Conference: 2002 Pre-Trib Study Group
 |
THE RABBINIC BACKGROUND
In his definitive work, TheHistory of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Emil Shuer notedthat Later Judaism discovered that there is a fourfold meaning ofScriptures, which is indicated by the word pardes (Paradise),viz. 1. pshat, the simple or literal meaning;2. remez (suggestion), the meaningarbitrarily imported into it; 3. drash (investigation),the meaning deduced by investigation; and 4. sod (mystery),the theosophic meaning. (pg. 348). He goes on to observe that the NewTestament writers also applied these same four ways of quoting the OldTestament but makes the following distinction: In saying this however itmust be remarked, that the exegetic method practiced in the New Testament, whencompared with the usual Jewish method, is distinguished from it by its greatenlightenment. The apostles and the Christian authors in general were preservedfrom the extravagances of Jewish exegesis by the regulative norm of the gospel.(pg. 349). As for the rabbinic extremes, he goes on to say: Jewishexegesis however, from which such a regulatory was absent, degenerated into themost capricious puerilities. From its standpoint, e.g. thetransposition of words into numbers, or of numbers into words, for the purposeof obtaining the most astonishing disclosures, was by no means strange, andquite in accordance with its spirit. (Ibid).
THE REFINEMENT BY DR. DAVID L. COOPER
Dr. David L. Cooper, the latedirector of the Biblical Research Society, was quite familiar with Jewishwritings and also knew all about the fourfold way the New Testament quotes theOld, but he created new names for the four categories to make it easier forGentile Christians to understand. (Messiah: His Historical Appearance, pgs.174-177). He also noted that the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew hasone example of each category. I will give his examples and add some of my own.
The first rabbinic categorywas pshat which has the basic meaning of "simple","plain." Cooper referred to it as literal prophecy plus literalfulfillment. The example used is Matthew 2:5-6 which quotes Micah5:2. In the original context of Micah 5:2, the prophet is speaking propheticallyand prophesying that whenever the Messiah is born, He will be born in Bethlehemof Judah. Thus the literal meaning of Micah is that the Messiah willbe born in the Bethlehem of Judah and not the Bethlehem of Galilee. When aliteral prophecy is fulfilled in the New Testament, it is quoted as a literalfulfillment. Other prophecies that fall into this category include: Psalm22 (describing the death of the Messiah); Psalm 110:1 (the Messiah will beseated on the right hand of God); Isaiah 7:14 (the virgin birth); 40:3 (theforerunner of the Messiah); 52:13-53:12 (the rejection, atoning death, burial,and resurrection of the Messiah); 61:1-2a (the prophetic ministry of theMessiah); Zechariah 9:9 (the ride into Jerusalem on a donkey); Zechariah11:4-14 (Messiah will be sold out for thirty pieces of silver); Malachi 3:1(the forerunner of the Messiah); et. al. These are cases where the OldTestament literally speaks of a specific event in the future and when thatspecific event is fulfilled literally in the context of the New Testament, theNew Testament quotes that particular prophecy as a point-by-point fulfillment.
The second rabbinic categorywas remez which means "hint" or "clue" or"suggestion." Cooper dubbed this category as literal plus typicaland the example is Matthew 2:15 which quotes Hosea 11:1. In the originalcontext of the Hosea passage, it is not even a prophecy but refers to anhistorical event, that of the Exodus. The background to the Hosea passage isExodus 4:22-23 which refers to Israel as the national son of God. Thus,according to Hosea, when God brought Israel out of Egypt, Hedivinely called His son out of Egypt. The literal meaning of theHosea passage refers to the Exodus under Moses. There is nothing in the NewTestament that can change or reinterpret the meaning of the Hosea passage nordoes the New Testament deny that a literal exodus of Israel out of Egyptactually occurred. However, the Old Testament literal event becomes a typeof a New Testament event. In the New Testament, an individual Son ofGod, the Messiah, is also divinely called out of Egypt. The passage is notquoted as a fulfillment of prophecy since it was not a prophecy to begin with,but quoted as a type. Matthew does not deny, change, or reinterpretthe original meaning. He understands it literally, but the literal OldTestament event becomes a type of a New Testament event. In rabbinic parlance,it is a remez or a hint of another meaning in additional to theliteral, in this case a typology. Other examples include: Isaiah 29:13(Israel has become religious only in the outward sense, obeying man-madecommandments while ignoring the divine commandments) quoted in Matthew 15:7-9(Israel becomes a type of the Pharisees and their traditions which made themvery religious. They were religious based upon man-made traditions whileactively disobeying divine law such as honoring father and mother); Isaiah 6:10(speaks of Isaiah's ministry that will be largely rejected) quoted in John12:39-40 (Isaiah's ministry becomes a type of Messiah's ministry which was alsolargely rejected); Psalm 118:22-23 (the rejected stone) quoted in Matthew 21:42(a type of the rejection of the Messianic stone that becomes a stone ofstumbling); Exodus 12:46 (prohibition against breaking any bone of the Passoverlamb) quoted in John 19:36 (that prohibition is now a type for not breaking thebones of the Passover Lamb of God). Many of the quotations and/or references tothe books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers in the Book of Hebrews fall intothis category. While the author of Hebrews makes references to the sin ofKadesh Barnea, Moses, Aaron, the Levitical priesthood, the blood sacrifices,the Day of Atonement, Melchizedek, etc., he never once denied that there was aliteral sin of Kadesh Barnea, Moses, Aaron, blood sacrifices, Day of Atonement,or Melchizedek. However, all these now become types of the person and/or workof Jesus the Messiah.
The third rabbinic categorywas drash. It has the meaning of "exposition","investigation" which expanded on the meaning of the text, drewconclusions, and applied to a new situation based often on only one pointof similarity. Cooper referred to this category as literal plus applicationgiving the example of Matthew 2:17-18 which quotes Jeremiah 31:15. In the originalcontext, Jeremiah was not prophesying of an event in the far future, as was thecase with Micah, or dealing with an event that was long history as was the casewith Hosea. Jeremiah was prophesying about a current event happening in his owntime, the beginnings of the Babylonian Captivity. As the Jewish young men werebeing taken into captivity, they went by the town of Ramah, a town not far fromwhere Rachel was buried. Rachel had become the symbol of Jewish motherhood. Asthe young men were marched toward Babylon, the Jewish mothers of Ramah came outweeping for sons they would never see again. Jeremiah pictured the scene as Rachelweeping for her children. This is the literal meaning of theJeremiah passage. Like the rabbis, the New Testament cannot change orreinterpret what the verse means in that context, nor does it try to do so. Butin this category there is a New Testament event that has one point ofsimilarity with the Old Testament event and it is quoted as an application.The one point of similarity here is that once again there are Jewishmothers weeping for sons they will never see again. Otherwise, the twosituations are totally different. The Jeremiah event happened in Ramah, northof Jerusalem; the Matthew event happened in Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem. Inthe Matthew passage, the sons are killed; in the Jeremiah passage, the sons arenot killed but taken into captivity. There is only one point of similarity inthe two events: Jewish mothers weeping for sons they will never see again. Theliteral meaning of the Jeremiah passage is dealing with the BabylonianCaptivity. But by means of drash, the verse is quoted as an applicationbecause of one point of similarity. Another example is the quotation of Isaiah53:4 (where Isaiah is speaking of the spiritual healing of Israel as a nationfrom their sins by means of the blood atonement of the Messiah) in Matthew 8:17(applied to the physical healing of Jewish individuals by Jesus). The point ofsimilarity is the healing by the Messiah. Isaiah deals with the spiritualhealing of the Jewish nation resulting from Messiah's atonement; Matthewdescribes the physical healing of Jewish individuals at a point of time whenJesus had not yet died and therefore no atonement had yet been made. Another exampleis the quotation of Isaiah 6:9-10 (which describes the nature of Isaiah'sministry) quoted in Matthew 13:14-15 (which applies to the ministry of Jesus),and the one point of similarity is that both speak in a way the unbelievingJewish audience will not be able to understand. The same is true with thequotation of Psalm 78:2 (which states that the Psalmist will speak a parable and dark sayings that are well known and passed down from generations) in Matthew 13:35(where Jesus now speaks in parables teaching things that they had not knownbefore but are revealing new truth). The point of similarity is that ofspeaking in parables. This is the category to which the Joel two and Acts twopassages fall into and this will be discussed later in the paper.
The fourth rabbinic categorywas sod which means "secret" or "mystery." Thiscategory was so called since generally it was neither based on a single passageof Scripture nor a quotation of any specific scripture. It tended to summarizewhat the Scriptures said on a subject. An example from the Midrash Rabbah 63:11reads as follows: Hence it is written as in the verse, And I will no moremake you a reproach of famine among the nations. There is no actual versethat reads like this but it is a combination of the concepts found in Ezekiel36:30 and Joel 1:19. Hence this midrash is a summary of a biblicalteaching and not an actual quote. Cooper titled this category as summation,and cites Matthew 2:23 as the example: ...that it might be fulfilledwhich was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene. Asin the midrash quote, there is no such actual statement anywhere inthe Old Testament. While many try to make a reference to Isaiah 11:1, the onlypoint of similarity is the sound of netzer, but that passage is not dealing with a town calledNazareth. Matthew is not quoting a specific Old Testament statement but issummarizing what the Old Testament said. While this will not be true in everycase, one clue is when the plural prophets is used as it is here inverse 23. In the three preceding examples, the singular prophet wasused and a specific prophet was quoted. However, here the plural prophets isused, but Matthew does not quote an actual prophet for in this case his purposewas to summarize what the Prophets said. In the first century context ofIsrael, a Nazarene was a despised and rejected individual and the termwas used to reproach and to shame (John 1:46). The Prophets did teach that theMessiah would be a despised and rejected individual (Isaiah 49:1-13;52:13-53:12), and this was well summarized by the term Nazarene. Anotherexample of this category is Luke 18:31-33 where Jesus said he must fulfill allthe things written in the prophets(plural). That includes the following: going to Jerusalem, the Jews turning himover to the gentiles who will mock him, spit on him, scourge him, and kill him,and also rising again on the third day. Here again, no one prophet ever saidall this. However, putting the prophets together, they did say all this.Therefore, this is a summation of what the prophets said about the Messiah butnot a direct quotation. Yet another example of this category is James 4:5: Orthink ye that the scripture speaks in vain? Does the spirit which he made todwell in us long unto envying? Thereis no such statement anywhere in the Old Testament. The clue to what he isreferring to is the mention of adulteresses in the previous verse and the fact that he is writingspecifically to the Jewish believers (1:1). In the Old Testament, Israel wasthe wife of Jehovah. When the wife worshipped other gods, this was viewed bythe prophets as spiritual adultery. As a result, the jealousy of God burnedagainst his wife, Israel, resulting in divine discipline. In James, believersnow have the presence of the Holy Spirit and so the believer's total loyaltybelongs to God and to the things of God. If a believer begins to make friendshipof the world, he is harboring a rivalspirit causing the indwelling Holy Spirit to become jealous. This too can leadto divine discipline (verses 1-3). Thus, James is not quoting any specificstatement of the Old Testament but summarizing what the Scripture taught aboutspiritual adultery and the jealousy it creates in God.
PETER'S QUOTATION OF JOEL 2:28-32 IN ACTS 2:16-21
SOME BASIC OBSERVATIONS
Peter's quotation isessentially from the Septuagint with one exception. Joel states: Afterthese things; Peter states: In the last days. Furthermore, Peterdid not use the normal formula for fulfillment but simply used the phrase thisis that. The fact is that nothing Joel prophesied actually happened inActs two. This includes signs in the heavens and on the earth such as blood,fire, and billows of smoke; the sun turning intodarkness or the moon into blood; there is no record of young men seeingvisions or of old men dreaming dreams. The one thing that happened in Actstwo (tongues) is not even mentioned by Joel. The question then is: why is Peterquoting the Joel passage to explain a phenomenon that Joel says nothing about?
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
In an unpublished paperwritten by Bruce A. Baker for Baptist Bible Seminary in Clark's Summit,Pennsylvania, the author has summarized the various views of how to explainthis quote (pgs. 14-23). The following is taken from his research. RichardLongenecker: Peter quoted the entire section because of the messianicsignificance of the passage and because he wanted to focus on the laststatement that those who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved and thisin turn opened the door for Peter to present the gospel; as for thesupernatural elements in the prophecy, Peter probably expected them to occur inthe near future. Charles Ryrie: His conclusion is similar to that ofLongenecker in that what is stated in verses 19-20 "is simply a connectinglink between the two key points of his argument." He states that theevents prophesied by Joel did not actually come to pass. Joseph A.Alexander: Since the prophecy does not correspond to what actually happened,the prophecy of Joel should be taken metaphorically and all the supernaturallanguage of Joel should be understood symbolically of a revolutionary change sodramatic as to be compared to the extinction of the heavenly bodies. H.B.Hackett: The judgment section of Joel refers to the events of A.D. 70 and whilethe supernatural signs themselves did not occur, these auguries are to beunderstood figuratively of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. DarrellBock: This is the use of the pesher formula, which assumes a hidden meaningto the text and may add multiple layers of meaning to the originaltext, and therefore it is used as an example to justify complementaryhermeneutics used by Progressive Dispensationalists. Zane Hodges: He also seesit as a pesher formula, but as a ClassicalDispensationalist, he does not use it for the same reason. Merrill Unger: Thephrase this is that introduces an example of a similar event; thus theoutpouring of the Spirit in Acts two was a similar event to the expectedoutpouring of the Spirit at the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom. DanielWallace: He interprets the phrase this is that as a "convertibleproposition" which intends to show an equivalence that is less than totalwhich in turn leads to seeing a partial fulfillment of the prophecy in Acts twobut a full fulfillment in the future; hence this is a partial fulfillment ofthe total prophecy.
Baker opts for the last view:Therefore, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost as well asSamaria and Caesarea are part of the preliminary fulfillment to the promisedoutpouring associated with Christ's second advent. This is the view ofProgressive Dispensationalism, but Baker notes that TraditionalDispensationalists should have no quarrel with this interpretation. After all,this approach takes Joel at face value, leaves room for a future fulfillmentwithin the nation of Israel, and best explains the text. This is also theview of Mal Couch: Holding this view does not necessarily make one a"progressive" dispensationalist. This view best explains the biblicaldata and accords well with classical dispensationalism.
LITERAL PLUS APPLICATION
If Joel had mentioned thespeaking in tongues, then one could make a case for a partial fulfillment. Thefact is, Joel does not mention it. If the Joel passage was partially fulfilled,exactly what part was fulfilled? This is not the same as the prophecies ofIsaiah 61:1-3 and Zechariah 9:9-10 where partial fulfillment is obvious sincethe first part of both passages speak of the first coming and the second partspeaks of the second coming. The Joel passage simply does not fit thiscategory.
This author views that it isbest to take the passage as fitting into the category of drash orCooper's literal plus application where an Old Testament passage isquoted based on one point of similarity. As already noted, nothing thathappened in Acts two was predicted by Joel two. What actually did happen inActs two (the speaking in tongues) was not mentioned by Joel. What Joel didmention (dreams, visions, the sun darkened, the moon turned into blood) did nothappen in Acts two. Joel was speaking of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit onthe whole nation of Israel in the last days while Acts two speaks of theoutpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Twelve Apostles, or, at most, on the 120in the Upper Room. Either way, this is a far cry from Joel's all flesh. Furthermore,according to verse 18, the servants of the Jewish people were to experience theoutpouring of the Holy Spirit, but there were no servants in the Upper Room toexperience these things.
However, there was one pointof similarity: an outpouring of the Holy Spirit resulting in an unusualmanifestation. Acts two neither changes or reinterprets Joel two nor does itdeny that Joel two will have a literal fulfillment when the Holy Spirit will bepoured out on the whole nation of Israel. It is simply applying it to a NewTestament event because of one point of similarity. In Joel the Spirit ispoured out resulting in the unusual manifestation of prophetic dreams andvisions; in Acts the Spirit is poured out resulting in the unusualmanifestation of speaking in tongues.
Contact Information Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum Director: Ariel Ministries P.O. Box 3723 Tustin, California 92781 Tel: 714-259-4800 Fax: 714-259-1092 E-Mail: HomeOffice@ariel.org
|
