“No, They Are Not Crazy: A Look at Prophecy through the Continuity of Prophetic and
Apostolic Hermeneutics”
By Abner Chou
The Master's Seminary
INTRODUCTION
Many who have begun to investigate the NT’s use of the OT have concluded that the
apostles’ hermeneutic is bizarre.1 Certainly, from an initial examination of the issue, one would
have to say that what the apostles did with the OT is cryptic at best.2 What are the NT authors,
under guidance of the Holy Spirit, exactly thinking when they use the OT in these “unique
ways?” Were they doing something so irrational that we cannot even figure them out?
The issue is complicated. Scholars have recognized that a host of factors are involved in
this question. Overall, the subject demands a study on the linguistic, hermeneutical, exegetical,
and theological levels.3 Although I hate to increase the confusion, I would like to add some
questions to illustrate an important point. Why do the apostles quote one text over another
similar text? For example, why does Matthew cite Hosea 11:1 in reference to the Exodus instead
of using a passage from the book of Exodus itself? Why does Paul cite Deuteronomy 21:22-23 in
Galatians 3 to prove substitutionary atonement instead of Isaiah 53? Similarly, why do the
apostles quote the length of text that they do? In other words, why do some quote a whole verse
while others quote an entire paragraph? Why does Jesus quote Isaiah 61:1-2a in Luke 4:18-19
and not the rest of the passage? Why does Peter quote the entire passage of Joel 3:1-5 (Eng.,
2:28-32) in Acts 2 and not just the part about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Assuming that
we believe God guided these individuals, what made these texts stand out in their minds as
opposed to other passages which are just as “valid?” These types of questions strike at the very
heart of authorial intent; the aim of exegesis.4 What was the author thinking when he chose the
text in a particular translation and used it in a particular way?
Some argue that we may never be able to access the author’s intention in such detail.5
Others may point out that these questions demand us look at the apostles’ cultural background in
1
S. V. McCasland, “Matthew Twists the Scriptures,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, ed.
G.K. Beale (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Books, 1994),, 146-52; Robert L. Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the
Old Testament,” in Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, ed. Robert L. Thomas (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2002), 261; Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Biblical
and Theological Classics Library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), 115-17.
2
G. K. Beale, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? An
Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Exegetical Method,” in The Right Doctrine from the
Wrong Texts, ed. G.K. Beale (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Books, 1994), 399; Richard B. Hays and Joel B. Green,
“The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for
Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 223-27.
3
Hays and Green, “Use,” 229; Roger Nicole. “The New Testament use of the Old Testament,” in The
Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, ed. G.K. Beale (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Books, 1994), 15-28
4
Robert L. Thomas, “The Hermeneutical Landscape,” in Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the
Old, ed. Robert L. Thomas (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2002), 13-25; Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible
Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Colorado Springs, Co.: Chariot Victor Publishing,
1991), 20; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1998), 252-53.
5
Stanley E. Fish, Is there a Text in this Class?: The Authority of Interpretative Communities (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), 177; James J. Buckley, “The Hermeneutical Deadlock between
Revelationalists, Textualists, and Functionalists,” Modern Theology 6 (1990): 325; Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and
the second temple period.6 While all these suggestions definitely are fair qualifications and
additional factors of consideration, I would argue that ultimately, assuming inspiration, these
types of questions demand us to go back to the OT. Perhaps, the OT provides us clues at what is
taking place within the NT authors’ mind. Ironically, I have also observed, out of all the possible
places to investigate this issue, the OT is perhaps the most neglected.
In this paper, I would like to suggest that we go back to carefully examine the OT. In
studying the OT, scholars have observed that there is an intentional connecting of passages; a
phenomenon known as intertextuality.7 More than just a literary phenomenon, it is my conviction
that OT intertextuality is actually the result of the prophetic hermeneutic or the way the prophets
of old interpreted and applied Scripture. I would argue that the way the prophets interpreted and
connected the OT together actually sets up a chain of reasoning that the apostles continue. If this
is the case, the apostles are not doing anything revolutionary or radical but rather completing an
application that began at the very passage itself. To put it differently, the prophetic hermeneutic
is the same as the apostolic hermeneutic and the apostolic hermeneutic continues the work of the
prophetic hermeneutic.
In this brief study, there is no way that I can definitely prove this point. Instead, I can
only open up the possibility that the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic exist and that they are
in continuity. To do this, I would like to spend time discussing some necessary prolegomena,
provide two initial examples of the continuity of OT and NT hermeneutics, and then conclude
with some observations on biblical theology and practical implications. In all, it is my expressed
hope that we would honor the Lord by seeing the wisdom in how He orchestrates His Word and
plan.
NECESSARY DEFINITIONS FOR HERMENEUTICAL CONTINUITY
The concentration of this paper does not concern making definitions. However, they are
the necessary building blocks for beginning to argue for hermeneutical continuity between
testaments. First, I will concentrate on general definitions within hermeneutics. Then I will
specifically address the prophetic hermeneutic.
Meaning vs. Interpretation vs. Application
Often times, scholars have alleged that the apostles have changed or added to the
meaning of previous revelation.8 They have similarly asserted that the NT writers misinterpreted
the OT texts.9 What is interesting is that people rarely define their terms. What does it mean to
add meaning? What does it mean to misinterpret (or interpret)? What does it mean to apply a
Method, 2nd ed., trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall (New York: Continuum Publishing Company,
1975), 388.
6
Hays and Green, “Use,” 229; G. K. Beale, “Myth, History, and Inspiration: A Review Article of
Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49 (2006): 307.
7
Craig C. Broyles, “Traditions, Intertextuality, and Canon,” in Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for
Exegesis, ed. Craig C. Broyles (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House Co., 2001), 158-59.
8
Thomas, “Use,” 252-53; James M. Robinson, “A Protestant Study in Sensus Plenior,” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 27 (1965): 13; Burdolph Bierberg, “Does Sacred Scripture Have a Sensus Plenior?,” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 10 (1948): 187; Douglas J. Moo, “The Problem of Sensus Plenior,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and
Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986): 201.
9
Thomas, “Use,” 250-52.
2
text? Defining these terms will help to clarify how we will approach studying this issue and how
we will frame our answers. This section will attempt to first define the terms and then show how
those definitions establish criteria for evaluating the apostles’ hermeneutic.
One should immediately recognize that deriving definitions for the terms interpretation,
meaning, and application are difficult. The issues extend far beyond the scope of this paper.10 For
the sake of this study, let me provide you with my conclusions.
First, meaning pertains to the author’s intention.11 In biblical studies, the goal of
revelation is the communication of God’s message (2 Pet 1:21). The meaning of the text is then
the information which the Lord desired to provide.12 Meaning is limited to what the author
originally conveyed as opposed to possibilities within a text or the reader’s own thinking. Textcentered or reader-centered meaning are opposed by the Scripture (John 10:35; 2 Tim 2:15; 2 Pet
3:16).13 In this way, any given text can only have one correct meaning.
Second, interpretation is the act of deriving the meaning or the author’s set volition for
the text. The correctness of interpretation is dependent upon how precise one’s own description
10
See Vanhoozer, Meaning, 1-59; E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, Ct.: Yale
University Press, 1967); Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical
Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 366-67; Sandra M. Schneiders, “From Exegesis To
Hermeneutics: The Problem of the Contemporary Meaning of Scripture,” Horizons 8 (1981): 31; Roland Barthes,
The Pleasure of the Text, trans. Richard Miller (New York: Hill and Wong Publishing, 1975), 27; Gadamer, Truth
and Method, 388.
11
Hirsch, Interpretation, 11-13; Vanhoozer, 252-53; Robert L. Thomas, “The Principle of Single
Meaning,” in Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, ed. Robert L. Thomas (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Kregel Publications, 2002), 155-56.
12
Robert Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Books, 1994), 17-36.
13
Note that the Scripture describes that the Bible cannot be altered in any fashion. Such warnings such as in
Deut 4 deal with meaning changes as opposed to content changes (Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, New
International Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1976], 67-69.). “Note too that the reference is to the essence of the law, not the letter of the law. For example, the
Decalog, as presented in Deut. 5, is worded differently at several points from its presentation in Exod. 20” (130).
However, others have thought of this as a sealing of the canon or at least previous canonical material. The idea of
sealing the text and thereby its interpretation and the solidifying of the canon are not antithetical ideas but rather
complimentary. In effect, by doing the former the latter is accomplished. In doing so, it proves the main point: the
text is static and so not the source of meaning. Once again, if one examines the immediate context, one should see
that this resembles covenant preservation and warnings of tampering but in the intertextual flow of the canon, this
contributes to locking previous revelation as part of the standard of inspired writ. One may note that Prov 30:6 as
well as Rev 22:18-19 both function similarly. Although many have attempted to argue that Rev 22:18-19 only
covers the book, it is highly likely that the prohibition to add actually goes beyond this. The phrase in Rev 22:18-19
concerning accretions to revelation is
. The
in context refers to the previous phrase
. The emphasize of this is namely words that sourced from prophesy which are found in the book of
Revelation. What John is forbidding is more likely prophetic utterances rather than tampering when dealing with
additions. Words resulting from prophecy like the ones in Revelation are forbidden. What strengthens this view is
seeing how the apostle changed the genitive construction in the following verse to
. Here the emphasis is that the words are found in the book and originate from prophetic gifting.
One cannot remove the words to the book of Revelation and cannot add to Scripture because prophetic utterances
now are silenced. See also, Robert L. Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel
Publications, 1999], 143-53. The reader is commanded to correctly interpret Scripture rather than produce it (cf. 2
Pet 3:16; 2 Tim 2:15).
3
matches the idea of the author. In this way, incorrect interpretation is also possible as one makes
the text assert ideas that the author never had (2 Pet 3:16).14
Third, application is the utilization of the information the author provides in the text in a
variety of areas of life. While there is only one meaning per text, one can certainly see that there
could be many applications of a passage.15 Legitimate application occurs when one understands
the author’s intent and utilizes that intention consistent with itself.16 While authors have
exclusive control over the meaning of a text (by definition), application is somewhat different.
As noted above, good application is based upon the original meaning and so the author directs
the reader on what to do. However, the specific act is up to the reader to decide based upon what
information the author has already presented.
In light of these definitions, we should discuss the criteria for evaluating the
hermeneutical practices of the writers in both testaments. This becomes a little more complex
since we are reading those who read previous revelation (e.g., apostles). We are tasked to
evaluate their intentions with God’s Word in both interpretation and application. Accordingly, in
discussing how the NT authors used the OT (or how the OT used the OT), we must discern what
they were asserting. Were they presenting their interpretation of the passage (i.e., what they
thought was the author’s intent)? Or, were they presenting an application of the text (i.e.,
utilizing the meaning of the text in a specific area)? Were they adding a new meaning (i.e.,
reworking the text such that it communicates ideas foreign to the original intent) or assuming
their audience knew the meaning? Determining what the author was intending will become a
critical issue in this study.
The Prophetic Hermeneutic
When one begins to determine the author’s hermeneutical purposes, he begins to discover
what may be labeled as the prophetic or apostolic hermeneutic. The phrase “apostolic
hermeneutic” is a familiar term in NT studies. Scholars have frequently used this expression to
encompass the diverse manner in which the apostles used the OT. Although the passages
involved in the discussion are familiar, a consensus about how the apostles were hermeneutically
acting has not been reached.17
In contrast with the frequently debated apostolic hermeneutic, the prophetic hermeneutic
is not as well known. Since it is rather new in concept, this section will concentrate on discussing
14
This text states that the unlearned and unstable twist the epistles of Paul as well as the rest of Scripture
which moves them closer to destruction. In the immediate context of exhorting his audience to be all the more
diligent in their sanctification because of Christ’s coming, Peter explains that he, too, echoes Paul’s inspired
explanation. The apostle also notes (as a powerful reminder) that many have twisted such teachings which propel
them to their own condemnation. The fact that people can twist the Scripture shows that there is a right and wrong
interpretation (and application) and the reader is not in control of the text, but rather, the controlling factor is
authorial intent. Those who do twist the Scripture are the false teachers whom Peter says are condemned
15
Vanhoozer, Meaning, 221; Thomas, “Principle,” 142.
16
Vanhoozer, Meaning, 221; See Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 281. Zuck uses the very same analogy
of this paper and states, “Application is a bridge between the biblical meaing and present-day life situations” (pg.
281). He then demonstrates how such a “bridge” may be formed. He correctly asserts that based upon one’s
interpretation common analogies must be drawn with the original audience (pg. 283), the principle of the text must
be establish (pg. 286), and from these (and other) links the bridge of application may be established (pg. 287). See
also, Stein, Rules, 8-12. Stein similarly does not advocate a strict transference between original Biblical context and
modern day situations.
17
Beale, “Right Doctrine,” 375.
4
the existence and nature of the prophetic hermeneutic. The necessity for discussion is heightened
in that while the passages that form the basis for the apostolic hermeneutic are clear quotations,
the OT passages are not always as obvious. Hence, one needs to prove that the prophets of the
OT were not merely new revelation givers but also previous revelation interpreters/appliers.
They interpreted and incorporated previous revelation into their proclamations which would set
up for later revelation.18 I would like to show two aspects of the prophetic hermeneutic: (1) it
exists on a widespread level and (2) it has great consistency and continuity.
To show the existence of the prophetic hermeneutic, it is appropriate to start with how the
prophets viewed themselves. Various passages indicate that the prophets understood their
ministries to be in the context of a greater plan (Deut 1:1-4:32, Josh 23:1-24:33, 2 Kgs 8:15-21;
17:1-41; Dan 9:1-19; Ezra 9:5-15; and Neh 9:5-38). They were well aware of the past and how
that impacted the present and future.19 Consistently, they made constant appeals to not merely
past events but also to the theological interpretation of those real occurrences.20 In this way, one
can observe deductively that the prophets were not just preachers of what is new but theologians
of what had already been revealed.21 They were aware of previous revelation, its significance,
and so made it a major part of their ministry.
With this perspective in mind, let me provide you with some more concrete examples of
how their hermeneutic is displayed. One may begin with the broad recounting of historical
narratives within the OT. Passages such as Deuteronomy 1-4, Psalm 78, 105-6, Daniel 9 and
Nehemiah 9 all describe the history of Israel in light of the covenant and God’s promises.22 In
each recounting, the prophet appeals to a theocentric and covenantal perspective on these events
(i.e., how it is presented in Kings) for a particular purpose. Next, one could also observe that
there are poetic passages that refer to specific events of narrative passages which both interpret
and apply the previous text (Exod 14 and 15; Judg 4 and 5).23 Also, the repetition of phrases and
key words (Leitwort) give indications that the prophets were utilizing previous revelation. For
instance, the expression
(Exod 34:6) is seen frequently
repeated in various forms throughout the entire OT canon (cf. Num 14:18; Deut 4:31; Neh 9:17;
Ps 86:15). In each case, it appears that the prophets were basing their descriptions upon the
18
Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing,
1978), 11; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols., trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper and Row
Publishers, 1957), 1:115-21; Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the
Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 197-98; Abner Chou, “Hermeneutical Implications of Old
Testament Intertextuality on Redemptive History” (unpublished M.Div. thesis, The Master’s Seminary, 2005), 3340.
19
Kaiser, Toward, 11; Paul R. House, “Examining the Narratives of Old Testament Narrative: An
Exploration in Biblical Theology,” WTJ 67 (2005): 231-32.
20
House, “Examining,” 231-32. This means covenant or historical lessons presented in light of a covenant
viewpoint (cf. Dan 9 and Neh 9 or even the events described in Deut 6-8). This demonstrates not merely a historical
consciousness but a revelation consciousness about those events.
21
Kaiser, Toward, 11-21; House, “Examining,” 231-32.
22
Kaiser, Toward, 11-21; House, “Examining,” 231-32.
23
One may argue that such poetic texts refer to the event and not the text. One should remember that
intertextuality does not only contain textual references but also events. Even more, often times the text and event are
inseparable, particularly the biblical text’s interpretation of the event. After all, how are readers of all time supposed
to know what really happened outside the biblical text? The author, in recording this event, directs one to see an
intertextual reference. This is due to the fact that the biblical account represents the precise happenings of the past!
For this idea in principle, see Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 153-54.
5
original events in Exodus 32-34.24 Similarly, the word “branch” (
!) is used in Zechariah 6:10
but cannot be understood apart from its background in Isaiah 4 and 11.25 Thus, Zechariah was
alluding back to Isaiah in his prophecy. Therefore, the prophets frequently made reference and
use of previous revelation. Their references extend to the breadth of revelation - from narratives
to even precise words. Such intertextuality is found in every section of Scripture and every time
period of Israel’s history. The prophetic hermeneutic exists as an integral part of their work and
is certainly widespread throughout the canon.
Assuming that the prophetic hermeneutic exists on a widespread level, how does it
function? Is it consistent and continuous or is it diverse and disconnected? Once again, this
question demands an answer that goes beyond the scope of this paper.26 For a demonstration that
the prophetic hermeneutic (or OT intertextuality) is unified, I would refer you to several
specialized works.27 In addition to these, the resurgence of the biblical theology movement has
provided ample examples of the coherence of OT intertextuality.28 Just to illustrate and to
provide a preliminary proof of this proposal, I will present three major arguments for the unity of
the prophetic hermeneutic.
First, the prophets (with the Divine author) interpret the same piece of revelation the
same way. For example, the creation account is viewed as a demonstration of the Lord’s power
where God is the direct and exclusive cause of creation which occurred in six days (Exod 20:11;
1 Chron 16:26; Ps 33:1-9; 104:1-35). Similarly, the promise of land, seed, and blessing in the
Abrahamic promises are consistently interpreted the same way it was presented in Genesis 12:13 (Gen 15:2-4, 7-18; 17:1-8; Gen 50:24; Exod 6:8; 1 Chron 16:13-19, 17:16-22; Ps 105:1-45;
Zech 8:4-8).29
Second, the prophets also applied previous revelation in a consistent manner. For
example, the prophets apply God’s warnings of blessings and curses to their own time consistent
with what the text originally stated (1 Sam 7:1-11; 2 Kgs 18:1-6; 23:1-3; Amos 4:1-13; Hag 1:115).30 The prophets also used the same motif in a similar fashion. The metaphor of the vine (Ps
80:9-17) is echoed frequently in Scripture (cf. Isa 5:1-7; Hos 10:1; Jer 2:21; Ezek 15:1-8). Each
24
John Durham, Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987), 455; John
Durham, Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987), 455.
25
Charles L. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody Press, 1952), 301.
26
See Abner Chou, “The Prophetic Hermeneutic: Hermeneutically Defined, Theologically Displayed.”
(unpublished Th.M. thesis, The Master’s Seminary, 2006), 80-130.
27
Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, Eng.: Clarendon Press, 1985), 1314, 100-2; Chou, “Prophetic Hermeneutic,” 80-130; Broyles, “Intertextuality,” 157-75; House, Old Testament
Theology, 54-55; Kaiser, Old Testament Theology, 11.
28
G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 1-23; Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of
the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 15-41.
29
Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., “Evidence from Genesis,” in The Coming Millennial Kingdom, ed. Donald K.
Campbell and Jeffrey Townsend (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publishing, 1997), 35-54.
30
Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield, Eng.: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Press, 1981), 4-11; Steven J. McKenzie, “The Trouble with Kingship,” in Israel Constructs Its History:
Deuteronomic Historiography in Recent Research, ed. Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi
(Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 305. Noth recognized such connectedness throughout the
Pentateuch and even “Deuteronomic history.” Although his conclusions are disputable, one should certainly point to
the significance of his observations. Robert D. Bergen, 1 and 2 Samuel, New American Commentary (Nashville,
Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 106. “As they got rid of their idols and embraced the Lord wholeheartedly,
they could expect the Torah-promised benefits of a right relationship with the Lord, one of which was victory over
enemies” (106).
6
of these passages maintain the information that Israel is a privileged vine due to the Exodus and
conquest (cf. Ps 80:9-11). Each also shows the growing fruitlessness and thereby condemnation
of the nation.31 For this example, in addition to the consistent application, one should also
observe a developing application as well. The prophets do not merely refer to the source text of
Psalm 80 but rather also include references to those who have already utilized the metaphor.
Isaiah introduces the concept of fruitless as a metaphor for Israel’s debauchery.32 This is echoed
in Hosea 10:1.33 However, Jeremiah, intensifies this pattern by also saying the vine itself has
become corrupted.34 Ezekiel’s description of vine does not even attempt to explain how it
became fruitless and debauched. The prophet just begins when the vine is fruitless and useless
showing he assumed everyone understood the previous descriptions found from Psalm 80
through the prophets.35 This illustrates that the prophets applied revelation consistently and at
times their applications compounded on each other forming a continuous line of reasoning.
Finally, exceptions to the rule seem to be descriptive and not prescriptive. In other words,
when individuals misinterpret Scripture or misapply it, the Bible does not assert that those
actions are legitimate but rather was recording the incident for another purpose altogether.36 For
example, outright disobedience to God’s commands is a form of misapplication. Clearly, the
Lord does not sanction this (Deut 6:1-9).
As noted above, these examples only provide an initial demonstration that the prophetic
hermeneutic is indeed one united entity. One can find further examples in various works
validating what has already been said. All this to say, there are strong indicators that the
prophetic hermeneutic exists and it is consistent and continuous. This hermeneutical coherence
creates chains of passages intentionally connected together by consistent interpretation and
developing application. The idea of a “string of intentionally connected texts” is critical for this
study.
EXAMPLES OF HERMENEUTICAL CONTINUITY
The goal of this section is to illustrate the way the prophetic hermeneutic interprets a
passage and how this sets up for the apostolic hermeneutic. Within this, the aim is to show the
consistency of interpretation while developing a particular application. Through this, one can see
that the apostles were not crazy; they interpreted the text the way it has always been interpreted
but provided the end result of an application which had progressed from the writing of the
original OT text. Because we, as readers, are not sensitive to this development, we sometimes
lose the train of thought the apostles had. This train of thought is regained when examining the
31
John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39, New International Commentary on the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1986), 153-54; Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 49;
Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987), 159; Charles L. Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” in
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing,
1986), 6:393; Ralph Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing, 1986), 6:809.
32
Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” 6:393.
33
Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 159.
34
Alexander, “Ezekiel,” 6:809.
35
Ibid.
36
Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “History or Story?: The Literary Dimension in Narrative Texts,” in Giving the
Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, eds. David M. Howard Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2003), 58-59.
7
intertextuality of the OT generated by the consistency of the prophetic hermeneutic. The study
will use the following examples: Joel 3:1-5 (Eng., 2:28-32) and Amos 9:11-12.
Joel 3:1-5 (Eng., 2:28-32)
The primary citation of this passage is found in Acts 2:17-21. Scholars have debated the
nature of the fulfillment of the passage.37 While the extent of fulfillment is controversial, all
seem to agree that the Holy Spirit’s outpouring at Pentecost is somehow related to the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit in Joel.38 However, this raises two important questions as noted in the
introduction of this paper. Why does Peter choose this passage? After all, there are other
passages which discuss the Spirit’s outpouring (cf. Ezek 39:29; Zech 12:10). Why did he select
Joel over the other ones? Furthermore, if the primary association concentrates on the Holy
Spirit’s outpouring, why does Peter cite the entire prophecy in Joel? This once again demands us
go back to the OT and examine the thematic threads created by the prophetic hermeneutic. How
does Joel precisely fit into the prophetic procession of thought?
I will argue that Joel 3:1-5 presents a broad, panoramic picture of the latter days. This
will be evidenced by how he incorporates previous revelation into his prophecy and confirmed
by how later OT revelation utilizes Joel. Understanding that Joel’s unique contribution to the
Scripture is this “big picture” viewpoint on the latter days is vital to understanding Peter’s usage
of the passage.
How does one know that Joel 3:1-5 is an intentional presentation of the entire era of the
latter days? First, the immediate context demands it. The book of Joel as a whole deals with
God’s might wrath as displayed primarily in the Day of the LORD.39 One can observe the idea of
judgment (1:1-2:17) leading to salvation (2:18-4:21) which shows from beginning to end what
will occur in this time period. If the entire book of Joel is concerned with providing a broad
picture, then it follows that each section of the book contributes in an overview of different
“stages” of this timeline. For Joel 3:1-5, this would be the “stage” of the latter days.
37
One may briefly survey the possibilities here. One view argues that Joel 3:1-5 was completely fulfilled at
Pentecost (Joseph Addison Alexander, The Acts of the Apostles Explained, 2 vols. [New York: Charles Scribner,
1857], 1:65-66). They primarily claim that based upon Peter’s citation, one must conclude that prophecy of Joel has
been completed. Another view is held by some dispensationalists who argue that there was absolutely no fulfillment
of Joel 3:1-5 at Pentecost (Charles L. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets [Chicago: Moody Press, 1977], 82). They
argue that since Joel was strictly discussing the Millennial Kingdom, Peter was appealing to a later event to show
that what was happening at Pentecost was from God. In an attempt to balance these extremes, some have argued that
part of the Joel prophecy is fulfilled in Pentecost and the other part will be completed eschatologically. Most argue
that the pouring out of the Spirit and the consequences of this act are fulfilled at Pentecost (and during the present
age) while the signs and wonders in heaven and on earth are eschatological (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of
the Acts of the Apostles [Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961], 76-77). Yet others state that Joel
was fulfilled in a limited sense. This restriction includes not only what parts of the prophecy were fulfilled but also
the degree to which they were fulfilled. There was an initial fulfillment which did not completely exhaust Joel 3:1-5
in any way. Hence, the prophecy will be totally accomplished in the eschaton (Irvin Busenitz, Joel and Obadiah,
Mentor Commentary [Ross-shire: Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2003], 194-95).
38
Feinberg, Prophets, 82.
39
Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press,
1990), 10; Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, New American Commentary (Nasvhille, Tenn.: Broadman and Holamn
Publishers, 1997), 298-300
8
Second, the intertextual context implies that Joel 3:1-5 is discussing an overarching
picture. Many have noted that Joel is a massive convergence point of various themes in the OT.40
They include the following: (1) the latter days (v. 1 "#$ % & ; cf. Gen 49:10), (2) the outpouring
) *+, ; cf. Num 11:25-29), (3) Exodus like judgments (v. 3
of the Holy Spirit (v. 1 ' (
+-.- ) & ( + #/ 0 102; cf. Exod 7:14-29; 9:23), (4) the Day of the LORD (v. 4 3 043 ) 5; cf.
Oba 15), and (5) the preservation of a remnant (v. 5 36-$ 7#8,; Oba 17).41 Joel’s intentional
allusions/incorporation of these concepts is evidenced by his usage of some key words (e.g.,
latter days and Day of the LORD) as well as formula (e.g., “as the Lord has said,” v. 5).
Considering that some of these elements have never been associated with the latter days in
previous revelation, it appears that this is where God reveals through Joel about His major
actions for this era. The convergence of concepts is nothing less than a synthesis of
eschatological events which fits the idea of an overview.
Third, the content of Joel 3:1-5 argues that he was intentionally depicting the entire time
period of the latter days. Joel begins this passage by stating that he is discussing the latter days
(v. 1).42 According to Joel, this time period, which is associated with God fulfilling His promises
through the Messiah (cf. Gen 49:1; Num 24:17), in some manner intersects with Joel’s main
topic of the Day of the LORD. Although there is debate on how this overlapping exactly works, I
would argue that the latter days is a broader time period than the Day of the LORD and so the
40
Irvin Busenitz, Joel and Obadiah, Mentor Commentary (Ross-shire: Great Britain: Christian Focus
Publications, 2003), 182-95.
41
First, the concept of the latter days is incorporated into Joel ( "#$ % & , 3:1). The phrase "#$ % & with the
discourse marker 3 023- discusses a distinct time period; in this case most likely a phrase not denoting an
“afterwards” but rather an “after time” and thereby “latter days.” The latter days refers not only to a future time one
of climax or ultimate fulfillment. Passages such as Genesis 49:1, Numbers 24:14, Deuteronomy 4:30, and 31:29 all
indicate it denotes the events which allow the nation to receive its promises from the Lord by the work of Messiah.
Joel seems to intentionally link his own prophecy with these events. Thus it appears that the latter days and the Day
of the LORD in some way intersect. Ultimately, this association reinforces that Joel 3:1-5 provides an
eschatological overview - particularly of the latter days.
Second, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is another dominant theme that is placed within Joel’s overview
of the latter days. In Joel, the reference would be back to Numbers 11 where Moses states that his wish would be
that the entire nation would prophesy. It appears that the leader of Israel recognized that the spiritual solution for
God’s people was to receive the ministry of the Holy Spirit. At this point, Joel proclaims in clear terms that Moses’
wish and insight would become reality. Arguably, this is the first revelation of such a connection between latter days
and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Such would enable Israel to be what they needed to be so as to receive the
promises of blessing (cf. Deut 4:30; 31:29). This plays quite well into the idea of the latter days bringing about the
fulfillment of God’s intentions.
Third, theophanies associated with the Exodus are found in this passage. Joel refers to phenomena such as
the blood, fire, smoke, and the sun turning into darkness. All of these resemble what occurred at the Exodus.
Although such “second-Exodus” events are seen throughout prophecy (Isa 10:6-7; 13:10; 29:6; Hab 3:1-15;), this is
the first connection between the two.
Fourth, the Day of the LORD is also referenced in Joel 3:4. Most likely, the reference is back to Obadiah
15 which discusses God’s wrath against all nations. It appears that the Day of the LORD will occur within the scope
of the latter days. Joel also seems to imply that the Day of the LORD in view is an escalation of the previous; in a
sense, two-stage Day of the LORD (note the wording 09) 3 7) :03 3 043 ) 5; the great and fearful Day of the
LORD).
Finally, a preservation of a remnant will occur as indicated in Joel 3:5.This again is a reference to Obadiah
17 which assures the nation that in the midst of judgment God has promised to deliver a portion of the nation.
42
Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 80-81.
9
Day of the LORD is a part of the latter days.43 In any case, Joel proclaims that the Holy Spirit
will have an unrestricted ministry amongst God’s people throughout that entire era (vv. 1-2).
However, as a part of this latter days time, God will also send Exodus like judgments to deliver
His people from wickedness (v. 3). Although such judgment is within the Day of the LORD, it
actually precedes an intensified Day of the LORD where God’s wrath is fully realized (v. 4).
However, no matter how terrifying God’s judgment is, the remnant of Israel, who call in
repentance on God’s name, will be preserved (v. 5). One can certainly argue from the content
itself that Joel has organized his passage to show his reader what will happen throughout the
entire period of the latter days. One may see it pictorially here:
LATTER DAYS
Holy Spirit’s work all through the period
(<=0> in those days in verse 2).
(note phrase, 3;-3#/3Day of the LORD
(big context of Joel)
Exodus
Judgments
Great and
Fearful Day
of the LORD
Remnant
Fourth, what really confirms all these suggestions is the fact that later revelation utilizes
Joel in this precise way. For example, assuming an early date of Joel, no other passage in later
revelation ever talks about the latter days with so many different elements as Joel 3:1-5.44 They
provide more details about different segments of Joel’s prophecy. In doing so, it is also
noteworthy to see that they do not modify or differ with Joel about his organization of the latter
days as portrayed in 3:1-5. Rather, the way they arrange particular events for their discussion
matches the way Joel has constructed them.45 This indicates that the prophets were using Joel as
an eschatological foundation from which they could expand on. Furthermore, later prophets who
use the phrase, “Day of the LORD,” when pertaining to topics in Joel 3:1-5 also seem to use the
passage in a similar manner described above.46 Also, those who allude to the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit seem to assume their audience is familiar with Joel as an eschatological overview.
Both Zechariah and Ezekiel incorporate the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a signal of the latter
days.47 How did they know this? The answer must come from Joel which alone links the two
43
Ibid.
R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1969), 877; Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1974), 304; C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets, trans. James Martin, in Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), 170.
45
E.g., Israel’s refining judgment (Dan 10:14-11:45), its restoration of the remnant (Hos 3:5), and all
nations’ submission as a result (Jer 48:47; 49:39). Also note that they all agree that the latter days is an
eschatological time period including the Millennial Kingdom and the events that bring it about (Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1;
Ezek 38:16; Dan 10:14-12:4).
46
Richard L. Mayhue, “The Prophet’s Watchword: Day of the Lord,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985):
236. See Mayhue’s chart on terms found in Joel used by later prophets.
47
Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, NICOT, ed. R. K. Harrison (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 488-89; Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 333.
44
10
together. Interestingly enough, Zechariah also notes that Messiah’s death must bring in this era
(Zech 12:10).48 Ultimately, these four factors emphasize that Joel 3:1-5 intentionally describes
and used as a panoramic picture of the latter days.
So far, we have walked through the prophetic line of reasoning leading up till Joel,
moving through Joel, and after Joel. We have seen through this that Joel 3:1-5 uniquely describes
the overarching character of the latter days. Now we should move into the NT. Before moving
into Acts, we should examine how our Lord (part of now the “apostolic” hermeneutic) utilizes
Joel. The Lord has proclaimed that His death and return to the Father will bring in the Holy
Spirit (Jhn 14:12, 17-18).49 This brings in the entire period of the latter days; between when the
disciples no longer see the Lord and then see Him (Jhn 16:17). Our Lord is appealing that the
reality of Joel will come into being soon. Such an assertion is consistent with the Messiah’s
death preceding the latter days (cf. Zech 12:10).
Peter’s speech at Pentecost, which occurs after Jesus’ ascension, now can be understood
more precisely. In responding to those who were skeptical at the Holy Spirit’s work, why does
Peter utilize Joel 3:1-5 as opposed to Zechariah 12:10 or Ezekiel 38:16? At this point, the
prophetic hermeneutic of Joel 3:1-5 should make it clear. Peter was not arguing for fulfillment of
a particular prophecy as much as a beginning of a new era; an era brought by the victory of
Messiah (by His death) which will be brought into fullness by what occurs in the latter days (cf.
Isa 2:2; Mic 3:1; Zech 12:10; Dan 12:1-4).50 This is precisely why Peter uses a pesher (“this is
that”) formula rather than a
formual (although he could have, cf. Acts 1:16). He does not
want to show a completion (which would be what
implies) but rather an inauguration.51
Similarly, since Peter’s focus is on the beginning of a time period, he includes the entire passage
to show what precisely is starting. Even Peter’s particular translation of Joel 3:1-5 reflects this
idea.52
Further evidence for this assertion is seen in Peter’s very explanation. One should note
that the apostle does not even explain what the text means. Rather, Peter explains why this text
can be applied to this event. Jesus died, rose overcoming death, and ascended thereby having the
ultimate claim to the Davidic throne all according to prophecy (vv. 22-32). Because He has
gained such a victory, He sent the Holy Spirit to begin the work of the latter days while He waits
for His Kingdom (vv. 33-35; cf. Ps. 110). The linkage of the Messiah’s waiting for the Kingdom
and the latter days makes sense since the latter days contain the events which will bring in God’s
Kingdom. So Messiah, in His waiting, begins the process which will culminate in what He is
waiting for. Peter’s explanation is in complete accordance with how Zechariah 12:10 develops
48
Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 333.
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 452.
50
Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody Press, 1954). Culver’s own study of the
issue concludes similarly. He states, “An examination shows that while many events previous to eschatological
times are within the scope of the prophecies limited by the expression ‘latter days,’ in not one is the conclusion of all
human history in the consummating events connected with the yet future establishment of the Messianic Kingdom
on earth out of sight. Otherwise, the events would be on in future time, not necessarily ‘the latter days’” (107).
51
Paul D. Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the
Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., ed. John S. Feinberg
(Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1988), 126; Daniel J. Treier, “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: A Multiple-Lens
Approach,” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 18-19.
52
Notice how Peter translated the phrase "# % & as
; however, the LXX has
. Peter’s translation of “latter days” as opposed to “after these things” demonstrates his sensitivity to the
issues at hand.
49
11
the realization of Joel’s prophecy which is further and consistently specified by the Lord in John
14:12-19.
At this point, one can observe how the prophetic hermeneutic continues into the apostolic
hermeneutic. Let me summarize the process up to this point. Joel has incorporated previous
revelation into his prophecy to show that he is providing a broad picture of the latter days. Later
revelation uses Joel with the same meaning but only applying it in different ways. Some of those
application also include further revelation about the circumstances that will begin the latter days
(e.g., Zech 12:10). Throughout the OT canon, the prophets provide more specific characteristics
for the realization of the latter days. Such applications in the prophetic hermeneutic are even
further narrowed by our Lord who states that His death, resurrection, and ascension will
accomplish it. Ultimately, Peter brings this particular aspect of Joel 3:1-5 (how it will come into
being) to its complete conclusion. What happened at Pentecost fulfills all the requirements set up
by the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic thus far and so Peter can argue that the latter days
have begun.
I should quickly note that the apostolic hermeneutic does not stop here. Because of the
fact that the latter days have come into existence, repentance (cf. Joel 3:5) is now possible and
thereby demanded. Gentiles, who were not part of the original audience of Joel, are impacted
because God has allowed them into the plan (Eph 2:11-15). Since they live in the latter days,
they too can repent and receive the Holy Spirit because He is at work throughout this time.53
Thus, in addition to the remarks about the latter days made in the epistle, Paul himself rightly
uses Joel 3:5 in Romans 10:13. The time for salvation from God’s future wrath is in the latter
days, right now! The apostolic hermeneutic is completely consistent with the prophetic
hermeneutic and when viewed rightly, one can certainly see the complete rationality of the
apostles.
53
Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 140-41; Walter Kaiser, Uses of the Old Testament (Eugene,
Oreg.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1985), 18-20; Walter Kaiser, Back to the Future: Hits for Interpreting Prophecy
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1989), 122. One should discuss the nature of the fulfillment of Joel 3:1-5.
Although this has no bearing on the argument of when the latter days begin as discussed in Acts, it does have
pertinence to the issue of the nature of this time period. Joel 3:1-5 was originally directed to the Jews describing the
nature of what would occur during the era of the latter days. In other words, the prophecy tells the characteristics of
the time period of the latter days. As previous revelation attests, since the death and resurrection of Messiah
inaugurates the latter days, Joel’s prophecy should start to take place. This is expected. However, within Joel’s
prophecy the focus of the latter days’ description pertains to the Jewish people. Accordingly, the church is not in
view and thereby the church age is not accounted for in that description. There potentially could be a time gap
within Joel’s prophecy. Consistently, the descriptions found in the OT may not account for the time gap created by
the church age within the latter days. There could even be prophecies (e.g., Joel 3:1-5) that have fulfillment around
but not totally within the church age. In light of this, the church age is within the latter days and is also within the
brackets of Joel’s panoramic picture although not in the purview of his prophecy itself. Hence, Joel 3:1-5 has had a
beginning of a fulfillment in history, is delayed in fulfillment due to the church age, and is not completed until after
the church age ends. Because the church age is in the era of the Spirit, the latter days, the body of Christ receives a
certain aspect of the Spirit’s ministry. Nevertheless, the heightened and full ministry of the Holy Spirit does not
occur until the church age is over and Israel is once again in focus in doxological history.
12
Amos 9:11-12
Amos 9:11-12 as used by James in Acts 15:19-21 has been the center of controversy
amongst scholars.54 Like Joel 3:1-5, Amos 9:11-12 is an intentional convergence of multiple
themes. Also, the later prophets allude to this passage numerous times. Once again, I would like
to walk through the prophetic hermeneutic: Amos’ use of previous revelation, later OT
revelation’s use of Amos, and then the bearing this has on the apostolic hermeneutic in Acts.
The immediate context will be helpful at this point. Amos is a prophet who deals with the
justice of God’s wrath. Is it right for God to punish His people? Amos shows that based upon
God’s impartiality (1:1-2:16) and His covenant justice (3:1-6:14), there is no way one can accuse
God of injustice. Moreover, God’s judgment is balanced and never is too harsh. In fact, often
times it is a display of grace and commitment to His promises (7:1-8:14). Amos shows how this
“equilibrium of judgment” will occur in Amos 9:1-15. After the massive judgment that occurs in
the book, Amos begins the balance of God’s wrath: His gracious restoration of His people (9:1115). Our passage actually begins this restoration section and shows that in the end, God’s justice
will be balanced not only toward Israel but consequently to the world. God has a plan for Israel
to use her to impact the nations (Gen 12:1-3; Exod 19:5-6). Thus, when God fulfills His purpose
for the nation Israel, then the entire world will reap the benefits. It is this reality that I would
argue is discussed in Amos 9:11-12.
The allusions in Amos 9:11-12 also indicate that the equilibrium of God’s justice for
Israel and thereby for the world is in view. Nearly every phrase reflects some aspect of revelation
prior to Amos.55 Verse 11 refers back to the technical term “on that day,” an eschatological
marker (cf. Oba 8; Joel 4:18).56 It also alludes to the revival of the Davidic dynasty, “David”
himself, and the nation as a whole using Feast of Booths (3?- @) terminology (cf. Lev 23:42-43).57
Such revivals themselves are correlated with the united monarchy’s splendor ( 7-). # ?(, cf. 1
Kings 10:1-29). Synthesizing these ideas, it appears that God at a certain eschatological point
will revive and restore the Davidic dynasty and the nation from its state of disjointed exile.58 This
certainly is the reversal (or balance) of God’s judgment as His wrath peaks by dispersing His
people (Amos 4:12-5:3; 9:7-10; cf. Lev 26:27-33). As allusions in the next verse indicate, the
precise eschatological point that Amos is referring to is the culmination of the latter days (cf.
Num 24:17-18 and the destruction of Edom).
Verse 12 also has many intentional connections. The initial reference to the conquest of
Edom alludes back to Obadiah which itself reflects an epic struggle of two twins; one destined
54
O. Palmer Robertson, “Hermeneutics of Continuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on
the Relationship between Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1988),
107-8.
55
B. K. Smith and Frank Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman
& Holman Publishers), 165.
56
J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 54.
57
H. Neil Richardson, “Skt (Amos 9:11): “Booth” or “Succoth,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973):
375-81; Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 122-23; David M. King, “The Use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18,” Ashland
Theological Journal 21 (1989): 9.
58
One should note that the Feast of Booths was used to celebrate God’s preservation of the Israelites in the
wilderness (cf. Lev 23:42-43). In light of this, the returned exiles continued to emphasize the celebration of this
event because it represented their hope that God would preserve them in their “second wilderness” – the exile (cf.
Hag 2:1-5). Since they were not fully restored from that exile to be the nation that God promised, they were
depending on God’s faithfulness to preserve them till the time of promise fulfilled. At that time it appears that Feast
of Booths is also a primary celebration because of its commemorative value (cf. Hag 2:1-5; Zech 14:16-19).
13
by God for blessing and the other for subjection.59 God’s prophecy, while these two nations were
still in the womb, demonstrated this very idea (Gen 25:23). Such a struggle comes into reality as
history progresses. Obadiah captures an event which will launch these two nations into their
destined outcomes. Because of Edom’s wickedness against Israel, they are sentenced to be
subjected under the reign of Israel. As a result of this, the whole world will be under God’s total
sovereignty in every way (Oba 17-21).60 Hence, Israel’s conquest of Edom is not purely military
but also to obtain their allegiance (and the rest of the world) to the Lord.61 This both physical
and spiritual conquest and victory is vital in understanding the nature described by the victory
over Edom.62 The passage at hand is describing both of these elements by referring to Israel’s
victory over Edom in terms reminiscent of Obadiah. Amos seems to emphasize this aspect again
with an allusion to Joel 3:5.63 Amos talks about every nation which is called by the Lord’s name
( 3 7#.& (+,
0A,B + &). This resembles the phrase in Joel describing those who are part of the
repentant and faithful remnant. Amos is arguing that there will be those among the Gentiles who
have put their faith in the Lord.64 These, who belong in God’s Kingdom, will be delivered into
God’s Kingdom by Israel’s success.
In addition to this physical/spiritual deliverance motif in Amos, one should also notice
that Edom’s fate is linked with the whole world (Oba 17-21). What Edom will experience is only
a microcosm of the way Israel will dominate all the nations. In this way, Edom has exegetical
basis to become a metonymy for all nations.65
One can now synthesize these intertextual observations with a brief expositional
summary of the prophecy. Amos’ allusions indicate that the reversal of God’s judgment results
in both the physical and spiritual deliverance of not just Israel and the Davidic dynasty but
through them all those who have repented not only in Edom but in the entire world. This will
occur at the telos of history and will be through Messiah as indicated in verse 11. It is
noteworthy that the Gentiles are spiritually right (called by God’s name) as an entity apart from
the nation Israel. One should not forget that God has a plan for the whole world that is directly
tied with His plan for Israel.
Later prophets consistently interpret Amos and apply his prophecy expanding the details
of what he has stated. Micah shows that the Davidic dynasty does indeed go into exile as they
depart into Adullam (Mic 1:15).66 This is precisely what Amos implies with the Feast of
59
Derek Kidner, Genesis, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
1967), 151.
60
Busenitz, Obadiah, 282. Note the phrase the kingdom will belong to the Lord.
61
Ibid.; Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 129-30.
62
King, “Amos in Acts,” 10; Kaiser, Uses of the Old Testament, 179-80, 183-85, C. F. Deil, Minor Prophet
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954), 332.
63
Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 123.
64
More precisely the Nipahl Perfect verb is passive. What is in view is a state of being or character. The
nations are characterized by having been called by God’s name, He owns them. How did they enter such a state is
implied by the allusion back to Joel 3:1-5. See Dean Wenthe, “Amos9:11-15: The Blood of Jesus in the Booth of
David,” in “Hear the Word of Yahweh: Essays on Scripture and Archaeology in Honor of Horace D. Hummel (St.
Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 2002), 16. The phrase has a distinct idea of a state of ownership. See also,
Richard J. Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul, ed. Bruce
Chilton and Craig Evans (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 119.
65
Kaiser, Uses of the Old Testament, 183-85; Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 123.
66
Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook of the Prophets (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2002), 419;
Stephen G. Dempster, “Geography and Genealogy: Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible,” in
Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002),
14
Tabernacle imagery. Interestingly enough, Micah also demonstrates that a new David will be
responsible for reversing this exile of the Davidic dynasty (Mic 5:2).67 This is an expansion of
what Amos states “I will raise his ruins” ( - C 3& , 9:11, note 3ms suffix referring to David).68 In
addition to the emergence of the Davidic dynasty, Messiah, and Israel, many prophets discuss
Amos’ conception of both spiritual and physical conquest for the nations. Isaiah notes that in the
restoration of Israel, the nation will cause the nation of Edom will obey Israel and thereby the
Lord (Isa 11:14).69 Similarly, later passages in Isaiah discuss Moab’s obedience to God as a
result of Israel’s conquest (Isa 16:5) as well as the whole world in light of God’s judgment
(24:15-16).70 Even more, the very concept of Amos is almost a grid of how Isaiah presents the
Messiah’s work as not just for Israel but for the world (Isa 49:1-6; 53:1-55:8).71 Such work
ultimately occurs at the climax of the latter days (Isa 2:1-4; Mic 4:1-5) as already implied in
Amos. The reason that these themes are intertwined in Isaiah is because they have already been
fixed together in Amos.72 Israel’s victory is the world’s deliverance to God. This is God’s system
of justice. Amos 9:11-12 acts as an interpretative grid for the later prophets. Accordingly, the
prophets take all of Amos literarily as it was original intended but apply in ways that provide
more details about the circumstances surrounding these events.
The prophetic hermeneutic sets up for the apostolic hermeneutic. One should note that the
Lord in the gospels states that His death will draw all men to Himself (12:32) which echoes
concepts and passages that Amos is associated with.73 There are also additional circumstances
that fit the necessary components established by the prophetic hermeneutic for Amos 9:11-12 to
become reality. Our Lord’s death also sets up for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty at His
return (Acts 1:6-7, 11).74 The Jerusalem Council is after these events and follows the events of
Pentecost. One should remember that the key interpretative passage of what occurred at that time
was Joel 3:1-5 which itself is connected with Amos 9:11-12. The repentance that was enabled
because of the latter days will in some way effect the Gentiles. Ultimately, Amos 9:11-12 is at
the telos of the latter and the latter days have begun (Acts 2:17-21). In light of this, the
circumstances of the Jerusalem Council mark that history is quickly moving toward the
fulfillment of this passage. This is all indicated by how the circumstances depicted in the
Gospels/Acts match with the prophetic application of Amos 9:11-12.
73-74, 81-82. Israel is still in exile so to speak and the Davidic dynasty has certainly joined them. It returned to
“Adullam,” the place where it began.
67
Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 173.
68
King, “Amos in Acts,” 9; Kaiser, Uses of the Old Testament, 182.
69
Motyer, Isaiah, 126; Oswalt, Isaiah, 288.
70
Motyer, Isaiah, 202-3; Oswalt, Isaiah, 451.
71
Motyer, Isaiah, 444; Oswalt, Isaiah, 454-55.
72
Peter Höffken, “Zu den Heilzusätzen in der Völkerorakelsammlung des Jeremiabuches,” Vetus
Testamentum 27 (1977): 398-99. Some further examples include: Dan 11:41 where Ammon, Moab, and Edom are
named as surviving remnants of God’s judgment. This makes sense since those nations in Isaiah are all linked with
submission to Israel and thereby spiritual deliverance.
73
F. F. Bruce, Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983), 267-68.
74
J. B. Polhill, Acts, New American Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 2001), 84.
“Jesus corrected the disciples by directing them away from the question about “times or dates” (v. 7). These are
matters wholly within God’s own purposes and authority. During his earthly life Jesus had denied such knowledge
even for himself (Mark 13:32). In denying such knowledge to the disciples, the hope in the Parousia is not
abandoned. If anything, it is intensified by the vivid picture of Jesus returning on the clouds of heaven in the same
mode as his ascension (Acts 1:11).”
15
In light of God’s recent activity amongst the Gentiles, the Jerusalem Council convenes to
determine whether the Gentiles can be saved as a separate entity apart from the Jews.75 James
affirms that the testimonies presented are legitimate since this is in accordance with what the
prophets have spoken. The fact that the prophets is plural in verse 15 may give us a reason why
James used this passage. It was representative of the prophets of Scripture since it is the basis of
the later prophets as we have seen. Already, one can observe that the prophetic hermeneutic is in
play.
Concerning James’ introduction, one should note that he does not claim that Amos has
been fulfilled but rather that only the Prophets agree (
, Acts 15:15).76 James is
consistent with the interpretation and application of the prophetic hermeneutic. He knows that
the “church” is not in view in Amos 9:11-12 but rather Israel was the referent.77 He also knows
the circumstances of the time and thereby sees that the necessary components (as seen in the
prophetic hermeneutic) are forming to bring about the fulfillment of this prophecy. Since history
is heading in this direction, is it not reasonable for God to begin to include Gentiles as a separate
entity into the Kingdom? James’ logic is quite reasonable, sound, and based upon what the
prophetic hermeneutic has already established about Amos 9:11-12.
What further evidences this interpretation is James’ translation of Amos 9:11-12. His
rendering does not match either the LXX or the MT. James I believe is providing an explanatory
theological translation of the text much like certain translations we have today. This too is
certainly influenced by the prophetic hermeneutic. Why does James translate the first phrase of
Amos as
(after these things I will return) when the LXX has
(on that day I will raise)?78 In light of the prophetic hermeneutic, this alteration
makes sense. James knows that Amos 9:11-12 will be fulfilled at the telos of the latter days (cf.
Num 24:17; Isa 2:1-4; Mic 3:1-5) which is in light of the current events the second coming of
Christ.79 The “after these things” refers to all the events of the current time; the latter days.80
After the current days, the Lord will return to fulfill this prophecy. Also, the emphasis on the
results of God’s victory in Israel (“the remnant of man seeking the Lord”; Acts 15:17) is
appropriate in light of the fact that the prophetic hermeneutic emphasizes that very implication
found in the Amos text (by alluding to worldwide belonging to God and by forging a link
75
Ibid., 321; Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 118-19.
Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 118-19.
77
Ibid.; contra King, “Amos in Acts,” 12; Wenthe, “Amos 9:11-15,” 39. Not only does James introductory
formula contradict the idea that the tent is the church but also his translation as we will see.
78
The issues of translation of this verse are quite intense. The major divergences between MT, LXX, and
James are listed and discussed above. Nonetheless, I would refer you to others who have discussed it more
satisfactorily. Wenthe, “Amos 9:11-15,” 23-38; Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 118-19; King, “Amos
in Acts,” 8-12; Robertson, “Hermeneutics of Continuity,” 95-96.
79
Robertson, “Hermeneutics of Continuity,” 95-96.
80
Contra., Robertson, “Hermeneutics of Continuity,” 95-96. Robertson argues that this is part of the
quotation structure but gives no reason why James quotes differently than LXX and MT. It is significant when all
three disagree because it shows James’ intentions more clearly. Robertson is indeed contradictory when he says that
the phrase “I will return” is actually a reference to the second coming. If James modified the verb to show how
Amos actually fit his current context based upon the prophetic hermeneutic, then to be consistent he also had to
modify the adverbial phrase as well. Considering this, there is no possible way that James views Amos 9:11-12 as
fulfilled but rather as a future reality that helps one to see why events are happening in the current latter day period.
Even further evidence can be doctored from the fact that
is actually a key phrase in the LXX of Joel 3:15. This may be a veiled reference to the latter days itself and so the idea would be “following the latter days.” If this
is the case (which in light of Pentecost would make sense) then James is indeed aware of the OT connections formed
intentionally by the prophetic hermeneutic.
76
16
between Edom and the whole world). It is a loose and interpretative but understandable
rendition.81 James’ translation is one that is relative to his current audience based upon the
information of the prophetic hermeneutic. The emphasis of this nuance is that since the latter
days is heading in this direction and setting all necessary elements to fulfill Amos 9:11-12, God’s
work to the Gentiles should not be doubted. His ultimate outcome for Israel and the world in
Amos 9:11-12 is being fashioned in the current time of the latter days. In this case, the end
validates the in between.
To sum up this example, James’ apostolic hermeneutic truly relies on and continues the
prophetic hermeneutic. James uses Amos 9:11-12 because it is the foundation for many other
prophets to expound on God’s plan for Israel and the Gentiles. Hence, he can use this one text to
prove that the prophets (
) agree. He does not provide his interpretation of
the passage or claim that it is fulfilled. Rather, he states that the meaning of Amos 9:11-12 is
consistent with what God is doing in the current time amongst Gentiles. This implies that James
interpreted Amos 9:11-12 the same way all the rest of the OT prophets did. He thought of it
referring to the end time event where Israel has victory and thereby ushers the entire world into a
physical and spiritual salvation. Such an interpretation is the original meaning of Amos 9:11-12
itself as seen in his usage of previous revelation. Not only did James interpret the text
consistently with the prophetic hermeneutic, but he was also sensitive to the OT’s application of
that passage. The prophetic hermeneutic showed that the “on that day” ( 33 )=>, Amos 9:11)
refers to the telos of the latter days. The prophetic hermeneutic also shows other vital
circumstances that must be present to have this fulfilled. James recognizes that much of the
requirements setup by the prophetic hermeneutic are in place due to the inauguration of the latter
days (Acts 2). Accordingly, he knows where history is heading and makes this application
which is quite logical. If God’s plan all along was to save the world (cf. Acts 15:17-18
), then as history moves dramatically forward toward
this, it makes sense that the Lord would work spiritually amongst the Gentiles. These ideas are
implied in his modified translation of the LXX. All of this shows the prophetic hermeneutic
working into the apostolic hermeneutic.
CONCLUSION
Summary
In this paper I have attempted to show that one can properly understand what the apostles
were doing through the prophetic hermeneutic. The way the OT interpreted and applied the OT
sets up for the NT application. In other words, the prophetic hermeneutic guided particular
applications of an OT passage which the NT completes. To demonstrate this, I first established
some critical applications which would be frequently discussed in this study. Then, I also showed
that the prophetic hermeneutic did exist and actually formed a chain of intentionally connected
passages. Recognizing that the prophetic hermeneutic develops particular applications through
these strings of passages, one can apply that to the problem of the NT’s use of the OT. We saw
that in both Joel 3:1-5 and Amos 9:11-12 this allowed us not only to explain the apostle’s logic
but also to account for a variety of factors normally not considered by exegetes. In seeing all of
this, we can see that, no, the apostles are not crazy.
81
King, “Amos in Acts,” 12.
17
Implications on Biblical Theology
Biblical theology attempts to trace the development of a certain idea(s) within the
confines of a particular book, writings of a certain author, or even in the canon.82 The
prophetic/apostolic hermeneutic should provide both validity and caution to this discipline. The
Bible does indeed intentionally develop certain ideas. At the same time, this means that we
cannot make any connection we desire and must be sensitive to precisely how each passage and
theological concept is weaved together.83 Even more, because biblical theologies are not just
tracing concepts but rather the author’s intent in action, biblical theology cannot be concerned
just about the “what” but also the “why.” The prophetic hermeneutic is the foundation for the
apostolic hermeneutic and gives the growing rationale for why a text must be applied in a certain
way. Biblical theologians do well to show this intentional directing.
Practical Implications
In addition to the fact that more study on this issue is needed, one may see some other
practical benefits in the continuity of the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutics. One witnesses an
ever specifying application developing from OT to NT. Tracing this progression, one potentially
could trace the application to one’s personal life and times. In this way, the prophetic
hermeneutic is the basis of the apostolic hermeneutic which is itself the foundation for the
Christian hermeneutic. Often fellow believers question on how to apply the OT since we live in a
different age. The answer is seen in how the Bible directs its own application. We need to be
sensitive to search for this as we study and teach. Overall, we can all certainly marvel at the
wisdom of God who orchestrated all His Word is such coherence and consistency.
82
Graeme Goldsworthy, “Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10
(2006): 8.
83
Beale, Temple, 274-76.
18