Exegetical Exercises
“but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:” Acts 2:16 NASB
This is what – Most of us are quite familiar with Peter’s exegesis on the day of Pentecost. Christian theologians often cite this passage as the transitional text from Judaism to Christianity as if the Church really began with the tongues of fire. Careful scholars of Jewish literature and culture know better, but that doesn’t seem to make much difference to popular belief.
Rather than entertain an argument about the ecclesiastical intention of Peter’s statement, I want to look at a few words that are often overlooked. They are (in Greek) touto estin – “this is what.” These words seem so innocent, yet a little reflection reveals that Peter’s declaration is anything but obvious. The fact is that Joel’s prophecy is not about the event of Pentecost at all. Joel’s prophecy is about the time of the destruction of the Temple. Joel’s prophecy is about events in the 6th Century BCE. Joel’s prophecy has nothing to do with tongues of fire, speaking in foreign languages or the announcement of Yeshua’s sacrificial death. That’s why these little words are so important. They teach us something about the way the Jews understood the interpretation of Scripture. And what they teach us is radically different from the way we as Western believers understand Scriptural exegesis.
Why do we need to pay attention to this lesson from Peter? Because nearly every author of the New Testament, and Yeshua Himself, uses the same technique. In other words, the writers of the Ketuvim Netzarim do not handle the Tanakh as most seminarians or preachers handle the Old Testament. The writers of the New Testament look for pattern applications, not historical and cultural context. They pay attention to connection points, sometimes quite obscure and sometimes quite contrived, in order to tie one part of Scripture to another. They rarely pay attention to the place, time and historical circumstances of the passages. Peter’s declaration is but one of dozens of examples. The historical and cultural reality is that Joel has nothing to do with Pentecost. But Peter doesn’t care about the historical and cultural reality. He only cares that his insight shows him a way to connect something Joel said with a current event. Peter’s exegetical method is Midrashim – the application of one idea to the context of another idea.
Go back and read the gospels. Each gospel author does the same thing. Midrashim! Not Western exegesis. When you investigate most of the passages that begin, “As it is written,” or something similar, you will discover that the original passage has very little to do with its prophetic application. In fact, quite often the author changes the original to fit what he wants it to say in the new context. And he still considers his changes to be “the word of the Lord.”
What lesson can we draw from these curious linguistic facts? Perhaps it isn’t enough to simply realize that Scripture was written from an Hebraic perspective. Perhaps we must also read it from an Hebraic perspective. Perhaps our ideas of proper exegesis need to be revised if we are going to understand the use of the Tanakh in the New Testament. Perhaps we are the ones out of joint rather than the authors who played so “fast and loose” with the text. Perhaps we need to rethink what we mean by words like “plenary inspiration,” “inerrancy” and “exegesis.”
Topical Index: Acts 2:16, Joel 2:28, exegesis, midrash, this is what, touto estin
Go for it. You won’t be the first to fail in the attempt to discredit the Bible as recorded revelation. Friends, “it is written.” And this anvil has seen a lot of broken hammers.
” If the Bible is not the provenly genuine and authoritative Word of God, we do not have real or saving certainty -about God, about man, about morals, about origins, about the future of our race, or about human destiny beyond the grave; we are merely guessing and groping ”
I am reminded in a somewhat strange return to the Garden, of the words of the Deceiver: “Hath God said?” – (Genesis 3.1)
Whatever happened to “Thus saith the LORD?”
And “what if?” What if Adam’s answer to the Adversary was: YES!!- God did say that! – And thank you for reminding me.. Yes. “if only..”
It seems to me that the question about proving the Bible is the genuine and authoritative Word of God” requires a prior question. What does it mean “to prove” something? Since Scripture makes NO ATTEMPT AT ALL to prove any of its assertions about God or His hand in the history of men, perhaps our desire to “prove” all this creates a problem not recognized in Scripture itself. My concern is that the idea of proof finds its home in Greek epistemology, and I know that as soon as we start down that road we are going to encounter bankruptcy of reason. Trying to “prove” the words of Scripture are true requires a prior idea of what is true and that sends us into a morass that no intellectual in the Western world has been able to get out of in the last 2500 years.
Here’s what I see about the biblical idea of “proving”, if there is such a thing in the Bible. “Try it – and see what happens.” The biblical idea of proof is “DO IT!” and watch the results. There is no concept of rational articulation of logical arguments leading to inevitable conclusions. There is only OBEDIENCE followed by experienced results. Don’t ask me to explain WHY I should go to the river Jordan and bathe in that tiny, polluted stream when I could go to the Tigris. Just do it – and see what happens!
I have lectured extensively on the Western idea of “proof” and shown that there is really no way out of the problems a serious examination of the concept produces. But that only confirms that the Bible doesn’t fall into this trap. The authors of Scripture do not depend on logical argument to “prove” their case. They insist on real, practical, observable obedience. Therefore, when they alter the text they are not “disproving” its authenticity. That idea isn’t part of the Hebraic worldview.
A good word, Skip.
“Go for it. You won’t be the first to fail in the attempt to discredit the Bible as recorded revelation. Friends, “it is written.” And this anvil has seen a lot of broken hammers”
Carl, The problem is not the BIBLE, the problem is our WESTERN way of understanding what it means. If an American was speaking Arabic to describe the Civil War in the U.S. in the 1800’s, would a person reading it in FRENCH several hundred years later totally understand what Abraham Lincoln, or Robert E. Lee was feeling? I can’t even claim that, and I’m an American.
You are saying, by your above comment, that if Skip explains how Jesus, Paul and the other NT writers understood the text, in its original form, and original culture AND that explanation conflicts with your AMERICAN ENGLISH understanding of the text, then Jesus is wrong, Paul is wrong and Moen is wrong…isn’t that YOU discrediting the Bible in preference for your English understanding? After all the Bible is not an English Document in its original content.
–After all the Bible is not an English Document in its original content —
I am in total agreement with this.. and that is why I am so excited – It absolutely is “the words” that matter. The Older Covenant was written (originally) in Hebrew and the Newer Covenant in Greek. This is where our emphasis needs to be- on the words themselves. Words like”righteousness” “salvation” “propitiation” “holiness” etc.. For it was Jesus (Yeshua to the Messianic Jew- when we say Skip, he knows who we are talking about!) who said, “the words I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life”- and ~ every word of God is pure ~
One of my favorite examples of this is (now) knowing what is meant by “abundant” life ~ I am come that you might have life and have it more abundantly (John 10.10) In the original Greek “perisson” which is “filled to the top and running over” – a very obvious and wonderful “tie-in” to Psalm 23 and “my cup runneth over”- a word picture of the overflowing cup! I was so blessed by just one word from the Word of God in ‘knowing’ this.
Skip’s ministry is both critical and crucial. The English leaves us lacking. Hebrew is so precise and well.. just awesome! Little did I know when I “stumbled” across this website, what a blessing was in store for me as I learned to dig for these golden nuggets of truth using a Hebrew shovel! The English “barack”- the Hebrew? “blessing” and “bow the knee”- knowing this I am able to “bridge” the two and have had so many “aha” moments just because of knowing the Greek or the Hebrew behind each English word.
If I were to say (in English) the word “trunk,” would it be a car trunk, tree trunk or swimming trunk or clothes trunk? Far too ambigous, but knowing the Hebrew or the Greek just gives us such a clearer view of what God is saying to us through His inspired writings.. Do you know what the word “inspired” means? lol! – A great place to start!
Words are the only means I have (right now) to communicate my thoughts to you. If I being human am halfway able to do this- wouldn’t you think God is fully able to communicate to us, His own children, His perfect will for us through His own words?
The ways of God, the wisdom of God, the witness of God and the worship of God are all communicated to us by and through the words of God. I would also hope (by now) all of us recognize and realize this is no ordinary book we are studying, for not only do we read our Bible, but (amazingly) this Book seems to be reading us as well! ~ For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart ~ (Hebrews 4.12) Yes, what did these mean to those living then, but also- how does this apply to those of us who are living and want to know God more intimately today?
Sometimes, not always, things appear so complicated. And so it is with the Word of our Father. Many have “fallen” also because of misapplication of what they considered to be a “sure thing”. As a former Pentecostal, the argument concerning “tongues” which caused another “division” within christianity has produced a huge distraction from the consistent message of the true prophets. Hear and obey, Shema!
In other words, maybe the issues here are belief, trust (closely tied to belief) and response. Maybe religion has such a deficit in 1-what is actually said; 2-in what was meant and 3-in how to apply it now. In a nutshell, what the Word says, means, and how we apply it should be the same. Irregardless of whether we are at home, work or play. How we perceive the Sovereign of the Universe will determine our lifestyles. To me, it appears we consider the wrong things to be cookie cutter christianity approved.
I find this TW to be closely connected to the manner of Christ when He said, “you have heard it said…, but I say…” Not a new set of rules…but another level of ascending the steps to the Throne of Grace.
Indeed, Mary, and yet you give even another example of where we have missed the point by approaching the text from a paradigm other than that in which it was originally written and read.
When Yeshua said, “You have heard it said,…” He proceeds to give the teaching that applies to freed-men; when he then follows up with, “…but I say…”, He gives the instructions for a servant or slave.
The slave has no rights of his own; no right of reply, no right of vengeance, no right of restitution. Those rights belong to the master.
Yeshua is telling his disciples, “You are no longer to live according to the rules of freed men, but rather be servants of the Most High and live according to the rules that apply to bond-servants – trust your Master to take vengeance, seek restitution, etc. on your behalf.”
It is not about rolling over, giving up, passivity (or even passive resistance), but about trusting the Master, like a good servant should. “‘Vengeance is mine – I will repay’, says YHVH”.
Great insight, Mary. As I said in the other comment, DO IT and see what happens.
Mary, I like the term “cookie-cutter Christianity.” There are “amazingly”- and “thankfully” people in this world who are not like me! lol! “If we all pulled in the same direction the world would topple over” Our God is a God of tremendous diversity and yet wondrous unity. Look at your own children! How diverse they are, yet born of the same set of parents. And wasn’t it our Savior Himself who said, ~ other sheep have I which are not of this fold? ~ .
I am not another “Billy Graham”or “Mother Teresa,” but rather a unique individual, – just like everyone else. Don’t believe this to be true? Just look at Moses, Noah and David. Three examples of well-known, and totally unique people! Is it okay to “think different?” How then are we to be reconciled? And What (actually Who) is to be our common denominator, if not the Son of God?
Skip,
Sometimes a light is turned on. And you just turned one on. It is this:
The obvious “Jewishness” of the New Testament when properly understood, stands out as a remarkable achievement in the “selection” of the writings for the New Testament canon. Given the “official recognition” of the canon was almost 400 years after the Messiah, the “selection committee” itself saw the relevant connections between the Tanakh and the NT documents. The severance of many of the connections now being rediscovered is the history of Christianity. But the foundational unity that was recognized in the establishment of the Old and New testaments was the correct one.
This only lends weight to an idea I have written about that the selection criteria for the NT documents had to be the Tanakh, and more specifically Torah. The usual criteria (e.g. apostolic authorship, catholicity, widespread use), while helpful and important, are non-scriptural criteria. But the obvious theological unity of the two covenants is testimony to the early recognition of this. Thus, the NT canon receives its “authority” from the Torah itself, while at the same time, the Torah provides the interpretive criteria for the NT documents.
The renewed recognition of the essential unity in both Testaments is testimony to the historic faith and the historic fathers, who in many respects had some wild ideas, nevertheless, providentially have handed down to us a Bible that is unified in the two testaments (covenants).
Ian, No offense, but given all that we have learned from Skip and others of the break between the “church” and the Jews in the early centuries and the blatant introduction of anti-Semitism by some the church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, I’m not so sure we can credit the “selection committee” for seeing and “applying the relevant connections between the Tanakh and the NT documents” in the canon selection process. Rather, looking backward with the gift of understanding, we see the Hand of YHWH shining a light upon the obvious connection that exists naturally between the two. While I’m not into church bashing as a practice (just a hobby!), I don’t want to give it credit where none is due. That some on the ‘committee’ may have seen the link is possible, but the fact that the official teachings of the church didn’t reflect this reality IS the history of the church and vast majority of their great, great, …. great grandchildren still are blinded to the link and rely on what you referred to as the ‘usual criteria’ to frame their theology. That we can share the light and the truth of this link is part of our mission, and as I read your web site you do your share better than most-including me, but shouldn’t we be on guard against being a ‘revisionist’ in presenting church history? Just saying. Michael
Michael,
Thanks for your feedback. I am more than happy to line up and condemn the “church” for its errors. But people are going to have a hard time explaining our western concept of “federalism” – limited government – without giving credit to the “church” that rightly drew its principles from the Torah. Just as they are going to have a difficult time in explaining Magna Carta without reference to Alfred the Great’s recognition of Exodus chapters 20ff as the laws of England. So when you say “the official teachings of the church didn’t reflect this reality” I wonder what we should do with the historical fact that the “church” did, for example, discourage Usury, and in some churches continue to do so up until this past century. Just saying. 🙂
Ian, I was only referring to your thesis that the NT canon ‘selection committee’ “saw the relevant connections between the Tanakh and the NT documents” and used that link in the canon selection process. That there were those throughout history who rightly applied principles of the Torah is indisputable and important to recognize. Thank you for doing so, but you didn’t include these in your original post; thus my concern and comment. Hopefully, in our lifetime we will see a great revival, not of the sawdust trail variety, but of the sincere application of Torah in the lives of the members of the traditional church which will impact the whole society for good.
The best study I have ever read on the actual process of canonization is McDonald’s The Biblical Canon, all 550 pages. His major contribution to the discussion is that the canon was not finalized until the 4th century, long after believing community has adopted certain literature as sacred, that the Jewish canon was closed as a result of defense against Christian claims on the Tanakh, that political and social pressures and a certain anti-Semitism contributed to canonization, that individual decisions about certain “books” are somewhat shrouded in mystery and that any official, formal process is probably retro-fitted history. Certainly the influence of the Tanakh was felt by Christian believers, but it would not be incorrect to say that anti-Semitism also contributed to the idea of canonization as separation from Judaism. It’s a lot more complicated than we would like to believe.
Ian, Michael, and Skip, thank-you for the comments. This is one of the few places on the whole internet where the comments are worth the read.
Skip, you have me standing on my head this morning. Peter misinterpreted Joel? Anyhow I’lll enjoy the debate.
NO, not misinterpreted. That is a Greek idea. Peter presents a midrash on Joel. Peter knows perfectly well that Joel’s prophecy is about something else in the context of Joel’s time, but Peter uses it as any good rabbi would to elucidate something happening in Peter’s time. This is not misinterpretation. It is continuing application.
Hi Skip,
My wife and I are members of Beit Tikvah in Newcastle, Wa. We heard you teach there about a year ago and will be blessed again by your presence in the not too distant future. I guess I’m just a thick-skulled Norwegian messianic ( boy, that’s a term you don’t hear every day), but I’m not getting the connection between Acts 2:16 and Joel’s prophecy. A bit of goyim mindset still in me probably. Any additional help will be a blessing. By the way, “Old Time Religion” is a “10”. Sent it on to a few remaining friends (I’m sure you know what I mean) from our former evangelical congregation. Haven’t heard back; no surprize.
Acts 2:16 is Peter’s claim that the prophet Joel’s statement is a statement about the event happening on the Temple mount on the day that tongues of fire and different languages were seen and spoken. But if you read Joel’s prophecy, this is clearly NOT what Joel is talking about, at least it is not historically what Joel’s prophecy is about. So, why does Peter tell us that this is what Joel meant? Because Peter sees Joel’s prophecy from a midrash perspective. Why is this important? Because it reminds us that 1) New Testament exegesis of the Tanakh was does with Jewish rabbinic categories, and 2) our idea of inspiration does not come from these categories and 3) Peter demonstrates that the Jewish idea of prophetic fulfillment employs non-contextual, non-historic interpretations and 4) no one objected – i.e., this was the NORM in Peter’s day.
Makes you wonder what we are doing, doesn’t it?
Perhaps we will have more discussion about this when I am in Seattle in June.
Doesn’t Christianity today invite people to “put your name” into the bible promises,… many times even ignoring the context of the verse.
We still consider the changed words to be the ‘word of the Lord’. And what if the promise was made to a community, and now we apply to ourselves personally? And what if the promise is overtly dependant on obedience to God’s Torah,… but we still apply it to ourselves? And finally, what if the Bible promise is part of that “OLD COVENANT”?!?!?.. why would most congregations still consider those promises binding? This sort of thing seems more schizophrenic than anything Peter was doing with Joel.
The real question is, “Is Peter breaking bread like Jesus?”. If bread represents scripture, then the real question is not if it is being quoted in a grammatically and contextually exact way… but do you recognize Jesus (in Peter) by the way he broke bread?
Luke 24:32 “They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
Luke 24:35 “Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.”
How can any of us unfeignedly call Jesus “LORD” yet presume superiorily to contradict His clear, deliberate, repeated, binding endorsement of the whole Old Testament as the uniquely and plenarily inspired Word of God? We must surely meet Him one day, and give answer. Shall we then dare tell Him He was wrong? Can He who said, “I AM the Truth,” and “Before Abraham was I AM,” and “Moses wrote of Me,” be wrong when in unmistakable syllables He accepts the Mosaic authorship or the Pentateuch and the genuineness of the prophets (including Daniel) in their traditional settings and datings? Is it not an awful presumption for any Christian minister to “know better” than the Incarnate Son of God?
J. Sidlow Baxter: Rethinking Our Priorities
~ For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of the Messiah, so that each of us may receive what he deserves for what he has done in his body, whether good or worthless ~ (2 Corinthians 5.10)
Well said. And for those just realizing this truth, we must remember that we were ‘once slaves in Egypt’.
Gabe,
How are you doing?
Just some comments based on your thoughts and questions.
I agree that the Christian world seems to be a bit schizophrenic in relationship to the Tanakh. They want to do away with *Torah, but claim all its promises at the same time. They want the inheritance with none of the obligations. And here is the crux, try to point this schizophrenic behavior out to people and they will look at you like you just declared something totally off the wall, and then they will proclaim to you it is because of the finished work of Messiah and His grace that they can do these things. It does not seem to me that the finished work of Messiah or His grace gives them permission for their schizophrenic thinking or action.
Without Torah we have no revelation of our Messiah and His work! Once we have come into relationship with YHWH through the finished work of Messiah, the Torah has continual relevance for our lives in revealing the character of our Abba and what He desires for our continual and fruitful journey with Him.
In relationship to how Peter and the rest of the B’rit Hadashah writers used the Tanakh, the Torah’s validity and relevance was never in question, therefore they could use certain passages the way they did to bring renewed understanding and fresh perspective to the moment, without undermining the integrity and authority of the passage quoted from.
How then should believers today apply these stories and promises given to individuals and communities within the Tanakh? I believe we must always see these stories within the larger narrative of YHWH redeeming a people for the sake of the world.
We have been redeemed and grafted into the olive tree, Israel. Their stories have become our story and their history our history. As Paul also brings out to the Corinthian believers, “OUR fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea.” These stories were given for our example, instruction, and admonition.
I would like to share a story.
When I was a little boy growing up in northeast Ohio, I lived around an Amish community and had an Amish lady as a babysitter. Elizabeth was a gift from YHWH! She was the first person that I can recall to introduce me to YHWH. She would read from a Bible story book that I believe she had purchased for our family, and quite a few of the stories she read from were from the OT/Tanakh. I remember sitting on the floor while she read and being totally drawn into the beauty and power of these stories of YHWH with His people. I began at this time to recognize the bigness and fear of YHWH, and I realized on some level that these stories were not about me, . . . but they were for me!
I believe that we must still approach these stories with childlike humility and awareness, realizing the bigness of YHWH, while standing in awe that He would allow us to be a part of His plan and family.
In His Care, Brian
*Torah I believe can be used interchangeably with Tanakh, because the foundation and call of the Prophets and Writings is to return to the revelation and solid ground of Torah.
Thanks Brian.
I especially appreciate what you said about ‘their stories becoming our story’. I feel like a pagan temple worshipper trying to grope my way to True worship. I’m a long time Christian just learning what it means to be a Christian, if you get what I mean.
For years, I would tell my kids these random stories about their great grandfather (my biological grandfather) — and they are still able to recall every detail. But then I started to realize that as I attempted to follow Torah, my customs, beliefs, and worldview is really starting to have more in common with Moses than with my biological lineage. When it comes to good/evil perspectives, diet, Sabbath, ect — I have more in common now with some of the Biblical fathers than I do with my own fathers. My family history has changed, and I hope it continues to change. This is not a knock on my ancestry, but an excitingly tangible way of beginning to be ‘grafted in’.
We must begin to think of Torah as the common storehouse of memories needed to identify the members of the tribe. All tribes have this kind of communal memory bank. But since Greek is typically an individualism in extreme, we tend to ignore how important these memories really are to our own sense of human being. Think to the impact of Homer on our Greek-based cultural identity. Imagine if you read Moses in the same way. How do we know who we are and why we are if we don’t share a common archetypal memory (Jung). When I teach “Being Human” even on board a ship filled with non-believing tourists, they understand the point. Your storehouse tells you how to live, why you live and what it means to be alive.
Father Abraham,… had many sons. I am one of them,… and so are you….
Isn’t that how the song went?
Brian, As usual, god job. uhhhh…good job! ( god and good; just as in your correction of the second sentence from “the ‘word’ of Messiah” to “finished ‘work’ of Messiah”, the words differentiated by one letter seem interchangeable without doing damage to the meaning of the text and indeed add depth to the idea. Too bad there isn’t a symbol or structure in our grammar rules to take advantage of such rich unintentional errors.) I almost “allways” enjoy your comments. Thanks. Michael
I corrected Brian’s typo. Now it says what he wanted to say.
I will fix it and delete your correction
Thanks Gabe and Michael for your comments.
Thank you Skip for your correction of my typo and your deletion of my post comment.
This was very relevant to another discussion I had read. The whole issue is how the Apostolic writers quote from the Tanakh. If we look at Matthew 1:23, then clearly this quotes from Isaiah 7:13, in which textually a young woman was referred to who would have a child in Isaiah’s day. Matthew has applied this to Mary, who ‘had not been with a man’ and so, liberty about historical and cultural context was taken with the quote from the Tanakh, just as Skip wrote. I find this very interesting. Many scholars use this exact method to denigrate the Believers’ way of doing ‘pattern applications,’ esp. when texts are seen as Messianic.