Acts 2:16-20: FULFILLMENT OR ILLUSTRATION?

___________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. Larry Tyler

Piedmont International University

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

Non-Pauline Literature

___________________

By

Kenneth Banks

Summer 2015

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

Various Interpretations of Acts 2:16-21 ............................................................................ 1

Total Fulfillment View .................................................................................................. 2

Partial, Initial, and Multiple Fulfillment Views ............................................................ 4

No Fulfillment, Analogy or Illustrative View ............................................................... 8

A Change in Meaning ..................................................................................................... 11

Sensus Plenior – A Fuller Meaning ............................................................................ 11

A Pesher Interpretation ............................................................................................... 14

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 16

Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 17

1

Introduction

In Acts 2:16-21, Peter makes reference to Joel 2:28-32. There has been considerable

debate among Biblical scholars as to the significance of this reference. Was Peter declaring that

Joel 2 had been fulfilled in a spiritual manner? Was Peter declaring that Joel 2 had only been

partially fulfilled with the remainder being fulfilled in the future? Or was Peter suggesting that

Joel 2 was only an illustration or an application of what was occurring on the day of Pentecost,

with fulfillment of Joel 2 taking place in the future? All of these views have been represented

among Biblical scholars.

The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy by New Testament writers brings to light

various issues that directly impact the interpretation of Acts 2:16-21. The first issue concerns the

possibility of multiple fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy in which it refers both to the New

Testament church as well as to the nation of Israel. The second issue is the role if any that may be

applied through the concept of sensus plenior or the idea that the New Testament writers provided

a fuller meaning to the Old Testament that was unknown to the original writer. It is the goal of this

paper to explore how these two issues affect the various views scholars have had of Acts 2:16-21.

The structure of this paper will be the means of reaching the goal of this paper. The

structure will include the following: (1) a summary of the various interpretations that have been

promoted by scholars, and (2) a discussion of the two approaches others have taken that modify the

meaning of the original text. This structure, it is believed, will provide important insights into the

way the Peter has made use of Joel’s prophecy in Joel 2:28-32.

Various Interpretations of Acts 2:16-21

Generally speaking there are three broad approaches to Acts 2:16-21 that have been

promoted by Biblical scholars. The first view of Acts 2:16-21 is that the Church fulfilled all of

Joel 2:28-32 in a figurative manner. The second view of Acts 2:16-21, is that the events on the day

of Pentecost were a partial or initial fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 that will be followed by subsequent

2

future fulfillments. Finally, the third view is that Peter was not arguing for the

fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 in any way and that he was merely using that passage as an illustration

or an application for the events that were taking place on the day of Pentecost. Each of these

interpretations will be briefly expanded on here.

Total Fulfillment View

The first view of what was taking place suggests that all of Joel 2:28-32 was fulfilled on

the day of Pentecost, which Tan calls this the “Total Fulfillment View.”1 John R. Stott is an

advocate of this view when he declares that “the extraordinary phenomenon of Spirit-filled

believers declaring God’s wonders in foreign languages is the fulfilment of Joel’s prediction that

God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh” [emphasis added].2 Stott further clarified that this was

total fulfillment by declaring that “we must be careful not to re-quote Joel’s prophecy as if we are

still awaiting its fulfillment, or even as if its fulfilment has only been partial, and we await some

future and complete fulfilment.”3 Allis, another proponent of this view, suggested that “this passage

applies very definitely to the Church age.”4 Allis admits what is common to all those who hold to

the total fulfillment view, namely, that the object or referent of the prophecy is the Church.

Another key element involved in the total fulfillment view is the necessity of

spiritualizing or allegorizing parts of Joel’s prophecy. Between the pouring out of the Holy Spirit

(ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός μου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα) in Acts 2:17 and the call to salvation (καὶ ἔσται

πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται) in Acts 2:21 there are a series of cosmic

events. Since the cosmic events did not take place on the Day of Pentecost those events must be

1 Stephen Go Tan, “Peter’s Use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21” (Master of Theology diss. Dallas

Theological Seminary, 2005), 54.

2 John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts (Downer grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 73.

3 Ibid, 73; also quoted in Tan, 55.

4 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, rev. ed. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publisher, 1969), 135.

3

allegorized in the total fulfillment view.5 As an example of the allegorizing that accompanies the

total fulfillment view, Kerrigan says that Peter “applies Joel’s prediction concerning the

disturbances of the cosmos to the struggle against Satan and his allies in which Jesus was

engaged.”6 Polhill suggests that the cosmic signs “almost certainly refer to the final cosmic events

preceding the Parousia,” but he hedges this with statement that “the signs below are the blood, fire,

and thick smoke, which could more easily be related to the events in Jesus’ passion and at

Pentecost” [italics added].7 There are also other scholars, such as Kistemaker, who use the

language of fulfillment without giving any attention to the cosmic signs.8

How does the presence or absence of the cosmic signs affect the idea that they were

fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost? Kaiser makes the following important point:

Even though some interpreters have attempted to show that God did fulfill his promise

to put “wonders in the heavens and on the earth” (blood, fire, billows of smoke, the sun

turned to darkness, the moon to blood”) in his first advent, the argument is not very

convincing. Hermeneutical talk about figurative language must be stretched to the

breaking point (all without any of the requisite textual clues that we are dealing with such

figures), or certain phrases must be seized while others are conveniently dropped from the

discussion. So for some the darkness is easily related to the hours Christ spent on the cross.

But what shall we say of the “moon being turned into blood” or the “billows of smoke?”

[Italics added]9

5 Tim F. LaHaye and Edward E. Hindson, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Eugene, Or.:

Harvest House Publishers, 2004), 269.

6 Alexander Kerrigan, “The Sensus Plenior of Joel III, 1-5 in Acts II, 14-36,” in J. Coppens A Descamps,

and A. Massaux (eds.), Sacra Pagina (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1959), 307; also quoted in Kenneth Duncan Litwak,

Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God's People Intertextually (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark,

2005), 159.

7 John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman

Publishers, 1992), 109–110.

8 Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 17, New

Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 88–89.

9 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Promise of God and the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” in The Living and

Active Word of God, Samuel J Schultz, Morris A Inch, and Ronald F. Youngblood, eds. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,

1983), 121; also quoted in J. William Egner, “How is Joel 2:28-32 Fulfilled in Peter’s Speech of Acts 2:16-21?,” THM

,dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary 1998, 50.

4

This suggests that theological presuppositions are a larger factor than the actual “requisite textual

clues” that are found in Acts 2:16-21.10

Partial, Initial, and Multiple Fulfillment Views

In the second view scholars advocate the idea that Peter was only suggesting a partial

fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel. Within this view there are a number of variations among

different types of scholars from various hermeneutical systems: (1) historic premillennialists who

suggest that there is a partial fulfillment that awaits a future fulfillment to be associated with Israel,

(2) progressive dispensationalists who suggest Acts 2:14-21 is evidence of an already not yet

initiation of the Davidic kingdom, and (3) normative dispensationalists who argue for an initial

fulfillment that will be followed by a specific fulfillment that involves the nation of Israel. Each of

these variations will be briefly addressed.

The first variation of the partial/multiple fulfillment view of Acts 2:16-21 is the position

advocated by historic premillennialists. The primary advocate of this view was George Eldon

Ladd. Ladd argued that the eschatological kingdom began at Pentecost with the giving of the Holy

Spirit that would lead to a future literal kingdom. 11 Ladd expressed this in the following way:

Peter explained that this marvelous power to speak in other tongues (glossolalia) was

the outward sign of fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy that God would pour out his Holy Spirit

on all his people. In Joel this promise was associated with the Day of the Lord; Peter

asserts that this event has now occurred in history. It results from the fact that God had

exalted the crucified Jesus and had enthroned him at his right hand, thus inaugurating his

messianic reign; and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon his people was nothing less

than the blessing of the messianic age. [Italics added]12

10 Kaiser, 121.

11 George E. Ladd, “Acts,” in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, eds. Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F.

Harrison (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), 1127; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed.

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 382; George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 132.

12 Ladd, A Theology, 382.

5

As noted by the italics above, Ladd has changed the “upon all flesh” (ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα) of Acts

2:17 to “all his people.” This is in fact a weakness of all of the partial/multiple fulfillment

variations. For advocates of these variations, all flesh (πᾶσαν σάρκα), is taken to mean the many

nations that were present on the Day of Pentecost or the bringing in of the gentiles later in Acts.

The significance and implication of this important phrase will be dealt with below.

Another variation in the partial/multiple fulfillment view is the position advocated by

progressive dispensationalists. Progressive dispensationalists emphasize the partial aspect of the

fulfillment through language that suggests an initial fulfillment in keeping with their theology.

Darrell Bock describes this initial fulfillment in the following way:

Joel’s text is set out with a “this is that” formula (Gk touto estin), which points to at

least initial fulfillment. Since the citation alludes to events in the final judgment as well (by

mention of the coming day of the Lord), the text is presented as initially fulfilled with more

fulfillment to come.13

Elsewhere Bock links this to the inauguration of the New Covenant:

The events here are preached as part of God’s long-awaited promise in fulfillment of

new-covenant hope. It is better to say that Luke sees the start of the decisive eras of

fulfillment as happening in these recent events. As with the other three OT texts that will

be raised his speech, this event is seen fulfilled, at least initially, by what God has done and

declared. [Italics added]14

What is often missing from Bock’s interpretations and statements of Acts 2:16-21 are the

exegetical reasons for supporting the idea of an initial fulfillment which suggests that the reasons

are largely theological in nature.

Another important element in the progressive dispensational approach is the nature of

the cosmic signs in Joel 2:28-32 and in Acts 2:16-21. As was previously noted, the total

fulfillment view sees the cosmic signs were fulfilled in the events of Calvary. Kenneth Barker (a

13 Darrell Bock, “Acts,” in The Gospels and Acts (The Holman Apologetics Commentary On the Bible)

(Nashville: Holman Reference, 2013), 380.

14 Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 112.

6

progressive dispensationalist) also sees the events of Calvary as being part of the initial fulfillment

interpretation. Barker stated the following regarding these signs:

The signs accompanying the Spirit’s outpouring include cataclysmic phenomena or

cosmic signs to herald the day of Yahweh (Joel 2:30–31; cf. Isa. 13:9–10; Matt. 24:6–8, 29;

Rev. 6:12; 8:8–9; 9:1–18; 14:14–20; 16:4, 8–9). While certain wonders did occur at Calvary

and on the Day of Pentecost—darkness, earthquake, and “tongues of fire”—nothing on the

scale of what is described in the above passages took place. So these “wonders” that did

occur are but a harbinger, earnest, foretaste, down payment, or prefiguration of the future

complete fulfillment in the eschatological aspect of the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:31).15

Like the previous supposition, on what exegetical basis does Barker have in pulling forward the

events of Calvary into the fulfillment of Pentecost? It seems the most likely explanation is the

subjective assessment that Calvary’s miracles were in some way associated with the fulfillment of

Joel 2:28-32.

A final variation within the partial/multiple fulfillment view can be found in the various

proposals that have been advocated by some traditional dispensationalists. A modern proponent of

this position was Mal Couch. Couch stated the following as to the meaning of Acts 2:16-21:

When Peter cited Joel 2:28-32, saying, “This is that which was spoken through the

prophet Joel,” he was not speaking of analogy, allusion, illustration, or making homiletic

use of Joel’s prophecy. The Spirit’s outpouring at Pentecost was partial fulfillment, or was

one referent of the prophecy of Joel. The Old Testament promise of the outpouring of the

Spirit of God is contextually and theologically linked to the new covenant. There is no

reason to disassociate Joel’s prophecy of the Spirit’s outpouring from those of Isaiah,

Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, nor to disassociate any of these from the new covenant.16

Couch also seemed to understand the difficulty in the phrase “all flesh.” Couch stated the following

as the basis for saying the phrase all flesh “opens the door to the Gentile application of this

prophecy:”

15 Kenneth L Barker, “The Scope and Center of Old and New Testament Theology and Hope,” in

Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: the Search for Definition, Darrell L. Bock, Craig A. Blaising, and W.

Edward Glenny, eds. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992), 370.

16 Mal Couch, ed., A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic &

Professional, 2004), 147-48.

7

Yet the usage of the phrase “all flesh” (koi basar) in the Old Testament not only allows

for reference to Gentiles in Joel’s prophecy but also suggests it. Outside of Joel, the phrase

occurs thirty-two times. In twenty-three occurrences the expression refers to Gentiles

alone. Seldom if ever is “all flesh” reserved or restricted to all Israel. According to Walter

Kaiser, “the preponderance of usage favors the meaning of ‘all mankind’ … without

distinct of race, sex, or age.” Moreover, Joel’s reference to “bondslaves” or “servants”

(2:29, cf. Acts 2:18) would in some cases, at least, involve Gentiles.17

Was Couch correct to determine the meaning of “all flesh” based on its usage across multiple

passages or how it is used in Joel 2:28-32 and in Acts 2:16-21? In fact this is similar to the “word

study fallacy” proposed by Barrick. 18 Scripture meaning of specific words and phrases are always

determined by each individual context and not by how it is used in other contexts.

How do other traditional dispensationalists argue for partial/multiple fulfillments of Joel

2:28-32? In language very similar to that of Couch, Pentecost suggested that Peter was focused on

only one part of Joel’s prophecy. Pentecost stated the following:

Joel’s prophecy, then, gave the promise, showed the results flowing from the fulfillment

of that promise, and depicted the signs that will prepare a remnant to receive the benefits of

the coming of the promised spirit. With that in mind, when Peter said, “This is what was

spoken by the Prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16), he was referring only to the promise contained in

Joel’s prophecy and was asserting that that promise of the Father which had been confirmed

by Christ has taken place.19

According to Pentecost, the cosmic signs are not relevant since Peter is only focusing on the giving

of the Holy Spirit. If this were the case, then why does Peter quote from the additional aspects of

the prophecy if he does not expect that this was also fulfilled? Again, the weakness of the

fulfillment schemes rests in how does one deal with the cosmic signs that were part of the

prophecy. As Kaiser noted above, in fulfillment views, “figurative language must be stretched to

the breaking point (all without any of the requisite textual clues that we are dealing with such

17 Couch, 148.

18 William D. Barrick, “Exegetical Fallacies: Common Interpretive Mistake Every Student Must Avoid,”

The Masters Seminary Journal vol. 19 (Spring 2008), 19-20.

19 J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come: Tracing God's Kingdom Program and Covenant Promises

Throughout History (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995), 270-71; also quoted in Egner, 49.

8

figures), or certain phrases must be seized while others are conveniently dropped from the

discussion.” Previously, in the total fulfillment view we saw the former action and in the

partial/multiple views we see the latter action being used.

No Fulfillment, Analogy or Illustrative View

The third major view of Peter’s use of Joel 2:28-32 is the view held by some traditional

dispensationalists. In this view, scholars suggest that Peter does not intend to show fulfillment at

all. Instead, Peter was using Joel 2:28-32 as an illustration of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

This view, therefore suggests that there will be future total fulfillment of Joel 2:29-32. Unger is an

excellent example of this view:

It seems quite obvious that Peter did not quote Joel’s prophecy in the sense of its

fulfillment in the events of Pentecost, but purely as a prophetic illustration of those events.

As a matter of fact, to avoid confusion, Peter’s quotation evidently purposely goes beyond

any possible fulfillment at Pentecost by including events in the still future day of the Lord,

preceding kingdom establishment (Acts 2:19–20). To employ the term “partial fulfillment,”

as some writers do, involves illogical terminology that does not produce clarity and

accuracy of concept.20

To further defend this view, Unger continued:

Peter’s phraseology “this is that” means nothing more than that “this is [an illustration

of] that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16). In the reference there is not the

slightest hint at a continual fulfillment during the church age or a coming fulfillment toward

the end of the church age. The reference is solely in an illustrative sense to Jewish auditors

at Pentecost. Fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy is still future and awaits Christ’s second

coming in glory and a copious spiritual outpouring ushering in kingdom blessing (cf. Zech.

12:10—13:1; Acts 1:6–7).21

There are others who defend this illustrative view as well.

20 Merrill F. Unger, “The Significance of Pentecost,” Bibliotheca Sacra 122 (1965): 176-77.

21 Ibid, 177.

9

What other points have been made in defense of the illustrative view of Acts 2:16-21?

Ryrie also defends the idea that Peter was using Joel 2:28-32 to illustrate the work of the Holy

Spirit:

It was not wine but the Holy Spirit who was causing these things, and to prove this Peter

quoted Joel 2:28–32. … Clearly Joel’s prophecy was not fulfilled at Pentecost, for (1) Peter

does not use the usual Scriptural formula for fulfilled prophecy as he does in Acts 1:16 (cf.

Matt 1:22; 2:17; 4:14 ); (2) the original prophecy of Joel will clearly not be fulfilled until

Israel is restored to her land, converted, and enjoying the presence of the Lord in her midst

(Joel 2:26–28); (3) the events prophesied by Joel simply did not come to pass. If language

means anything Pentecost did not fulfill this prophecy nor did Peter think that it did. … for

the matter is primarily homiletical and any problems should be solved in that light. Peter’s

point was that the Holy Spirit and not wine was responsible for what these Jews had seen.

He quotes Joel to point out that as Jews who knew the Old Testament Scriptures they

should have recognized this as the Spirit’s work.22

The key, therefore, to this view is the idea that the fulfillment of Joel must be consistently literal in

every way.

How does Ryrie deal with the issue of cosmic signs in Acts 2:19-20? Ryrie continued

in this way:

Why then, someone may ask, did Peter include the words from Joel recorded in Acts 2:19–

20? Why did he not stop with verse 18? The answer is simple. Peter not only wanted to

show his audience that they should have known from the Scriptures that the Spirit could do

what they had seen, but he also wanted to invite them to accept Jesus as their Messiah by

using Joel’s invitation “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (v.

21). Thus what is recorded in Acts 2:19–20 is simply a connecting link between the two key

points in his argument. “The remainder of the quotation from Joel, verses 19, 20, has no

bearing on Peter’s argument, but was probably made in order to complete the connection of

that which his argument demanded.”23

At least Ryrie acknowledges the difficulty that is present in Acts 2:19-20, even if this too is less

than an ideal solution to the problem of the cosmic signs.

22 Charles C. Ryrie, “The Significance of Pentecost,” Bibliotheca Sacra vol. 112 (Oct 1955), 334; also

partially quoted in Tan, 73.

23 Ibid, 336.

10

Another important contribution to this view was made by Fruchtenbaum.

Fruchtenbaum stated the following, which addresses many of the problematic areas that are

involved in developing a solution here:

Nothing that happened in Acts two was predicted by Joel two. What actually did happen

in Acts two (the speaking in tongues) was not mentioned by Joel. What Joel did mention

(dreams, visions, the sun darkened, the moon turned into blood) did not happen in Acts two.

Joel was speaking of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the whole nation of Israel in the

last days, while Acts two speaks of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Twelve

Apostles or, at most, on the 120 in the Upper Room. This is a far cry from Joel’s all flesh.

However, there was one point of similarity, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, resulting in

unusual manifestations. Acts two does not change or reinterpret Joel two, nor does it deny

that Joel two will have literal fulfillment when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on the

whole nation of Israel. It is simply applying it to a New Testament event because of one

point of similarity.24

This then, enables us to summarize the key points of this view and it serves as the basis for our

further investigations of Acts 2:16-21.

What are they key points that will be addressed? The key points include the following:

(1) the phrase this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel (τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ εἰρημένον διὰ τοῦ

προφήτου Ἰωήλ) is at the very least a poor way to introduce fulfillment and likely does not

represent fulfillment at all; (2) both Joel 2:28-32 and the events at Pentecost share the common idea

of God’s pouring out the Holy Spirit (ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός); (3) the phrase upon all flesh (ἐπὶ

πᾶσαν σάρκα) in Joel 2 clearly indicates the nation of Israel and only by stretching the idea can it

be applied to the events that occurred at Pentecost; (4) the prophesying, the visions, and the

dreaming of dreams of Joel 2 did not occur in any way on the Day of Pentecost; (5) the cosmic

signs of Joel 2 and Acts 2:19- 21 did not take place on the Day of Pentecost unless one employs

allegorical methods or ignores the verses altogether for homiletical reasons; and (6) Within the

events of Pentecost, Peter clearly intended that his sermon would be taken as evangelistic so he

24 Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, Rev. ed. (Tustin, CA:

Ariel Ministries, 1994), 844–845.

11

used the call of Joel 2 to call other to believe in Christ (καὶ ἔσται πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα

κυρίου σωθήσεται). All six of these arguments are based on the literal meaning of the words as

penned by Joel and as spoken by Peter. If there were only one or two of these arguments in place

for this passage it seems likely that there may have been some level of fulfillment in Acts 2:16-21.

Yet with all six it seems more likely that Peter was merely using Joel to illustrate the phenomenon

they were seeing on the day of Pentecost.

A Change in Meaning

A key element in the various interpretations that call for some element of fulfillment in

Acts 2:16-21 is the idea that Peter was in some way changing the meaning of Joel’s prophecy.

There are two kinds of changes that have been recommended within the ideas promoted above.

They include: (1) the idea of Sensus Plenior or fuller meaning and (2) the change in meaning that

accompanies the Pesher method of interpretation. These will be surveyed here as they apply to the

meaning of Peter’s sermon.

Sensus Plenior – A Fuller Meaning

A key to the total fulfillment view detailed above is the idea that Peter was employing

the idea of Sensus Plenior to derive the fuller meaning to the text of Joel. The idea of Sensus

Plenior was first proposed by the Catholic theologian “Andrea Fernandez in the late 1920s.”25

Riggs explained this idea in the following way:

Fernandez suggested that God had expressed through the words of Scripture a deeper

meaning than that which the human writers understood and intended. This hidden meaning

is a fuller development of the literal meaning of Scripture. It is found especially in OT

prophecies, but there are also certain Christian doctrines insinuated in the OT which have

their fuller meanings in the NT.26

25 Jack R. Riggs, “The ‘Fuller Meaning’ of Scripture: A Hermeneutical Question for Evangelicals,” Grace

Theological Journal vol. 7 (Fall 1986), 214.

26 Ibid, 214.

12

If we assume there is this fuller meaning that cannot be determined by the plain words of the text,

then how is this fuller meaning to be discovered? For the Catholic Church this is to be determined

by the Magisterium and by the Papacy. According to Riggs, this is how evangelicals determine

this meaning: "The determination of sensus plenior is either through further divine revelation in

Scripture or through the development of the understanding of divine revelation by the Church.”27

Douglass Oss, a proponent of using the idea sensus plenior, paints a different idea of

how this fuller meaning is to be derived.28 Oss stated the following points:

A proper sensus plenior must be distinguished from allegory. The method does not

consist of unbridled, imaginative eisegesis and the reading into a text of symbolic meaning

that has no biblical basis. Further, it is not some sort of mystical or supernatural revelation

acquired apart from the fruits of exegesis in which a previously hidden meaning is thrust

into one’s awareness, nor does the method consist of reading Scripture through a previously

constructed grid of systematic theology or church tradition, and thus finding in the text only

confirmation of what one already believes. Finally, this method is by no means to be

separated from the grammatical-historical method and the human author’s expressed

meaning. Nor should its results be different from or contradict the results of grammatical-

historical exegesis. Rather, the two should complement one another as two aspects of a

single, unified process of interpretation.29

Yet even here Oss does exactly what he warned against, he used Acts 2:16-21 to suggest that Joel

2:28-32 had been fulfilled, when the Holy Spirit was poured out “on all the people of the

covenant.”30 Oss did this through the circular method of suggesting that Numbers 11:29 is

suggesting that the “all flesh” of Acts 2:16-21 is actually only the “people of the covenant” and

then using Acts 2:16-21 and Joel 2:28-32 as the fulfillment of Numbers 11:29.31 Based on the six

27 Riggs, 215.

28 Douglas A. Oss, “Canon as Context: The function of Sensus Plenior in Evangelical Hermeneutics,”

Grace Theological Journal vol. 9 (Spring 1988), 106-7.

29 Oss, 106-7.

30 Ibid, 116.

31 Ibid, 116.

13

key points detailed above, it seems impossible that any sensus plenior meaning of Acts 2:16-21

could ever be in agreement with a grammatical-historical exegesis of Acts 2:16-21.

One unique approach to the idea that the New Testament writers used the Old

Testament in a non-literal way is the idea put forward by Robert Thomas, when he suggests the

New Testament writers employed “inspired sensus plenior application (ISPA).”32 Thomas defined

this method in the following way:

In the former instance, a NT writer uses the OT in its literal sense. The latter instance is

a nonliteral use of the OT. We may call this an “inspired sensus plenior application”

(hereafter usually ISPA) of the OT passage to a new situation. It is “inspired,” because

along with all Scripture, the NT passage is inspired by God. It is “sensus plenior” in that it

gives an additional or fuller sense than the passage had in its OT setting. It is an

“application” because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the OT passage, but

simply applies the OT wording to a new setting.33

Thomas further elaborated on what this means when looking at certain passages in the New

Testament:

In such uses NT writers took words from the OT and applied them to situations entirely

different from what was envisioned in corresponding OT contexts. They disregarded the

main thrust of the grammatical-historical meanings of the OT passages and applied those

passages in different ways to suit the different points they were putting across. They usually

maintained some connecting linkage in thought with the OT passages, but the literal OT

meanings are absent from the NT usages in this kind of citation.34

Thomas argues that an example of this type of usage can be found in Acts 2:16-21.35

How does the idea of inspired sensus plenior application help us to determine what

Peter had in mind in Acts 2:16-21? First of all, Thomas suggests that it is “unwise to use fulfilment

32 Robert L. Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” The Masters Seminary Journal

vol. 13 (Spring 2002), 79-98.

33 Thomas, 79.

34 Ibid, 82-3.

35 Ibid, 96.

14

terminology in connection with the OT passages to which the NT assigns inspired sensus plenior

applications.”36 Thomas specifically addresses Acts 2:16-21 in the following way:

Frequently, expositors and commentators have used such expressions as “initial

fulfillment,” “partial fulfillment,” “near fulfillment,” or something comparable to speak of

Peter’s use of Joel 2:28-32 in his Acts 2 sermon. That language gives the wrong impression

because the OT passage did not predict what was to happen on the day of Pentecost. What

happened on that day was an ISPA of Joel 2, an application whose authority was the Acts

passage, not the Joel passage. The phenomena on the day of Pentecost were in no sense a

fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, a prophecy that pertained to the people of Israel, not to the

church.37

Another term that would explain this as it applies to Acts 2:16-21 is that Peter was using Joel 2:28-

32 as an illustration as noted above. In this framework, the connecting idea is the giving of the

Holy Spirit and the call to salvation. While this helps, as noted above, it does not completely

explain why Peter chose to include the middle portion of the Joel passage and its signs that were

not present on the Day of Pentecost.

A Pesher Interpretation

Another common method of adding additional meaning into Acts 2:16-21 that was not

present in the events of Pentecost is to suggest that Peter was using a “pesher-style” interpretation

of Joel 2:28-32. 38 A Pesher interpretation of some Old Testament passages was found among the

Dead Sea Scrolls.39 According to Rapp, this pesher interpretation explains how at “Qumran the

current events interpreted scripture.”40

36 Thomas, 96.

37 Ibid, 96.

38 Kenneth Duncan Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God's People

Intertextually (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2005), 157.

39 Clifford Rapp, Jr., “A Doctrinal Study of Acts 2:14,” Chafer Theological Journal vol. 1 (Spring

1995),2.

40 Ibid, 2.

15

How does the concept of a pesher interpretation affect our understanding of Acts 2:16-

21? Litwak argues against the language of fulfillment in what he calls a “revisionary reading of

Joel.” To the conclusion that Peter’s language is the language of fulfillment, Litwak makes the

following point: “in pesher-style interpretations, such a conclusion does not follow.”41 Litwak

explains:

What has happened so far on the day of Pentecost may be related to Joel’s words, but

only through a revisionary reading, only through giving the text a new, ‘messianic’

interpretation in the light of what Jesus has done in pouring out the Holy Spirit. The

tongues of fire and speaking in tongues may be signs on the earth below by bringing a new

interpretation to Joel’s text, but not simply mapping tongues to wonders and signs as

fulfillment. Jews did not expect glossolalia as a sign of the eschatological presence of the

Spirit of God, and it is hard to see, therefore, how this could be understood as a fulfillment

of Joel’s text.42

It is worth noting that Litwak uses this method to relate the events of Pentecost to the signs in

Joel.43

Yet does Peter employ the pesher method of interpretation as suggested by Litwak?

Rapp is helpful here in explaining how this is not the method employed by Peter:

Many argue that Peter’s “this is that” must mean “this fulfills that” on the basis of the

Qumran discoveries. They think that Peter is using a form of pesher interpretation. But

Peter does not follow the Qumran pesher interpretation pattern in either form or in

principle. At Qumran the current events interpreted scripture. At Pentecost scripture was

quoted to explain a current event. At Qumran interpretations of Scripture were introduced

by the phrase peshro al (its interpretation is) and initial citations of Scripture are rarely

introduced. When an initial citation of Scripture is introduced, it introduced with the phrase

w’sr (and as for). Peter’s words do not correspond to the Qumran pattern.44

As a result of these important points we are left with a choice of applying the literal meaning of

what took place on the Day of Pentecost with something that allows for an expansion of meaning.

41 Litwak, 157.

42 Ibid, 159.

43 Litwak, 160.

44 Rapp, 2

16

Conclusion

In conclusion we have approached Acts 2:16-21 from two perspectives. The first

examined the various interpretations that have been advanced as to how Peter was using Joel 2:28-

32 in his sermon. We saw how many of the approaches use the language to fulfilment to suggest

that Peter was arguing for the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. This includes those who argue for a total

fulfillment on one hand to a partial or multiple fulfillments on the other. We also looked at the

possibility that Peter was only using Joel 2:28 to illustrate the giving of the Holy Spirit and did not

suggest that this prophecy was being fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.

We saw how the no fulfillment view contains six arguments that are based on the plain

meaning behind the New Testament text. Even though there is some difficulty with the cosmic

signs portion of the illustration this view seems to best fit the available data from Acts 2:26-21. As

a result this author favors the no fulfillment view of Peter’s sermon.

The second approach looked at the two ways in which evangelicals attempt to add

additional meaning to the text so as to accommodate a past or present fulfillment of Joel 2L28-32.

We saw how the idea sensus plenior merely adds additional meaning that is not derived from

grammatical-historical exegesis of Acts 2:16-21. We also saw how Peter was not employing a

pesher style approach to Joel 2 and therefore we are again faced with a literal approach to Acts

2:16-21. Both of these major approaches seem to indicate a no fulfillment view of Pentecost. In

fact the no fulfillment approach best explains all of the available data with the least problem for the

exegete and also defends the important concept of single meaning.

17

Bibliography

Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church, rev. ed. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publisher, 1969.

Barker, Kenneth L. “The Scope and Center of Old and New Testament Theology and Hope,” in

Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: the Search for Definition, Darrell L. Bock,

Craig A. Blaising, and W. Edward Glenny, eds. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992.

Barrick, William D. “Exegetical Fallacies: Common Interpretive Mistake Every Student Must

Avoid,” The Masters Seminary Journal vol. 19 (Spring 2008), 15-27.

Bock, Darrell. Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007

_____ “Acts,” in The Gospels and Acts (The Holman Apologetics Commentary On the Bible).

Nashville: Holman Reference, 2013.

Couch, Mal, ed. A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic &

Professional, 2004.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, Rev. ed. Tustin,

CA: Ariel Ministries, 1994.

Kerrigan, Alexander. “The Sensus Plenior of Joel III, 1-5 in Acts II, 14-36,” in J. Coppens A

Descamps, and A. Massaux (eds.), Sacra Pagina. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1959.

Kistemaker , Simon J. and William Hendriksen. Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 17,

New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001.

Ladd, George Eldon. “Acts,” in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, eds. Charles F. Pfeiffer and

Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

_____ The Blessed Hope. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.

_____ A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

LaHaye, Tim F., and Edward E. Hindson. The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy. Eugene:

Harvest House Publishers, 2004.

Litwak, Kenneth Duncan. Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God's People

Intertextually. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2005.

Oss, Douglas A. “Canon as Context: The function of Sensus Plenior in Evangelical Hermeneutics,”

Grace Theological Journal vol. 9 (Spring 1988):105-129.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Thy Kingdom Come: Tracing God's Kingdom Program and Covenant

Promises Throughout History. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995.

18

Polhill, John B. Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman

Publishers, 1992.

Rapp, Clifford Jr., “A Doctrinal Study of Acts 2:14.” Chafer Theological Journal vol. 1 (Spring

1995):2

Riggs, Jack R. “The ‘Fuller Meaning’ of Scripture: A Hermeneutical Question for Evangelicals,”

Grace Theological Journal vol. 7 (Fall 1986), 213-227.

Ryrie, Charles C. “The Significance of Pentecost.” Bibliotheca Sacra vol. 112 (Oct 1955):329-38.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of Acts. Downer Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1990.

Tan, Stephen Go. “Peter’s Use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21.” THM diss., Dallas Theological

Seminary, 2005.

Thomas, Robert L. “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament.” The Masters Seminary

Journal vol. 13 (Spring 2002):79-98.

Unger, Merrill F. “The Significance of Pentecost.” Bibliotheca Sacra 122 (1965):169-78.