski: “Peter must quote Joel’s prophecy in full because the second part of it states how long the Spirit, poured out at Pentecost, will continue his work in the world, and because the last line opens the door of salvation to everyone who, in repentance and faith, calls on the Lord.”[40]

Daniel J. Treier rejects the typical dispensational view that Peter used Joel 2 merely as an analogy or rhetorical device, the covenantal view that the Pentecost event completely fulfilled Joel’s prophecy, and the multiple-fulfillment approach that sees only the first two verses of Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28-29) as having been fulfilled to an initial degree on Pentecost with the greater fulfillment yet to come and the next two verses as awaiting fulfillment at the time of the end.[41] Instead, Treier opts for what he calls “a multiple-lens approach.” Distinguishing the “lens of Joel,” the “lens of Peter,” and the “lens of Luke,” Treier suggests that “Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, used a structure that is foreign to us but nevertheless valid: an advance typology. The eschatological portents qualify as a valid type if we accept their prediction as a guarantee of their historicity and certainty.”[42] In Treier’s view, Joel and Peter may have understood “all flesh” to refer to Israel only, but Luke understood the term to include Gentiles.

“Were Peter and Joel wrong to assume this referred to Israel, or did Luke inappropriately read current events into the text? The latter is incorrect, for Luke by the Spirit correctly interpreted the events he experienced. The former may be partially correct. While God apparently invested these words with meaning for the Gentiles because of his redemptive program, it would have been difficult for Peter or Joel to foresee the widening scope of that program. Whatever the evils of sensus plenior, some type of similar structure must account for the divergence here between the expectations of Peter and Joel . . . and the reality of God’s expanding redemptive program.”[43]

For Treier, the fulfillment of Joel 2 in Acts does not negate “the possibility of a future fulfillment related to ethnic Israel.”[44]

Although progressive dispensationalism, covenant theology, and Treier’s multiple-lens approach see varying degrees of correlation between Joel’s prophecy and the Day of Pentecost, none of these perspectives see the Day of Pentecost as being as firmly and thoroughly rooted in Joel as would a canonical-compositional approach. It is to this that we now turn our attention.

JOEL, PETER, AND CANONICAL-COMPOSITIONAL HERMENEUTICS

To approach Joel from the perspective of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, we would begin first with what Sailhamer calls in-textuality. This has to do with an examination of the “cohesive nature of the strategy of the smallest literary” units.[45] Sailhamer points out that “the various parts of even the smallest literary units can be expected to belong together and to make sense as a whole. In-textuality . . . is the inner coherence of the smallest units of text.”[46] At this point, we may look for literary structures like chiasms.

Next, we move to inner-textuality, based upon the idea that the “strategies within the smallest units of text . . . make up the whole fabric of biblical narrative books.”[47] The idea here is that of “inner-linkage binding narratives into a larger whole.”[48] For example, we may look for how poetic texts are linked to narrative texts, or we may look for parallelisms and their relationship to the non-parallel texts that surround them. Specifically, we should be alert to “clues lying along the seams of . . . larger units that point to the author’s ultimate purpose.”[49]

Third, a canonical-compositional hermeneutic is concerned with inter-textuality, “the study of links between and among texts.”[50] We will be concerned with links between Joel and Deuteronomy, since Joel’s locust plague theme is apparently related to the curses connected to Israel’s disobedience to the Law of Moses. We will also examine Numbers 11; Joel’s promise of the egalitarian outpouring of the Spirit seems to be the answer to Moses’ prayer that the Lord would put his Spirit upon all of his people in order that all would be prophets.[51] As Sailhamer observes, “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.”[52]

Finally, we are concerned with con-textuality. This has to do with “the semantic effect of a book’s relative position within the OT Canon.”[53] In this case, how is Joel connected verbally and thematically to Hosea, Amos, and the rest of the Book of the Twelve? What interpretive effect do these books have on each other?[54]

IN-TEXTUALITY

The chiastic structure of Joel indicates intentional literary and thematic design. Duane A. Garrett has presented convincing evidence that the two sections of Joel are interlocked by the following chiasms, demonstrating the unity of the book.

First Chiasm
A (chap. 1): Punishment: The locust plague
B (2:1-11): Punishment: The apocalyptic army
C (2:12-19): Transition: Repentance and (vv 18-19) introduction to Yahweh’s oracular response
B’ (2:20): Forgiveness: The Apocalyptic army destroyed
A’ (2:21-27): Forgiveness: The locust-ravaged land restored[55]

Second Chiasm
A (2:20): Judgment: The apocalyptic army destroyed
B (2:21-27): Grace: The land restored
B’ (3:1-5): Grace: The Spirit poured out
A’ (4:1-21): Judgment: The nations destroyed[56]

In Garrett’s view, the relationships between the various parts of these chiasms within each chiasm, and the relationship of the chiasms with each other indicate that “Joel sees the healing of his land as a type of a distant, greater day of salvation for all who come to Yahweh.”[57]

“Joel’s theology is intensely typological. He does not perceive any present act of Yahweh’s judgment or salvation as being unique and unrelated thematically to a later, ultimate work of Yahweh. Nor does he perceive of any future work as being without contemporary precedents. The day of Yahweh may come many times, but each one moves closer to the final consummation.”[58]

The implications of in-textuality in Joel are as follows: (1) It indicates that the book must be read as a unit rather than fragmented, as has resulted from a strictly historical-critical approach[59]; and (2) it suggests that Joel’s literary design is intentionally typological. If the locust plague of chapter 1 is a type of the invasion of a human army in 2:1-11, as Garrett makes quite clear,[60] other portions of the text may be typological as well. The restoration of the land in 2:21-27, for example, may very well be related typologically to the outpouring of the Spirit in 2:28-32.[61]

INNER-TEXTUALITY

After a review of the parallel strophes within the poetic units of Joel, H. G. M. Williamson asserts that “it is hard to escape the impression that the various sections of the book are composed with conscious reference to the others in order to present a unified message. … though the prophet’s ministry doubtless began in a concrete historical situation, the book as we now have it is the product of intensive literary activity.”[62] The parallels under consideration are offered by L. C. Allen, who asserts that “the second half of the book [Joel 2:18—3:21] takes up and reverses the destruction and deprivation of the characteristic of the laments of the first half [Joel 1:2 – 2:17],” concluding that “the whole composition has been constructed as an intricate literary mosaic with remarkable skill and care.”[63]

At the very least, the parallels within Joel further demonstrate the unity of the book. Regardless of the origin and timing of possible compositional work after Joel’s original autograph, it is evident that the book as it now stands is intended to be read as a whole. The two parts of the book are related; they form a unity of one book.

“The Day of the Lord is a significant element in the first half (note especially its use as an inclusio in 2:1, 11), and this leads naturally to its development in the second part, for which the locust plague was a harbinger. Moreover, several characteristic features of Joel’s style are evident in both parts: quotations from other prophetic books are distributed equally in both, and there are a number of verbal links between the two as well, e.g., 1:14 and 3:9; 1:15, 2:1f., and 3:14; 2:1b and 2:31b; 2:10a and 3:16a; 2:10b and 3:15; 2:11a and 3:16a; 2:11b and 2:3b, etc. Progress along this line shows itself to be exegetically more fruitful, and has led to a deeper appreciation of the structure of the book as a whole.”[64]

The parallels within the book also further indicate the typological intent of the author. For example, the reference to the “Valley of Jehoshaphat” in 3:2 is apparently intended as a type of the “valley of decision” of 3:14. There is no known location of a literal and physical “Valley of Jehoshaphat,” and the name Jehoshaphat means “Yahweh judges.” Just as an English-speaker today may speak of the “valley of despair” without any reference to a geographical location, so Joel could speak of the valley of judgment by Yahweh, especially in view of his later reference to the “valley of decision.”

As Pettus points out, “The argument for unity is centered around unity in content, structure, and linguistic/stylistic considerations.”[65]

INTER-TEXTUALITY

Not only is there significant and informative in-textuality and inner-textuality within the book of Joel; the vocabulary and themes of the book are linked back with the Torah, interpreting the events of Joel in terms of the Law of Moses. For example, a consequence of disobedience to the Law of Moses is to be plagued by locusts.[66] Another consequence was that the rain of the land would be changed “to powder and dust.”[67] In Joel, not only have the locusts invaded, but “the new wine is dried up” (1:10), “the vine has dried up, and . . . all the trees of the field are withered” (1:12), “the seed shrivels under the clods” (1:17), and “the water brooks are dried up” (1:20). But if Judah will repent (2:12-14), the open pastures will spring up, the trees will bear fruit, and the fig tree and vine will produce (2:22). This will be because Yahweh will “cause the rain to come down for you” (2:23), both the former and latter rain. Again, one of the curses associated with disobedience to the Law of Moses is that “you shall grope 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” (2:10b; see also 2:31a; 3:15).

Not only may further thematic links be seen between Joel and Deuteronomy 32, but also structural links. This is pointed out by Douglas Stuart:

“Joel 1 and 2 reflect both structurally and thematically what is found especially in Deuteronomy 32. The nonimperative verbs in Joel 1 are predominantly preterite, while the nonimperative verbs in chapter 2 are predominantly present-future. . . . Deut. 32 displays a similar shift in preferred tenses, as the song shifts largely from what has happened (vv. 1-21a) to what is coming (vv. 21b-43). When the thematic correspondences are added, the result is a high degree of comparability . . . .”[68]

Stuart offers links between Deuteronomy 32 and Joel 1-2.[69] These thematic and structural links indicate strongly that Joel was not only aware of the Deuteronomic consequences of departure from the Law of Moses and the promises of restoration upon repentance, but that he intentionally structured his book to reflect these themes. Thus, the relationship between Joel and Deuteronomy is an interpretive relationship.

It is widely recognized is that Joel’s promise of the outpouring of the Spirit (2:28-29) is the answer to Moses’ prayer in Numbers 11:29.[70] When the Spirit that was upon Moses was placed on the seventy elders, causing them to prophesy, it was a radically new pneumatological concept for the ancient Israelites.[71] When Eldad and Medad prophesied in the camp rather than at the tabernacle, Joshua’s shock was palpable: “Moses my lord, forbid them!” (Num 11:28). Instead, Moses answered, “Are you zealous for my sake? Oh, that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!” (Num 11:29). This was an even more radical concept, for it anticipated a day when the Spirit would come not merely upon selected male leaders among the Israelites, but upon all of the Lord’s people without regard to gender or social standing. This is exactly the promise of Joel.

The intertextuality between Joel and the Torah is very significant, for Joel looks not only to the past; he also looks to the future. As we shall see, Joel is a link between Pentecost and the Torah.

CON-TEXTUALITY

Andrew Lee discerns five thematic connections between the Minor Prophets: (1) Numbers of passages address the restoration of Israel and the return from foreign lands; (2) there is a recurring theme of the punishment of the nations; (3) Jerusalem will become the center of worship; (4) a king will again lead the nation; and (5) there is hope for a future blessing.[72]

That there is an intended verbal link between Joel and Amos is immediately apparent when one reads directly from the end of Joel to the beginning of Amos: “The Lord also will roar from Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem” (Joel 3:16a); “The Lord roars from Zion, and utters His voice from Jerusalem” (Amos 1:2a). From the perspective of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, links like this at the end of one book and the beginning of the next knit the books together; they should be read not as two books, but as one.[73]

The contextual links between Joel and the rest of the Minor Prophets indicate not only that these books form a unit, but also that Joel is pivotal in this collection of books. The thematic and verbal connections among the Minor Prophets suggest not only that they should be viewed as a unit, but that when any one of them has strong connections to the New Testament, looking forward to the era of the Messiah and the Spirit, an influence is exerted on all the rest of the books to draw them toward the messianic future as well. It should be no surprise that the only Minor Prophets not quoted in the New Testament are Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. In the book of Acts alone, Peter quotes Joel, Stephen quotes Amos,[74] Paul quotes Habakkuk,[75] and James quotes Amos.[76] Peter and James are both specific in connecting the Minor Prophets with the establishment of the church.[77]

THE USE OF JOEL IN ACTS 1-2

A careful examination of Peter’s Pentecost sermon indicates that he had more of Joel in mind than Joel 2:28-32. The book of Joel was foundational to his sermon; it appears not only in direct quotes, but also in verbal links and allusions. In addition, an examination of Acts 1 indicates that Luke intentionally connected the events leading up to Peter’s sermon with Joel.[78] It is significant that it was essential to be in Jerusalem to receive the Promise of the Father, baptism with the Holy Spirit.[79] Joel identified Jerusalem as the geographical location of deliverance. Deliverance would not stop there, however. Through the efforts of the disciples, it would spread over the earth. The promise given by Joel is identical with the promise given by Jesus. It was the outpouring of the Spirit.[80] Joel’s prophecy was egalitarian. Luke is careful to record that the waiting believers included not only the male, but female disciples.[81] Joel’s promise occurs in conjunction with a gathering of Jewish exiles. It includes “all nations.” Luke reports that on the Day of Pentecost, Jews were present “from every nation.”[82] One of the indications of the judgment of Yahweh in Joel was the drying up of the new wine. Upon Judah’s repentance, however, the new wine would be restored in abundance. On Pentecost, mockers judged the newly Spirit-filled believers to be “full of new wine.”[83] Although they spoke from their unbelief, Luke may use their statement to indicate a connection between Joel and the Pentecost event.[84] Peter’s quote is influenced by, but not identical to, the Septuagint (LXX).[85] Not only is it significant that he quotes such a lengthy text from Joel to explain the events of Pentecost; it is also significant that he reiterated the fact that both males and females will be involved in prophecy. He does not terminate his quote after Joel’s reference to the Spirit; Peter includes the references to wonders in the heavens, but he also inserts a reference to signs in the earth, following neither the Hebrew text nor the LXX. The fact that Peter immediately follows this quote from Joel with a declaration that Jesus was attested by God “by miracles, wonders, and signs” indicates that he connects these events in the life of Jesus with Joel’s prophecy. Rather than bifurcating Joel’s prophecy between events fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost and events yet to occur at the end of the age, Peter offers the events of Pentecost and the life of Jesus as the fulfillment of Joel.[86] In Peter’s answer to the question, “What shall we do,” there are thematic links to Joel and direct quotes from the prophet.[87] Peter’s command to repent summarizes Joel’s call to turn to God with all one’s heart, with fasting, weeping, mourning, and the rending of the heart. Peter’s promise of remission 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 his answer 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 multigenerational idea. And 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.”[88]

CONCLUSION

The in-textuality in Joel, seen in its chiasms, indicates the purposeful literary design of the book. It is a unit, one book, as is further demonstrated by its inner-textuality of parallelisms. The inter-textuality of Joel is rich in thematic and verbal links radiating back to the Torah; its con-textuality is seen in its common themes and phrases with the rest of the Minor Prophets. The presence of Joel’s ideas and words in the first two chapters of the book of Acts is notable.

Did Peter think that Joel, as a prophet, foresaw Pentecost? If we take Peter’s statement, “But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel,” at face value, coming to the text without any preconceived notion that the prophecy of Joel could not yet be fulfilled, or that it could be only partially fulfilled, Peter’s statement certainly indicates that he believed Joel prophesied about the Pentecost event. There is nothing in Peter’s treatment of Joel to indicate that he intended only to use Joel as an illustration or an application; there is nothing to indicate that Peter believed that Joel’s prophecy could be bifurcated between the outpouring of the Spirit and the wonders and signs. For Peter to follow his quote from Joel by noting the miracles, wonders, and signs done by God through Jesus gives strong contextual force to the idea that Peter wanted his hearers to understand that Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled in its entirety.[89]

But there is another point that gives even more strength to the idea that Peter saw Joel as anticipating Pentecost. That is Peter’s quotes from Psalm 16:8-11 to authenticate the resurrection of Christ as the subject of prophecy. Peter followed this quote with these words: “David . . . being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ” (Acts 2:29-31). To Peter, the prophet David knowingly foresaw the resurrection of Christ. David did not think he was prophesying about himself. When Peter’s references to Joel in Acts 2:16 and David in Acts 2:30-31 are placed side by side, little difference in meaning can be discerned between them. The fact that David spoke knowingly indicates that Joel did the same. There is nothing to indicate that David was more aware of the import of his prophecy than was Joel.

What is the significance of this for renewal theology? First, Joel is liberated from the restrictions placed on his prophecy by Scofieldian dispensationalism. Joel becomes a prophet for the church; his prophetic voice is not restricted to Israel and to a time yet future. Second, because of Joel’s unity with the rest of the Minor Prophets, those prophets are also liberated for the church. Third, because of Joel’s roots in the Torah, he serves as link between the church and Moses, reaching with one hand back to Moses’ prayer that all of God’s people would be prophets and with the other forward to Pentecost. Moses’ prayer is answered in the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost and on all who enjoy the Pentecostal experience. This liberates the Torah from limited relevance to the church. The Torah becomes a document that is concerned not merely with ancient history and lists of laws for people of a culture far removed from us; it vibrates with anticipation of a better day, a day when the Spirit is not just for the one, or even for the seventy, but for all.[90]

From a canonical-compositional perspective, if Joel sees repentance as resulting in the outpouring of the Spirit, so does Deuteronomy. Joel is not reading meaning into the Torah; he is reading meaning from it. Joel carries forward the eschatology of the Torah.

We have long recognized the Christological content of the first five books of the Bible. Now we must explore the pneumatological content of these books. As Jesus said, Moses wrote of him.[91] It seems apparent that Moses also wrote of the Holy Spirit.

The veil over the Old Testament is taken away in Christ, and we must remember that “the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”[92] To see Christ and the Spirit in the Hebrew Scriptures liberates us to read them clearly, to enjoy the fulfillment of their messianic intent, and to receive the Promise of the Father, his Holy Spirit.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Ronald B. Bible Study Commentary: Joel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, G. N. Stanton. 2 vols. vol. 1, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.

Blaising, Craig A. and Darrell L. Bock, ed. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982.

Brown, Raymond E. The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture. Baltimore: St. Mary’s University, 1955.

Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts. Edited by Gordon D. Fee. rev. ed. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988.

________. Commentary on the Book of Acts. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977.

Childs, Brevard. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Driver, S. R. The Books of Joel and Amos with Introduction and Notes. Edited by A. F. Kirkpatrick. 1st ed., Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1898. Reprint, 1898.

English, E. Schuyler, ed. The New Scofield Study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1967.

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

Finley, Thomas J. Joel, Obadiah and Micah, Everyman’s Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1996.

Garrett, Duane A. “The Structure of Joel.” JETS 28 (1985): 289-97.

Hartill, J. Edwin. Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1947.

Hubbard, David A., ed. Hosea-Jonah. vol. 31, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

________. Joel and Amos: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

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

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Reprint, 1961.

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

Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. 1st American ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980.

Ogden, Graham S. and Richard R. Deutsch. A Promise of Hope—a Call to Obedience: A Commentary on the Books of Joel and Malachi. Edited by George A. F. Knight, Frederick Carlson Holmgren, International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987.

Pettus, David D. “A Canonical-Critical Study of Selected Traditions in the Book of Joel.” Ph.D., Baylor University, 1992.

Radmacher, Earl D. and Robert D. Preus, ed. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Sailhamer, John H. “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15.” WTJ 63 (2001): 87-96

________. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Spencer, F. Scott. Acts. Edited by John Jarick, Readings. A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997.

Stuart, Douglas. Hosea-Joel. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A. Hubbard. vol. 31 Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Tate, Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

Treier, Daniel J. “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: A Multiple-Lens Approach.” JETS 40 (1997): 13-26.

Tucker, Gene M., ed. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck, ed. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament. 2 vols. vol. 1 Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Copyright © 2004 by Daniel L. Segraves
[1] An example of this may be seen in John H. Sailhamer, “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15,” WTJ 63 (2001):87-96. Sailhamer suggests, “[T]he sensus literalis (historicus) of Hos 11:1 is precisely that of Matthew’s gospel. Hos 11:1 speaks of the future, not the past. . . . The messianic sense that Matthew saw in the words of Hos 11:1, ‘out of Egypt I have called my son,’ was already there in the book of Hosea. Matthew did not invent it” (88-89).
[2] In the Hebrew text, this is Joel 3:1-5.
[3] To say “Joel intended” does not mean that Joel, as the original author of the book, necessarily understood his prophecy to foretell the events of Pentecost; it means that the book of Joel, in its final composition and canonical placement in the Tanak, foretells the Pentecost event. From the perspective of canonical-compositional hermeneutics, “author” includes not only those who wrote the autographs, but also those involved in the final composition of the text.
[4] Raymond E. Brown’s definition of sensus plenior is widely recognized. Sensus plenior is “that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a Biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation” (Raymond E. Brown, The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture [Baltimore: St. Mary’s University, 1955], 92. Cited by Andy Woods, “The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15.” Online: http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents
/articles/11/11-contents.htm#sdfootnote33sym. Accessed August 16, 2004.
[5] Double reference is the idea that “a passage applying primarily to a person or event near at hand, is used by [the Holy Spirit] at a later time as applying to the Person of Christ, or the affairs of His kingdom” (J. Edwin Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1947], 105).
[6] W. Randolph Tate points out that “[u]nderlying the midrashic exegesis of scripture are two crucial presuppositions: (1) The scriptures were given by God and are consequently relevant for all subsequent generations; and (2) each part of the scriptures (sentences, phrases, words, even single letters) has an autonomy independent of the whole. These two presuppositions then have an interesting corollary: Since the scriptures were given by an infinite God, a particular passage in part or whole may have an infinite number of applications” (W. Randolph Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991], 119-120).
[7] 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: Zondervan, 1995), 36-114.
[8] Ibid., 154.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Canonical criticism is essentially the same hermeneutical approach as canonical-compositional hermeneutics.
[11] Ray Lubeck, “An Introduction to Canonical Criticism,” Evangelical Theological Society Papers 1995 (Portland, OR: Theological Research Exchange Network), 3.
[12] Ibid., 1-2.
[13] Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992; reprint 1993), 70.
[14] The material in footnotes 8, 9, 11, 12 was also included in the author’s paper “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, offered by Regent University in the curriculum for the Ph.D. in Renewal Studies. It is included here because this paper’s topic requires a brief introduction to canonical-compositional hermeneutics.
[15] E. Schuyler English, ed., The New Scofield Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1967), 1045.
[16] Charles Lee Feinberg, The Major Messages of the Minor Prophets (New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1948), 29.
[17] In response to Feinberg, Walter Kaiser remarks, “The truth of the matter is that there is no single [fulfillment] formula used consistently in Acts or elsewhere in the NT for that matter.” Cited by Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Obadiah and Micah, Everyman’s Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1996), 60.
[18] Feinberg, The Major Messages of the Minor Prophets, 29.
[19] Graham S. Ogden and Richard R. Deutsch, A Promise of Hope—a Call to Obedience: A Commentary on the Books of Joel and Malachi (ed. George A. F. Knight and Frederick Carlson Holmgren; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987), 38.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 2 vols. vol. 1 (ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1421.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid. In response, Thomas J. Finley points out that “more allowance needs to be made for the fact that Pentecost represents the inception of the church. Thus, something more foundational must have happened than simply an offer which was ‘delayed because of Jewish unbelief’” (Finley, 1996 ).
[24] As dispensationalism continues to develop (the term “Progressive Dispensationalism” is often used to describe recent developments in dispensationalism that soften Scofield’s view that the church is not seen in the Old Testament), dispensational theologians are rethinking the relationship between Old Testament prophecies and the use of these prophecies in the New Testament. For example, Kenneth L. Barker states “that several passages that other dispensationalists relegate solely to the future received a literal fulfillment in the New Testament period or are receiving such fulfillment in the continuing church age—in addition to a final, complete fulfillment in the future in the case of some of those passages. Classic examples would be the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-21 and of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17—without denying a final, future stage to complete the fulfillment with respect to Israel . . . . That is to say, these propositions are not either-or but both-and” (Kenneth L. Barker, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church [ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], 323).
[25] Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Obadiah and Micah (Chicago: Moody, 1996), 61.
[26] Ronald B. Allen, Bible Study Commentary: Joel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 95.
[27] Ibid., 93.
[28] Ibid., 94-95.
[29] Ibid., 95. Allen’s view is similar to that of S. R. Driver and A. B. Davidson, from the late nineteenth century: “It would be incorrect . . . to regard a particular occasion as exhausting the fulfilment [sic] of the prophecy. Joel’s words . . . look rather to that fuller illumination to be enjoyed in general by God’s people in the future, which is to be a characteristic of the Christian Church throughout the ages; they are ‘not a prediction of the event of Pentecost, but of the new order of things of which Pentecost was the first great example’” (S. R. Driver, The Books of Joel and Amos with Introduction and Notes, 1st ed., Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges [ed. A. F. Kirkpatrick; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1898; reprint, 1898], 67).
[30] David Allan Hubbard, Joel and Amos: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 73.
[31] F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (ed. Gordon D. Fee; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), 61.
[32] Bruce references 1 Pet. 1:10-11, 20.
[33] Ibid. Emphasis in original.
[34] C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on 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), 135.
[35] Ibid.
[36] F. Scott Spencer, Acts, Readings. A New Biblical Commentary (ed. John Jarick; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 32.
[37] I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, 1st American ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980), 73.
[38] Ibid., 74.
[39] See, e.g., Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.’s response to Elliott Johnson in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible (ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 441-46.
[40] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis: Augsburg; reprint, 1961), 76.
[41] Daniel J. Treier, “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: A Multiple-Lens Approach,” JETS 40 (1997): 13-14.
[42] Ibid., 21.
[43] Ibid., 25.
[44] Ibid.
[45] John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 207.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid., 209.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Ibid., 210.
[50] Ibid., 212. This may be somewhat the same idea as 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).
[51] Although it is outside the scope of this paper, we could consider the links noted by H. W. Wolff: “three main tradition complexes which have influenced the language of Joel. They are the Day of Yahweh prophecies (Zeph. 1-2; Isa. 13; Ezek. 30; Obad., and Mal. 3), the prophetic oracles against the nations (Jer. 46, 49-51; Ezek. 29-32, 35), and the prophecies concerning the enemy from the North (Jer. 4-6; Ezek. 38-39).” H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, Hermeneia (trans. Waldemar Janzen, et al.; ed. Frank Moore Cross, et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 11. Cited by David D. Pettus, “A Canonical-Critical Study of Selected Traditions in the Book of Joel” (Ph.D., Baylor University, 1992), 8, n. 20.
[52] Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology, 213.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Canonical-compositional hermeneutics approach the interpretive task from the perspective of the Tanak order of the books, viewing Jesus’ references to the Tanak order as informative. (See Luke 11:51; 24:27, 44-45.)
[55] Duane A. Garrett, “The Structure of Joel,” JETS 28 (1985): 295.
[56] Ibid. Garrett is following the chapter and verse numbering system of the Hebrew text.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Ibid., 297.
[59] H. G. M. Williamson points out that this challenge is “on the basis that the Day of the Lord in the first part was contemporary with the prophet, but future in the second part.” In addition, it has been “argued that the apocalyptic sections were added to an original oracle about a locust plague in 1:1—2:17, though 1:15; 2:1b-2a, 11b also have to be attributed to the later writer.” It has also been suggested that “1:1—2:27 contains a record of Joel’s oral preaching, ch. 3 a supplement to guarantee the eschatological interpretation of the Day of the Lord, and 2:28-32 a later, sectarian addition to apply the promises to a narrower group within Israel.” See H. G. M. Williamson, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols., vol. 2 (ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 1079.
[60] See Garrett, The Structure of Joel, 289-294.
[61] Hebrew 3:1-5. “The image of pouring (referring to a liquid) makes an interesting connection to the promise of rain in 2:23 (see Isa. 44:3)” (Finley, Joel, Obadiah and Micah, 54).
[62] Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1079.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid.
[65] David D. Pettus, “A Canonical-Critical Study of Selected Traditions in the Book of Joel,” 35.
[66] Deut 28:38, 39, 42. Compare with Joel 1.
[67] Deut 28:24.
[68] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, vol. 31, Word Biblical Commentary (ed. David A. Hubbard; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 228.
[69] Ibid.
[70] See, e.g., Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, 24; Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 95; Feinberg, The Major Messages, 28; Lee, The Canonical Unity of the Scroll of the Minor Prophets, 64.
[71] See Num 11:16-26.
[72] See Andrew Yueking Lee, “The Canonical Unity of the Scroll of the Minor Prophets” (Ph.D., Baylor University, 1985), 217-18.
[73] This phenomenon is often seen in the Psalter.
[74] Acts 7:42-43; Amos 5:25-27.
[75] Acts 13:41; Hab 1:5.
[76] Acts 15:16-17; Amos 9:11-12.
[77] The following texts from the Minor Prophets are quoted in the New Testament: Hos 2:1, 3 in Rom 9:25-28; Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:13; 12:7; Hos 10:8 in Luke 23:30; Rev 6:16; Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:15; Hos 13:14 in 1 Cor 15:55; Joel 2:28-31 in Acts 2:17-21; Rom 10:13; Amos 5:25-27 in Acts 7:42-43; Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17; Jonah 2:1 in Matt 12:40; Mic 5:1 in Matt 2:6; Mic 7:6 in Matt 10:35-36; Hab 1:5 in Acts 13:41; Hab 2:3-4 in Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Hag 2:6, 21 in Heb 12:26; Zech 8:16 in Eph 4:25; Zech 9:9 in John 12:15; Zech 11:12-13 in Matt 27:9-10; Zech 12:10 in John 19:37; Zech 13:7 in Matt 26:31; Mark 14:27; Mal 1:2-3 in Rom 9:131; Mal 3:1 in Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; Mal 3:23-24 in Matt 17:10-11.
[78] Compare Joel 2:32 with Acts 1:4, 8.
[79] Acts 1:5.
[80] Compare Joel 2:28 with Acts 1:5, 8.
[81] Compare Joel 2:28 with Acts 1:13, 14.
[82] Joel 3:1-2 with Acts 2:5-11.
[83] Compare Joel 1:5, 10; 2:24; 3:18 with Acts 2:13.
[84] When the chief priests and Pharisees sought to destroy Jesus, Caiaphas, the high priest, said, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:49-50). Although Caiaphas did not believe on Jesus, John wrote, “Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52). It is within the ability of Scripture to present unbelievers as speaking divinely ordained words.
[85] Compare Joel 2:28-32 with Acts 2:16-22.
[86] As F. F. Bruce points out, “It was little more than seven weeks since the people in Jerusalem had indeed seen the sun turned into darkness, during the early afternoon of the day of our Lord’s crucifixion. And on the same afternoon the paschal full moon may well have appeared blood-red in the sky as a consequence of that preternatural gloom. These were to be understood as tokens of the advent of the day of the Lord, ‘that great and notable day,” a day of judgment, to be sure, but more immediately the day of God’s salvation to all who invoked His name” (F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977], 69). A careful comparison of Joel 2:30-31; 3:14-16 with Matt 27:45-54 suggests that the events surrounding the death of Jesus could very well be a major fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Although nothing is said in Matt 27:45-54 about blood, fire, and vapor of smoke, it is recognized by many scholars that these can be references not only to natural disasters but also to warfare. (See Graham S. Ogden, A Promise of Hope—A Call to Obedience, 38; John Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 98; David Allan Hubbard, Joel and Amos, 71; S. R. Drive, Joel and Amos, 66.) Jesus had warned that the age would be characterized by war (Matt 24:6-7). It may be, however, that in Peter’s mind and for his purposes on the Day of Pentecost, the reference to fire can be connected with the tongues as of fire that rested upon the believers (Acts 2:3); the reference to blood could connect in the minds of the disciples with the crucifixion of Jesus, who had asked them to drink from a cup representing his blood (Matt 26:27-28). Another clue suggesting that Peter may have had the events of the crucifixion in mind is the messianic theme of Psalm 18. Paul invests Psalm 18 with messianic meaning. (See Rom 15:8-9; Ps 18:49.) Comparison of Psalm 18:7-11 with Matthew 27:45, 51 shows close verbal linkage. Both texts refer to the shaking of the earth, quaking of the foundations of the hills (rocks splitting), and darkness. In this context, Psalm 18:8 reads, “Smoke went up from His nostrils, and devouring fire from His mouth; coals were kindled by it.” This is symbolic language and we might dismiss any connection with the crucifixion of Christ except for the fact that Paul specifically reads Psalm 18 as a messianic text.
[87] Compare Joel 1:3; 2:12-13, 32 with Acts 2:38-39
[88] LXX: proskeklētai hous kyrios (whom the Lord has called); Acts: proskalesētai kyrios ho theos hēmōn (the Lord our God shall call).
[89] This is not to suggest that there are no continuing fulfillments. Each outpouring of the Spirit is in some way a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy.
[90] Paul understands Deut 11:32 to be about the church. The way he quotes the verse is significant: “But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: ‘I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish nation” (Rom 10:19). By asking, “Did Israel not know,” Paul attributes prophetic knowledge to Moses. The church was not yet “a nation,” but Moses knew such a nation would come into existence.
[91] John 5:46; Luke 24:44.
[92] 2 Cor 3:14-17.

Copyright © 2004 by Daniel L. Segraves