Prophets, the Freedom of God, and Hermeneutics*

Willem A. Vangemeren
Westminster Theological Journal 52.1 (Spring 1990): 79-99.
[Reproduced by permission]
* I am grateful for the opportunities of developing and presenting this material and for the
interaction at the regional IBR (Fall 1987), the Southwest section of ETS
(March 4, 1988), and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Old Testament
Colloquium, May 24, 1988).

In the last twenty years three major issues have surfaced in the
interpretation of the prophetic word. First, the distinction between true
and false prophets has been blurred.[1] Second, the problems arising
from the nature of fulfillment have opened up a reevaluation of the
hermeneutics of the prophets.[2] Third, the connection between
prophetic and apocalyptic
[p.80]
literature has raised the question of continuity.[3] In this article I
explore these three developments as they relate to the matter of
interpreting the prophetic word.

I. Who Is a Prophet of God?

Who is a prophet of God and who is not? The biblical criteria for the
true prophet are clear and specific. According to Deut 13:13 and
18:1422 the prophet of God (1) is called by the Lord; (2) speaks the
word of God as God's spokesperson; (3) speaks in the name of the
Lord; (4) is an Israelite who addresses himself primarily to Israel; (5)
stands in the tradition of the Mosaic covenant; (6) encourages loyalty to
the Lord and to his revelation and condemns apostasy; and (7)
authenticates his mission with "signs."
The validation of a true prophet was often difficult. The godly had to
discern between the true and the false, between Scripture and tradition,
between the "old" revelation and the "new" revelation, between claim

and counterclaim. The prophets of God rooted their message in God's

revelation to Moses and called on God's people to respond anew by
living in full
[p.81]
accord with divine revelation. The deterioration of revelation to religion
in Israel encouraged the rise of the popular prophets. The people looked
for those religious leaders whose values did not significantly differ
from their own. The people in Israel and Judah were complacent,
syncretistic, and readily abandoned the way of revelation for the way of
popularity with its lack of distinctiveness. The false prophets
encouraged a selective lifestyle that combined elements of continuity
with God's revelation and an ability to adapt to the cultural changes.
The ministry of the "true" prophet is best seen in contrast with that of
the "false." The study of the false prophets is complicated by the
relatively few recorded incidents in which the prophets of God
encountered the false prophets ( 1 Kings 22; Jeremiah 28).[4] In the
confrontation between the true prophets (Micaiah and Jeremiah) with
the false prophets (Zedekiah and Hananiah) both sets of prophets speak
in the name of the Lord. But the false prophets enjoyed a social
position, whereas Micaiah and Jeremiah were alone. They stood their
ground, even though they were maltreated. Their final appeal lay in
their confidence that the word of the Lord spoken through them would
come true. They could not vindicate themselves, but believed that
Yahweh would vindicate them through his presence in history.[5] Let
us briefly turn to Jeremiah's confrontation of Hananiah.

1. Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jeremiah 28)

Hananiah represented the false prophets in Jerusalem. They were

ideologists who operated from the conviction that Moses was true and
would always be true. They believed the people of Judah were the
legitimate heirs of the covenant, temple, theocracy, and Davidic
monarchy. They could not conceive of the destruction of the temple. To
them Jeremiah's radical words of the destruction of the temple and the
cessation of the Davidic monarchy were blasphemous. They were
zealous for the preservation of the "old" way and closed to the "new"

way of the Lord.

They believed that Jerusalem, "as the city of God," was invincible. Had
not Isaiah proclaimed that Yahweh would be with his people
(Immanuel = "God is with us," cf. Isa 8:8, 10)? In their zeal for
Jerusalem, they disagreed with Jeremiah's message as being
inconsistent with their understanding of God's promises. Jeremiah
proclaimed that the temple in Jerusalem was no magic symbol that
could restrict Yahweh. He is free and in his freedom he may destroy his
own "house," as he had done at Shiloh (Jer 26:6). Jeremiah's theology
angered the priests and the prophets, who asked him, "Why do you
prophesy in the Lord's name that this house will be like Shiloh
[p.82]
and this city will be desolate and deserted?" (26:9). Jeremiah threatened
their theology of the temple and, hence, their view of God.[6]
He also challenged them to study the prophetic word of the past to
determine if his message was inconsistent with that of the prophets of
God (Jer 28:8). Some of the elders did remember the words of Micah's
judgment against Jerusalem (26:1819). But this failed to convince the
people, who resisted Jeremiah's announcement that Yahweh was free in
abandoning Judah (27:111).
A few months later Jeremiah received a response from one of the false
prophets, Hananiah, son of Azzur, from Gibeon, situated a few miles to
the west of Anathoth. He predicted in the name of the Lord
Almighty the restoration of the exiles, of Jehoiachin, and of the temple
vessels that had already been taken in 597 BC (28:24). Hananiah
trusted in the common understanding of salvation, whereas Jeremiah
pronounced an oracle of judgment.[7] Hananiah enjoyed the popular
support of the political, religious, and social structures, whereas
Jeremiah stood alone.
Judean society recognized Hananiah as "the prophet" (28:1, 15), who
spoke in the name of the Lord (28:2). He enjoyed popular support
(28:1), because he represented the theological perspective of his
contemporaries. Jeremiah did not oppose Hananiah's prophetic claims.
Instead, he trusted in the Lord to vindicate him and his message.

2. True and False Prophets

The message of the false prophet created serious damage to the

credibility of the true prophet of God.[8] The true prophet proclaimed a
message that over a long period of time would be vindicated.[9] Often
he did not witness the fulfillment of the word of God. But he left a
record of his oracles as a witness to generations to come that God's
word is true.
The false prophets posed a great challenge to the veracity of the
prophets of God. How could the godly distinguish the "true" from the
"false"? The proposed solutions to the phenomenon of false prophets
have been many and diverse. Von Rad assumed that false prophets
always spoke a message of salvation and were connected with Israel's
cult.[10] R. P. Carroll explained it psychologically by the criterion of
lack of fulfillment (or cognitive dissonance).[11] According to him the
dilemma of the prophets' contemporaries was in the delay in fulfillment
of the prophetic words, whether true or false. The gap between
prophecy and fulfillment created a problem for the godly.
[p.83]
These false prophets were dependent on traditional values and had a
closed theological system.[12] They claimed to be in continuity with
God's word to Moses (Sinai theology) and to David (Zion theology),
but did not properly apply the revelation of God to a new and concrete
situation. James L. Crenshaw proposes that the rise of false prophets
was "inevitable" because of the expectations of popular theology (vox
populi). The vox populi binds the conscience of people, restricts their
vision, and closes them to new and fresh interpretations and
applications of God's word. The vox populirepresents the collective
conscious and subconscious common denominator of faith and its
response to divine revelation. The vox populi determines what the
prophet could or could not say, based on their theological assumptions
and traditions.[13] The true prophets stretched the "old" revelation by
the "new" revelation.[14] While the false prophets enjoyed a large
support base by their appeal to Moses, by their zeal to perpetuate
divinely ordained institutions, and by their affirmation of popular
theology, the prophets of the Lord challenged the people to receive the
word of the Lord, regardless of how it might transform their

preconceptions and their lives.

3. Criteria for Validation

Were there objective criteria for validating the true prophets? Yes and
no! The answer is "yes," when we reflect again on the seven criteria
given by Moses. But the answer is also "no," because of the human
corruption of revelation. The prophetic "institution" became affected by
the teaching of the false prophets and by the popular response to their
ministry. Crenshaw concludes that the prophets could not and did not
find adequate ways of "self-validation" or authentication.[15]
Blenkinsopp modifies Crenshaw's radical thesis by explaining that the
sociopolitical conditions of the late seventh century were so complex
that "the criterion of historical falsification does not do justice to the
complex nature of prophecy."[16] He further concludes that this
explains the failure of prophetism to keep itself alive in the postexilic
era.[17] Both Crenshaw and Blenkinsopp explain the phenomenon of
prophetism concretely and realistically, as prophet faced people and as
prophet faced prophet.[18] Wilson correctly observes that "it is likely
that the problem is even more complex than even the most perceptive
interpreters
[p.84]
have realized."[19] I shall give seven criteria that may help in
discerning the true from the false. I do this with some hesitation,
because it is much easier to discern the true from the false from our
perspective, having the advantage of the historical validation of God's
word through the events of the exile, postexilic restoration,
intertestamental period, the coming of our Lord, the apostolic age, and
the present church age.
(1) Revelation. The false prophets bring together revelation and
religion. Instead of being completely transformed by the Mosaic
revelation, they allowed for syncretism of popular beliefs and practices
(religion) and the revelation of God. This syncretistic way of life (vox
populi) helped them in gaining popular recognition.
The true prophets built on the foundation of the Mosaic law. As the

guardians of the theocracy, they operated solely from the framework of

revelation. They remained true to the foci of the Mosaic legislation:
exclusive loyalty to Yahweh the covenant-Lord (suzerain), strict
adherence to the ethics of Sinai (regulations pertaining to holiness,
righteousness and justice, love and fidelity, and a concern with peace),
a sensitivity to social issues (justice and care for the rights of the poor,
aliens, orphans, and widows), and a hope that the Lord would grant to
Israel the privilege of his presence in blessing and protection, resulting
in rest.
(2) Holistic proclamation. The false prophets selected themes from the
revelation of God to comfort the people of God. They believed in God's
promises: the election of Israel, the covenant, the inviolability of the
temple, the promises regarding David, the election of Zion, and the
divine blessings. But they did not for a moment apply God's warnings,
judgments, and conditions to the people of God.[20] They did not
consider what Motyer calls the "Exodus Quadrilateral" of "Holiness
(obedience), Peace, Sin, Judgment."[21] They also did not recognize
God, the Creator of everything, as free in his rule over his creation.
They bound God to Israel and could not conceive of his abandoning his
people to pagan nations. Hence, the false prophets were selective in
their preaching.
In Israel the prophets, priests, and wise men gave spiritual leadership
each in his own tradition. The perennial danger existed in "closing" the
revelation of God by interpretation and by institutionalization, which
left no room for new revelation from God.[22] This happened in the
days of Jeremiah, when the leaders counselled together, "Come, let's
make plans against Jeremiah; for the teaching of the law by the priest
will not be lost,
[p.85]
nor will counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophets. So
come, let's attack him with our tongues and pay no attention to
anything he says" (Jer 18:18).
The true prophets, however, affirmed the whole counsel of God. They
taught that the Lord is free in his mercy and in his judgment. They also
taught that the Creator-King is sovereign over all creation and that the
clay cannot challenge the potter. The true prophets were not opposed to

the cult, wisdom, or law as originally derived from Moses, but they
were antagonistic to the institutionalization, restriction, and perversion
of God's revelation. They opposed any human restriction on
the freedom of God, whether in the temple, law, or monarchy. At the
heart of the prophetic heritage lies the true worship of God "in spirit."
The prophets insisted on worship of the Lord from the heart and said
that true worship always begins with an openness to God's freedom.
Zimmerli writes, "Prophetic proclamation thus shatters and transforms
tradition in order to announce the approach of the Living One."[23]
(3) Independence from power structures. The false prophets fostered
illusions by advocating a Realpolitik. Realpolitik is a complex, human
response to any dilemma. It is a reflex to fix whatever goes wrong, so
as to perpetuate the human power, social structures, economic
structures, and values. But Realpolitik also closes man's world to God,
to the supernatural, and to God's freedom. Israel and Judah were open
to a "religion" that kept open the possibilities of Realpolitik, but they
were closed to the radical dimension of submission to revelation. The
false prophets provided solutions for the problems at hand, whether
social, political, or economic. The false prophets desired nothing better
than a good name and the popular recognition that goes with it. They
were anxious to be consulted, but they were not zealous for the
prosperity of God's kingdom. At this point the kingdom of God and the
kingdom of humans collide. Whereas the false prophets loved success,
power, popularity, and prosperity, the true prophets were often "loners,"
serving God independently of the power structures, whether cultic or
political. But their lives, message, and suffering still witness to the
power of the living God.
(4) Divine and human institution. The false prophets lived and worked
for a human ideal, a dream, a vision, or institution.[24] They were great
promoters of programs. The true prophets, however, did not primarily
consider their social standing or the wishes of their audience. They
were by divine appointment social and religious critics, with whose
message the people would be in little agreement. The true prophets
persevered, because they were not first and foremost members of a
socially defined institution, but because they were God's
spokespersons. They were men of God who
[p.86]

lived for the sake of serving their Lord faithfully. The prophetic
institution was by this definition a divine and a social institution. As a
divine institution the Lord commissioned his prophet with a word from
above. As a social institution the prophet was expected to speak God's
word to a people whose expectations were determined by Realpolitik,
social pressures, and popular beliefs and practices.
(5) Vision of the kingdom of God. The false prophets were taken by
God's present kingdom, as understood by them. They were guardians of
the status quo. The covenant, the Davidic monarch, the temple, and the
priesthood were "sacred" symbols of God's kingdom among his people.
Their vision of the kingdom ruled out a change in God's relation with
his people. Their vision of the kingdom provided them with a platform
for change, as dictated by Realpolitik.
The true prophets operated from the transforming vision of the coming
kingdom of God. The Lord had revealed to them that his kingdom
would come in the power of the Spirit. Since this kingdom is so much
grander than reality, people must prepare themselves for the coming of
his kingdom. The true prophets taught that this kingdom will come by
the work of the Spirit and not by power or by might.
The true prophets operated from the conviction that God's kingdom was
present and that Yahweh must also transform all things to establish his
kingdom. They did not know how or when he would accomplish this
transformation, but they condemned the people for having rejected the
kingdom of God in exchange for human kingdoms.
The true prophets were God's spokesmen, raised up in a particular time.
Through them he exhorted, sued, judged, and explained what was about
to happen and why. The prophet was not first and foremost a man of the
future. His primary significance lay in his witness to his own time and
to Yahweh's involvement in the temporal order. God's order had been
adversely affected by man's transgression of Yahweh's laws. Society in
Israel and Judah no longer reflected the order of the kingdom of God.
The pillars (fidelity, love, righteousness, and justice) of the kingdom of
God were shaken, because of man's rebellion against his King. Man's
power structures on earth undermined the purposes of God! Yet, their
vision was not limited to the immediate historical horizon, as Zimmerli
concludes:

We must not, however, think that the prophets were simply interpreters
of history.... Behind the word of the prophets was not the river of
history, rushing with invincible force, and by its rigid laws forcing its
way on and breaking down all opposition. Behind their preaching stood
the Lord of freedom, in whose hands all history remains a tool which
can be wielded freely by him.[25]
[p.87]
(6) Theocentric ethics. The false prophets taught a man-centered ethics.
They embraced the revelation of Moses, as interpreted by popular
conceptions (vox populi). They substituted forms of piety (prayer,
sacrifices, and fasting) for true godliness. The true prophets held on to
the belief that Yahweh would intervene, to alter the course of human
history. They stressed the freedom of God as a prelude to inviting
humans to submit themselves to Yahweh. They spoke about a new era
in which God and humans would join together in the establishment of
God's kingdom. The prophets witnessed to the way of Yahweh and to
the pride, evil, and sinfulness of the way of man. They addressed this
collision of interests and announced that Yahweh would be victorious
and that man's plans, scheming, and counsel would be frustrated. The
true prophets exhorted people to respond with a radical loyalty to
Yahweh. They called for people, nations, and society to
be transformed and to be agents of transformation.
(7) Suffering. The false prophet gained recognition in the syncretistic,
optimistic program of Realpolitik. He based his insights on the
selective interpretation of the word of God, pleasing humans with his
fine words. But the true prophets suffered awaiting the fulfillment of
God's word. Generally, they did not enjoy seeing the fulfillment of their
announcements. That was for another generation to witness. Even when
they witnessed the fulfillment, they remained the object of human
manipulation and suspicion.
The prophets suffered disgrace from their contemporaries, who
challenged their authority, role, message, and often physically abused
them. While suffering the prophets awaited Yahweh's vindication of
their message (Acts 7:52; Heb 11:3637).[26] Childs rightly insists that
the biblical books vindicate God's prophets. Micaiah was vindicated by
the death of Ahab, end Jeremiah was vindicated in the fall of Jerusalem.
[27] The acts of God in the history of his people bear out the veracity

of his word and justify his prophets as his spokesmen. More than that,
the historical pattern of proclamation and fulfillment extends the
canonical significance of the prophetic word to subsequent generations.
They, too, are responsible for hearing God's word, for heeding it, and
for discerning the true from the false.
The community at large rejected the radical message of the prophet, but
the "remnant" listened and treasured his words as the word of God.
They witnessed the veracity of the true prophets in the near-fulfillment
and believed that the eschatological message of the true prophets would
also come true.
The false prophets never developed a lasting tradition. Their false
hopes were shattered in the fall of Samaria and of Jerusalem. Their
interpreta[p.88]
tions were proved wrong. The true prophets shared a common tradition.
The prophetic tradition comprised various emphases, distinct
contributions, and watershed-like developments. Each prophet was
an individual with a distinctive call and a distinct message from God,
but the concern for distinctive characteristics should not mislead us to
pay exclusive attention to the differences. The true prophets formed a
part of a tradition and that tradition was founded on the covenantal
structure. "For the prophets and the psalmists the covenant tradition
formed the heart of their religion."[28] The prophetic tradition reveals
variety and unity.[29]

II. Prophecy and Dissonance

In critical circles it is axiomatic that there is an element of "failure" in
the prophetic word.[30] Robert P. Carroll applies the cognitive
dissonance theory to explain the crisis arising from the anticipation and
the subsequent failure of fulfillment.[31] To test the model in the
postexilic community, he set up five such conditions: (1) conviction;
(2) a commitment to that conviction; (3) the conviction must be
sufficiently strongly held to withstand disconfirmation; (4) a
disconfirmation must occur; and (5) a social support group must exist

in case of disconfirmation.[32] From the outset he admits the problems

inherent in the model, as it does not take into account the possibility of
repentance (e.g., Jonah at Nineveh),[33] of redaction of the prophetic
oracles, and of the prophetic self-awareness of the dissonance created
by the prophetic word and lack of fulfillment.[34] Nevertheless Carroll
concludes that God's people experienced dissonance and that this sense
of dissonance set into motion a complex hermeneutic: "the hermeneutic
process of rationalization and explanation."[35]
He concludes that prophecy had to fail in the postexilic era, because the
prophets could not account for the lack of fulfillment and because the
social support could not sustain the momentum of hope. This explains
the rise of apocalyptic as a form of hermeneutic and of a programmatic
approach of socioreligious expression. He refers positively to the
studies on apocalyptic by Hanson as one form of hermeneutic that
attempts "to get around the
[p.89]
basic failure of the prophetic expectation...by grounding such hopes in
a transcendental act of God imposed upon mankind."[36]
He further explains the lack of fulfillment in the NT. According to him
the early church did not resort to a complex system of transformational
beliefs, but to a "christological interpretation of the Old
Testament."[37]It reduced the tension between Old and New and
between Christ's coming and the expectation of his parousia by an
emphasis on Christ's mission on earth. In other words, Christology is
set in juxtaposition to eschatology, or in the words of Flusser, "where
Christology is strong, the longing for Millennium is comparatively
weak."[38]

III. Apocalyptic and Prophetic

The basic issue in the study of apocalyptic is its relation to the
prophetic. Is the apocalyptic rooted in the prophetic or is it of foreign
origin? In a seminal study Otto Plger distinguished between two
developments in the postexilic era: theocratic and apocalyptic.[39] The
former concerned itself with the temple, Torah, and priesthood (cf.

Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah) and the latter developed in reaction to the

Zadokite priesthood, being a movement of disillusionment. He posits
that apocalyptic arose as an ideology or hermeneutic in the context of
pessimism.[40] Paul Hanson further refined the definition by restricting
the term apocalypse to a literary genre, apocalypticism to a
socioreligious movement, and apocalyptic eschatology to a religious
perspective.[41] He operates from the basic position that the prophets
functioned as "translators" of the divine vision into a sociopolitical
milieu and contrasts their contribution with the apocalyptic
eschatologists. The latter had little or no interest in translating "vision"
into political, historical, and social realities.[42] Because both prophets
and visionaries share in the vision of restoration, Hanson concludes that
there is "one unbroken strand extending throughout the history of
prophetic and apocalyptic eschatology."[43]
Apocalyptic eschatology may express itself in dualism, pessimism, and
futurism. It is dualistic in its sharp vision of right and wrong: the evil of
this
[p.90]
age without any recognition of common grace and the goodness of
God's reign over his creation. It is pessimistic in its rejection of man's
involvement with the plan of God of bringing in a new era of salvation
and restoration. It is futuristic in its living 6r and with the vision of the
splendor of the new age with little regard for the impact of the vision
on present realities. However, all apocalyptic elements do not fall into
this categorization. The prophets anticipate a radical transformation,
have a clearly developed eschatology, and even incorporate apocalyptic
forms. The process of interpretation, of relating prophetic and
apocalyptic, promise and fulfillment, reality and eschatology is a
complex hermeneutic task.[44]
Hanson's study on the rise of "apocalyptic" and the distinction between
the prophetic vision in concrete historical, sociopolitical realities and
the apocalyptic eschatology with its preoccupation with the heavenly
visions is a sober warning for the twentieth-century Christian. The
prophets maintain the dialectic tension between hope and reality,
whereas the successive generations after the prophets, as we are prone
to do, departed from what Hanson calls "the firm mooring of the
prophetic message in history."[45]

Apocalypse has a canonical place, as both the prophets and John the
apostle employ apocalyptic imagery.[46] The apocalyptic genre, much
like the prophetic, presents the truth of God not consecutively or
logically, but multidimensionally. The eschatology of the prophetic
word and the apocalyptic visions have one common origin: the Spirit of
prophecy.
On a historical plane, the community of God's people have to adjust
continually to the reality of fulfillment and the vision of the prophets.
The resultant tensions between prophecy and vision, vision and reality,
present and future, and between creation and redemption must remain.
As long as this tension is real in our lives, the prophetic word propels
us to action in evangelism, church work, and involvement in society as
light-bearers. The light dims when the Christian works out the details
of the heavenly vision, while awaiting his redemption from this world.
The development of schisms and ideologies before the incarnation of
our Lord with the consequent rejection of the Messiah of Israel is a
vivid reminder of the traps (systematization, rigidity in interpretation,
and failure of correlation) that are also around today.[47]

IV. Hermeneutics
The recent discussion on true versus false prophets, cognitive
dissonance, and the place of apocalyptic have raised the question as to
how we must
[p.91]
approach the prophetic word. For example, Carroll encourages the
development of a hermeneutics of the prophets that must be
"sufficiently complex and sophisticated...to question the text to the
point of encountering its meaning."[48] My response is in the form of
seven theses:[49]
(1) The prophetic word is eschatological[50] in nature. The prophets
expected the radical transformation of this world, including a new
humanity and a new covenant. The prophets challenged and still invite
us to interpret the present in the light of the hope of a new age, to
which God's revelation witnesses. Though the word eschatology

is etymologically related to the Greek word for "last," OT

eschatology opens up the plan of God, as revealed through God's
servants the prophets. I agree with Thomas M. Raitt in his definition of
"eschatology" as "the search for and discovery of a frame of reference
to explain events which are not understandable in terms of a previously
existing tradition."[51] This approach involves a careful study of the
prophetic word, an openness to the progress of redemption (with its
elements of continuity and discontinuity), a vision of God's work in
redemption and in creation, and a submission to the freedom of God.
Interpretation of the prophets should never close the prophetic word by
any system of eschatology, a traditional understanding of the prophetic
message, or a hermeneutic that restricts the freedom of God to human
interpretation. In other words, the prophets open up the future as a
working out of God's plan in human history.
(2) The working out of God's promises is progressive. In the progress
of redemption the Lord fulfills his promises increasingly more. After
the exile the Lord renewed the remnant by his new acts of grace,
forgiveness, and expression of covenant renewal. Since then each
generation that heard the prophetic word has lived in the awareness of
God's judgment, but also in the enjoyment of his benefits. The present
was interpreted from the framework of God's promises.[52]
[p.92]
The prophetic proclamations of salvation take the form of "promise"
and the enjoyment of his promises is a temporal expression of God's
eternal plan. This point is well stated by Beecher: "every fulfilled
promise is a fulfilled prediction; but it is exceedingly important to look
at it as a promise, and not as a mere prediction."[53] This means that
the benefits of God were greater to the postexilic community than to
the preexilic people, and also that the present benefits in Christ are
greater than those of the postexilic era of restoration. Nevertheless, we
keep Beecher's caution in mind: "If one affirms that the promise is
fulfilled in Jesus Christ, he ought not to separate that fulfillment from
the rest of the eternal fulfilling movement. The idea of a long line of
fulfillment is not a hypothesis offered for the solution of difficulties,
but a part of the primary conception of a promise that is for
eternity."[54]
Though the promises are eternally operative, the interpreter of the

prophetic word must carefully listen to the prophets as God's witnesses

in time and space. Yet, the word invites our listening in to the
prophetic speech in a new context.
(3) The prophetic word is God's word to his people before and after
Christ. The prophetic message in all its diversity witnesses to the
coming of God in salvation and in judgment. Every act of God in the
progress of redemption is a foreshadowing of his final judgment and
deliverance. The prophets announced that Israel, Judah, and the nations
would experience God's judgment as an intrusion of the Day of the
Lord. Similarly, they announced that the enjoyment of covenant
renewal and the fulfillment of the promises are nothing less than
intrusions of God's blessed presence.
The prophets bore witness in their different ways to the grandeur of
God's redemption as well as to the wisdom of God in working out his
promises. The sheer vastness in size of the prophetic word should guard
against oversimplification.[55] The prophets called on their
contemporaries to look to the Lord for the fulfillment of the promises
and to submit to the freedom of God in working out his promises.
Certainly tensions exist between the full reality and enjoyment of the
covenant promises, as Bright writes: "So, like Israel of old, we have to
live in tension. It is the tension between grace and obligation: the
unconditional grace of Christ, which is proffered to us, his
unconditional promises in which we are invited to trust, and the
obligation to obey him as the church's sovereign Lord."[56]
[p.93]
The focus of the hope in the fulfillment of God's promises is Jesus
Christ, the midpoint of redemptive history.[57] The work of Christ
is continuous with the work of God in the OT, but discontinuouswith
the religious structures of mankind. Our Lord's message is continuous
with that of Moses and the prophets in his insistence on how the
kingdom of God is unlike the expectations of humans. The godly who
heeded Moses and the prophets and those who follow our Lord Jesus
share in a common hope. Moses, the prophets, our Lord, and the
apostles witness separately and collectively to the future open to all
who persevere in seeking the kingdom of God.
(4) The prophets uniformly and urgently warn against trusting in

human structures and interpretation. The contest is between the power

of man and the power of the Spirit, the bondage of human structures
and the freedom of the Spirit. The faithful before and after Christ live
in the tension of the present reality of salvation and the glorious and
eternal fulfillment of the promises of God in Christ.[58]
The prophets consistently call on the people of God to be open to the
new acts of God and to evaluate the old acts in the light of the new.
This way of looking at the world is what Sanders calls "the
hermeneutic of prophetic critique."[59] Sanders writes, "The living
God is not an automatic machine. God's truth cannot be systematized....
Hananiah was the person who had real knowledge but was a prisoner of
that knowledge."[60]
The danger of closure lies in rigidity and in reductionism. The fixation
of the meaning gives coherence to the community and encourages
stability. But it is no longer open to fresh interpretation or insight. It
closes itself to the variety of meanings and leads to a reductionistic
hermeneutics. Reductionistic hermeneutics is unable to bend or to adapt
either to new revelation or to new insight. This was the case with the
false prophets as well as with the apocalyptic eschatologists. Both
groups erred in reducing the correlation of creation and redemption to
an ideology of election.
The prophetic proclamation of deliverance announces a new era in
which the eschatological salvation breaks into the experience of God's
people and
[p.94]
his creation. The annunciation of the new era is an eschatological
message that promises the free involvement of the Creator-Redeemer.
[61]
(5) The prophetic message is applicable to a wide variety of historical
contexts, as God's people hear the word of God as illumined by the
Spirit of God. With the addition of each prophetical book to the canon,
the people of God were forced to adapt their view of God. Needless to
say, the Gospels and epistles radically altered the understanding of the
OT, as the apostles understood the "canon" in the light of Jesus'
coming. Hence, the traditional understanding of Moses and the

prophets had to undergo a radical transformation in the light of the

gospel of our Lord.[62]
Each new event and additional revelation challenged the received
traditions of what God has revealed to his people and what he expects
of them. God's people lived in the dynamic tension of continuity and
discontinuity, stability and adaptability.
Hermeneutics is the "mid-term between canon's stability and
adaptability."[63] The very way in which the community adapts to the
revelation of God determines how it is willing to evaluate its beliefs
and practices in the light of the word of God. The word of God is
received as canon, that is the rule of faith and practice within the
community of God's people. The community submits itself by
searching the Scriptures. The insights and applications derived from
this study introduce a stabilizing factor in the belief system and
practices of the community.
Fixation of the "meaning" of the canonical writing gives coherence and
stability to the community. The danger of stability and tradition lies
in closure to new revelation or to a new understanding of that
revelation. It is also reductionistic, as tradition picks and chooses
certain beliefs and practices from the great variety and riches of
meaning and relationships. Stability explains the differences between
the Jews and the Samaritans, between the various groups of Pharisees
and sects in Jesus' days. It also explains distinctive differences between
the eastern and western branches of the Christian church, Catholics and
Protestants, Reformed and Arminian, postmillennialist and
amillennialist, and between a dispensationalist and a covenant
theologian.
The interpretation of God's word naturally forms tradition and tradition
"shapes" interpretation. The cyclical pattern of "traditional
interpretation" cannot but lead to a reductionistic hermeneutic. This
hermeneutic is unable to adapt either to new revelation or to new
insights. This was already
[p.95]
the situation when the prophets of God encountered the "rigidity" and

"systematization" of the false prophets.[64]

But the Spirit of God calls on each generation to adapt anew to God's
revelation. He is the power of God who applies the word of God to a
new situation. He transforms human beings, interpretations, and
traditions. As long as he is operating in and through the word, the
community
of
God's
people
lives
in
the
tension
between stability and adaptability. In other words, each of the
prophetic writings challenges the conception of the stability of the
canon, as the people of God adapt to the revelation of God.[65] More
than that, the prophetical books individually and collectively form a
matrix for approaching the NT, as they witness to a new depth of
meaning.[66] In the new revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the
prophetic canon underwent another challenge to its stability, as the
people of God wrestled with the question of what God expected them
to believe and how they should live. That is the issue of adaptability!
Danger lies in the OT being reduced to a minor premise.[67] This is
done when the tradition encourages reading the OT exclusively in the
light of the NT, in using the OT for moralizing principles, as prooftexts,
or as a collection of predictions.
The richness of the prophetic word is a salutary reminder of the
urgency to permit the prophets to speak also to us.[68] Thus they will
force us to adapt to the revelation of God by the power of the Spirit. He
will guide us in our interpretation and renew our vision. The writing
prophets of the OT contribute to the stream of prophetic traditions, to
the NT proclamation, and to the expectation of the fullness and reality
of the kingdom of God. The prophets contribute to the panoramic,
revelatory perspective of God's acts in history from their own time to
eternity.[69] As each generation submits itself to the word of God, it
involves itself in hermeneutics.
[p.96]
(6) The interpretation of the prophetic word is not an option for those
who are so inclined, but an imperative for the church of Jesus Christ.
True discipleship demands that the disciples of Christ long for the
consolation of Israel and for the restoration of all things. The NT
affirms the place for eschatological hope, the open-ended future, and

the freedom of God, as C. K. Barrett writes:

This conviction that God has yet greater things to do than the great
things He has already done for us, that He is the God of the future as
well as the past, is supplemented in NT eschatology by the equally
strong conviction that God is no more confined to the future than He is
to the past, and that, being free at all times, He has acted as decisively
and as revealingly, in the mid-course of history as He will do at its end;
or, in other words, that the end of history, and with it God's unique and
conclusive action which declares not only His own character but also
the meaning of all history, has already begun.[70]
The prophetic oracles and visions together with the Gospels, epistles,
and Apocalypse witness to the transformation. Prophets, whether more
or less visionary, and apostles, whether more or less visionary,
harmoniously and in great diversity point beyond the present to the
future hope of glory. The prophets and apostles are united by a
transcendental perspective,[71] but the language of vision is expressed
in metaphors.[72] Frederick Ferre has defined the language of
metaphor as an expression of man's finitude and God's freedom:
"Surely it is meaningful for each man to hope that the metaphors he
adopts as his own...are not without a basis of similarity.... The rest he
must hold only as a hope and a constant reminder of the finitude of the
knower.... The rest...he must be content to 'leave in God's hands.'"[73]
(7) The Holy Spirit keeps alive the tension between creation and
redemption, Israel and the church, the present and eternity, ourselves
and the world around us.[74] God's revelation cannot be bound by
earthen vessels. Torrance rightly posits the "communion" of the Spirit
as a way of reaching out into God's world:
[p.97]
The Church does not possess the mystery in and for itself. It shares in
it, but the whole of creation shares in it, so that the boundaries of the
Church must ever be open toward all men outside and toward the full
consummation of the purposes of God for all things. Thus the range of
the Communion of the Spirit cannot be limited and bound to the
Church, but through the universal range of the Spirit the Church is
catholicised or universalised and made to reach out to the fullness of

Him who fills all in all.[75]

The prophets remind us that too great a concern with salvation and
promise to the exclusion of creation leads to myopia, a restriction of
God's freedom and hence of the Spirit of God.[76] The danger of
restricting the Holy Spirit to space and time is most real, because
Christianity must remain the community of the Spirit and never permit
herself to be restricted to temporal and spatial categories.[77]
Hendrikus Berkhof portrays the Spirit's work as an ever-widening
operation in space and time:
... the work of the Spirit is to be characterized as an event that
participates and intervenes in history in an entirely new way....
Participation (with the Spirit) means that the Spirit, from the exclusive
center which is Christ, constantly draws new circles in time and
space.... The Spirit...touches us, transforms us, and enlists us for service
in his ongoing work, a work which in the present world will not be
completed, so that whatever he accomplishes here points beyond itself
and must always, and anew exceed its own boundaries.[78]
The progression of redemption history includes the people of God, but
also creation (cf. Rom 8:1922). Since the time of the incarnation we
cannot but reflect on the Spirit in relationship to the mission and work
of our Lord. But we must also relate the Spirit to Jesus' rule over
creation.[79] This is an area that needs further thought, as Torrance
wrote,
However, with the Incarnation and the finishing of Christ's work, we
must think of the whole relation between the Spirit of God and His
creation as undergoing a change...but that change has to be interpreted
Christologically in relation to Christ the First-born and Head of all
Creation, i.e. it has to be interpreted eschatologically in terms of the
new creation.... we have still to interpret the presence of the Spirit to
creation and nature as involving a measure of distance between it and
God, in which he withholds the fullness of His presence until the
appointed hour of judgement and recreation.[80]
[p.98]
The principle of tota Scriptura sustains the correlation of the Spirit in
the totality of restoration. The NT reveals an interdependence between

Christ, the Holy Spirit, the new community, and the eschaton.[81] This
correlation grows out of the OT prophetic message which projects a
new age externalized by the Messiah of God and internalized by the
Spirit of God.[82] It fosters the tension between this age and the age to
come, the material and the spiritual, Israel and the church, the powers
of this world and the rule of God's Messiah, and the Spirit of
restoration and the powers of destruction. In spite of these points of
tension, the OT prophets announce the Spirit's involvement in
restoration.[83] The Father freely establishes his kingdom on earth by
the Messiah and by his Spirit.

V. Conclusions
The prophetic phenomenon in Israel is complex and is complicated by
our hermeneutic of the prophets. Concern with the historic
referentiality of the prophets easily confuses the historic context of the
prophet as God's spokesman with the canonical message. The word of
God is verified time and again as God's people discern his voice in the
words of men. Those who hear the prophetic voice live in the tension of
heavenly and earthly, the material and spiritual, the plans of God and
the freedom of God, the now and the not yet. The righteous seek the
establishment of God's righteous kingdom as a reality. They discern the
ways of the Spirit of God by not localizing or temporalizing the
kingdom of God, by not defining the way and the plan of God. Any
restriction of God's freedom by human interpretation, tradition, or
systematization runs the same risk as that of the false prophets.
The prophetic word itself opens up to all who submit themselves to the
Spirit, to the whole Bible (tota Scriptura), and to the progressive
fulfillment in the history of redemption. Prophetic interpretation begins
and ends with God. He, the Creator-King, is free-unrestricted by human
interpretations, traditions, and institutions-and faithful to his promises
pertaining to the whole of his creation, as confirmed to Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, our Lord, and the apostles. He,
the Redeemer-King, progressively works out his promises, but in such a
manner that no one may boast of knowing the precise nature of the
progression of his plan. He, the Creator-Redeemer-King, awaits man's
response to his revelation in the

[p.99]
prophets and the apostles by calling for hope, praise, and commitment
to serve our Lord Jesus and the Father in the freedom of the Spirit.

Reference
[1] Robert R Carroll, "A Non-Cogent Argument in Jeremiahs Oracles against the Prophets," ST 30 (1976) 43-51; James L.
Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971); idem, "Prophecy,
False," IDBSup 701-2; idem, A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelite Traditions on God as an Oppressive Force (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1984); Simon J. De Vries, Prophet against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the
Development of Early Prophetic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978); Frank Lothar Hossfeld and Ivo Meyer, Prophet
gegen Prophet. Eine Analyse der alttestamentlichen Texte zum Thema: wahre und falsche Propheten (Fribourg: Schweizerisches
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973); Ronald E. Manahan, A Theology of Pseudoprophets: A Study of Jeremiah, Grace Theological
Journal 1 (1980) 77-96; Robert Martin-Achard, "Hanania contre Jrmie. Quelques remarques sur Jrmie 28," Bulletin du
Centre Protestant dEtudes 29 (1977) 51-57; Thomas W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood: A Study in the Theology of the Book
of Jeremiah (SBT 2/16; Naperville: Allenson, 1970); idem, "Jeremiah 27-29: The Question of False Prophecy," JAAR 35 (1967)
241-49; James A. Sanders, "Jeremiah and the Future of Theological Scholarship," ANQ 13 (1972) 133-45; idem, "Hermeneutics
in True and False Prophecy," in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (ed. George W. Coats and
Burke O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 21-41; Gary V. Smith, Prophecy, "False," ISBE 3.984-86; A. S. van der Woude,
"Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo-Prophets," VT 19 (1969) 244-60. For earlier studies, see Martin Buber, "False Prophets
[Jeremiah 28]," in On the Bible: Eighteen Studies by Martin Buber (ed. Nahum N. Glatzer; New York: Schocken, 1982) 166-71;
Gerhard von Rad, "Die falschen Propheten," ZAW 51 (1933) 109-20.
[2] Robert R Carroll, A"ncient Israelite Prophecy and Dissonance Theory," Numen 24 (1977) 135-51; idem, "Second Isaiah and
the Failure of Prophecy," ST 32 (1978) 119-31; idem, "Inner Tradition Shifts in Meaning in Isaiah 1-11," ExpTim 89 (1978) 3014; idem, "Twilight of Prophecy or Dawn of Apocalyptic," JSOT 14 (1979) 3-35; idem, When Prophecy Failed (New York:
Seabury, 1979); idem, "Prophecy and Dissonance: A Theoretical approach to the Prophetic Tradition," ZAW 92 (1980) 108-19;
idem, "Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Tradition?" ZAW 94 (1982) 47-58; idem, "Prophecy, Dissonance, and Jeremiah
xxvi," in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays on Jeremiah Studies (ed. Leo G. Perdue and Brian W. Kovacs; Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1984) 381-91; J. Collins, "The Place of Apocalypticism in the Religion of Israel," in Ancient Israelite Religion:
Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 539-58; David L.
Petersen, The Roles of Israels Prophets (JSOTSupp 17; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981); idem, Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in
Deutero-Prophetic Literatureand in Chronicles(Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977).
[3] Martin Buber, "Prophecy, Apocalyptic, and the Historical Hour," in On the Bible (ed. Glatzer) 172-87; Frank M. Cross, Jr.,
"New Directions in the Study of Apocalyptic," JTC 6 (1969) 157-65; John G. Gager, "The Attainment of Millennial Bliss
through Myth: The Book of Revelation," inVisionaries and Their Apocalypses (ed. Paul Hanson; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)
146-55; Paul D. Hanson, "Old Testament Apocalyptic Reexamined," Int 25 (1971) 454-79; idem, "Jewish Apocalyptic against Its
Near Eastern Environment," RB 78 (1971) 31-58 (= Visionaries and their Apocalypses, 3760); idem, The Dawn of
Apocalyptic (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); K. Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic: A Polemical Work on a Neglected
Area of Biblical Studies and Its Damaging Effect on Theology and Philosophy (SBT 2/22; London: SCM, 1972); Otto
Plger, Theocracy and Eschatology (Richmond: Knox, 1968). For the issues raised see James Barr, Jewish Apocalyptic in Recent
Scholarly Study, BJRL 58 (197576) 935; Robert R Carroll, Twilight of Prophecy or Dawn of Apocalyptic, JSOT 14 (1979) 3-35
(see Hanson's response to Carroll's criticism in "From Prophecy to Apocalyptic: Unresolved Issues," JSOT 15 [1980] 3-6); John
J. Collins, "The Place of Apocalypticism in the Religion of Israel," Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. Miller) 53958; G. I. Davies,
"Apocalyptic and Historiography," JSOT 5 (1978) 15-28; Rex Mason, "The Prophets of Restoration," in Israel's Prophetic
Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd (ed. Richard Coggins et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)
137-54 (= FS Ackroyd); E. W. Nicholson, "Apocalyptic," in Tradition and Interpretation (ed. G. W. Anderson; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1979) 189-213; Norman Perrin, "Apocalyptic Christianity," in Visionaries and Their Apocalypses, 121-45; Robert
North, "Prophecy to Apocalyptic via Zechariah," in Congress Volume: Uppsala 1971 (VTSup 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 47-71;
Michael A. Knibb, "Prophecy and the Emergence of Jewish Apocalypses," F. S. Ackroyd, 15580; Odil Hannes Steck,
"berlegungen zur Eigenart der sptisraelitischen Apokalyptik," in Die Botschaft und die Boten. Festschrift fr Hans Walter
Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Jrg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 301-15; Stephen
H. Travis, "The Value of Apocalyptic," TynBul 30 (1979) 53-69; Jonathan Z. Smith, "Wisdom and Apocalyptic," in Visionaries
and Their Apocalypses, 101-20.
[4] See the significant study of De Vries, Prophet against Prophet.
[5] W. Zimmerli, "Der Wahrheitserweis Jahwes nach der Botschaft der beiden Exilspropheten," in Tradition und Situation.
Studien zum alttestamentlichen Prophetie: Artur Weiscr zum 70. Geburtstag am 18.11.1963 dargebracht von Kolkgen, Freunden,

und Schlern (ed. Ernst Wurthwein and Otto Kaiser; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 133-51.
[6] Werner E. Lemke, "The Near and the Distant God: A Study of Jer 23:23-24 in Its Biblical Theological Context," JBL 100
(1981) 541-55.
[7] Martin-Achard, "Hanania contre Jrmie," 51-57.
[8] Thomas W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood, 71, 85.
[9] De Vries, Prophet against Prophet, 142-44.
[10] G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2.209-10, esp. n. 27; idem, "Die falschen Propheten."
[11] Carroll, When Prophecy Failed, 184-204.
[12] Van der Woude, "Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo-Prophets," 258.
[13] Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 23-38, 69-73; John Bright speaks of collision in theology (Covenant and Promise: The
Prophetic Understanding of the Future in Pre-Exilic Israel [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976] 165).
[14] Overholt, "Jeremiah 27-29: The Question of False Prophecy," 241-49.
[15] Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 110-11; idem, Prophecy, "False," IDBSup 701-2.
[16] Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983) 186.
[17] Ibid., 188.
[18] Carroll illustrates the tension between the true and the false in "A Non-Cogent Argument in Jeremiah's Oracles against the
Prophets".
[19] R. Wilson, Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 71.
[20] John Goldingay concludes, "authentic prophecy resists moral and theological relativism" (God's Prophet, Gods Servant: A
Study in Jeremiah and Isaiah 40-55 [Exeter: Paternoster, 1984] 51).
[21] J. A. Motyer, "Prophecy, Prophets," in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (3 vols.; ed. J. D. Douglas; Wheaton, IL: Tyndale,
1980) 3.12-82.
[22] Hanson distinguishes between the faith which erects a cult dedicated to the preservation of eternal structures and a faith
which confesses deity to be active, creatively and redemptively, in the movement of time ("Prophets and Kings," Humanitas 15
[1979] 28-9).
[23] Walther Zimmerli, "Prophetic Proclamation and Reinterpretation," in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (ed.
Douglas A. Knight; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 100.
[24] Martin Buber, "False Prophets [Jeremiah 28]".
[25] Zimmerli, "The Law and the Prophets: A Study of the Meaning of the Old Testament" (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 66.
[26] Walther Zimmerli, "Frucht der Anfechtungen des Propheten," in Die Botschaft und die Boten. Festschrift fr Hans Walter
Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Jrg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt; Neukirchen-Vlayn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981 ) 131-46.
[27] Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 140-41.
[28] R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant (London: SCM, 1965) 18.

[29] R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975).

[30] Carroll, Prophecy, "Dissonance, and Jeremiah xxvi," 386.
[31] He derives his model from research done in the 1950s in the field of social psychology by L. Festinger, H. W. Reicken, and
S. Schachter, When Prophecy Fails (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956).
[32] Carroll, "Ancient Israelite Prophecy and Dissonance Theory," 139; reference is made to Festinger et al., When Prophecy
Fails, 46.
[33] Ibid., 141-43.
[34] See Carroll, "Prophecy end Dissonance," 118-19; idem, "Inner Tradition Shifts in Meaning in Isaiah 111," 30-14; idem,
"Prophecy, Dissonance, end Jeremiah xxvi," 381-91.
[35] Carroll, "Ancient Israelite Prophecy and Dissonance Theory," 146-47.
[36] Ibid., 148. Specific reference is made to Paul D. Hanson, "Old Testament Apocalyptic Reexamined"; idem, "Jewish
Apocalyptic against its Near Eastern Environment," 32-58; idem, The Dawn of Apocalyptic.
[37] Carroll, "Ancient Israelite Prophecy and Dissonance Theory," 149.
[38] D. Flusser, "Salvation Present and Future," Numen 16 (1969) 155.
[39] Plger, Theocracy and Eschatology, 106-17.
[40] Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic, 28-33. For a criticism, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A
Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977) 114-16.
[41] Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, 1011, 430-31.
[42] Ibid., 11-12; idem, "Old Testament Apocalyptic Reexamined," 454-79.
[43] Ibid., 12. He disagrees with Plger's view as too restrictive to a particular sect. Frank M. Cross anticipated Hanson's
conclusions in "New Directions in the Study of Apocalyptic".
[44] Clements, "Patterns in the Prophetic Canon," 45; H. P Mller, Ursprnge und Strakturen alttestamentlicher
Eschatologie (BZAW 109; Berlin: de Grayter, 1969).
[45] Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, 27.
[46] Stephen H. Travis, "The Value of Apocalyptic," 53-76.
[47] Collins, "The Place of Apocalypticism in the Religion of Israel," 539-58; Shemaryahu Talmon, "Typen der
Messiaserwartung um die Zeitenwende," in Probleme biblischer Theologie. Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Hans
Walter Wolff; Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser, 1971) 571-88.
[48] Carroll, "Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Traditions," 49.
[49] This hermeneutic is more fully worked out in Willem A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1990) 80-99, 213-43, 354-89; idem, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New
Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988); idem, "Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy," WTJ 45
(1983) 132-44 and 46 (1984) 254-97.
[50] I. Howard Marshall cautions against the loose use of the word eschatology: We cannot abolish the use of the word, but we
can at least handle it with the care that we would bestow on any valuable but slippery object ("Slippery Words. I:
Eschatology," ExpTim 89 [1977-78] 268).

[51] Thomas M. Raitt, A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 215.
[52] From a different perspective Walter Harrelson writes, "Promises are affirmations of a community's or individual's faith: their
validity is not impugned by non-realization, just as their validity is not established by realization" ("Prophetic Eschatological
Visions and the Kingdom of God," inThe Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall [ed. H. B.
Huffmon et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbraun, 1983] 117-26). See also Prescott H. Williams, Jr., "Living Toward the Acts of the
Savior-Judge: A Study of Eschatology in the Book of Jeremiah," Austin Seminary Bulletin 94 (1978) 13-39.
[53] Willis Judson Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise (New York: Crowell, 1905; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963) 376.
[54] Ibid., 377.
[55] James A. Sanders reminds us of the adage, "God's Word comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable" ( God Has a
Story Too [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 16-17).
[56] Bright, Covenant and Promise, 198.
[57]See Willem A. VanGemeren, "Perspectives on Continuity," in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the
Relationship between the Old and New Testaments in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (ed. Paul Feinberg; Winchester: Crossway,
1988) 37-62.
[58] For the tension in Jesus' teaching, see Herman H. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1962); I. H. Marshall, Eschatology and the Parables (London: Tyndale, 1963); Raymond E. Brown, "The Pater
Noster as an Eschatological Prayer," in New Testament Essays (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968) 275-320; in Pauline theology, see
Geerhardus Vos, Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961); Herman N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His
Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975); Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet (SNTSMS 43; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1981).
[59] James A. Sanders, "Introduction: Contextual Hermeneutics in Biblical Preaching," in God Has a Story Too, 15.
[60] Sanders, "Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy," 26.
[61] Ibid., 215-17.
[62] Robert B. Laurin, "Tradition and Canon," in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (ed. Douglas A. Knight;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 261-74.
[63] James A. Sanders, "Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy," in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion
and Theology (ed. Burke O. Long et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 29.
[64] Douglas A. Knight, "Revelation through Tradition," Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, 143-80.
[65] Knight writes, "An interpretation should not tend to petrify earlier revelations or its interpretation, absolutizing it into a
convention that stifles rather than promotes life" (ibid., 175).
[66] T. E Torrance observes, "Since biblical statements indicate more than they can signify at any time, and more than we can
express in our interpretation of them, they manifest a predictive quality, for they point above and beyond themselves to the
inexhaustible Truth of God" (Reality and Evangelical Theology [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982] 144, emphasis mine).
[67] James A. Sanders, "Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament," JR 39 (1959) 232-44.
[68] A. E Kirkpatrick rightly observes that the prophets reinforce each other, albeit that their emphases and ways of speaking
differ greatly (The Doctrine of the Prophets [3d ed.; London: MacMillan, 1927] 518).
[69] Johannes Lindblom views the prophetic history as a coherent history directed by moral principles and in accordance with
a fixed plan (Prophecy in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Blackwell, 1967] 325).
[70] C. K. Barrett, "New Testament Eschatology," SJT 6 (1953) 240, emphasis mine.
[71] This is similar to what James H. Olthuis posits as an implied vision of the text in the hermeneutic process ("Proposal for a

Hermeneutics of Ultimacy," in A Hermeneutics of Ultimacy: Peril or Promise (Lanham: University Press of America, 1987) 28.
However, I disagree with his vision and agree with the criticism of Clark H. Pinnock ("Peril with Promise," in ibid., 55-59) that
disagreement on the nature of the vision is inevitable.
[72] G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) 131-97; Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of
Metaphor (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979); idem, "Biblical Hermeneutics," Semeia 4 (1975) 27-148; David Tracy,
"Metaphor and Religion: The Test Case of Christian Texts," in On Metaphor (ed. Sheldon Sacks; Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1978) 89-104.
[73] Frederick Ferre, "Metaphors, Models, and Religion," Soundings 51 (1968) 345; Sallie McFague, Metaphorical Theology:
Models of God in Religious Language (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 1-66.
[74] Willem A. VanGemeren, "The Spirit of Restoration," WTJ 50 (1988) 81-102.
[75] T. E Torrance, The School of Faith (London: James Clarke, 1959) cxxiv.
[76] Raitt, A Theology of Exile, 215-22.
[77] Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).
[78] Hendrikus Berkhof, "The Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith" (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986) 333.
[79] I agree with Torrance's observation: "It was to a certain extent the failure of Reformed theology to think out the doctrine of
Christ and the doctrine of the Spirit in relation to creation and therefore to nature," (The School of Faith, ciii).
[80] Ibid., cii.
[81] Hendrikus Berkhof (The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit [Richmond: John Knox, 1964]) discusses the eschatological context of
the Holy Spirit under four propositions: (1) Christ, the Spirit, and the consummation belong together; (2) the consummation
begins in the work of the Spirit; (3) the Holy Spirit creates a longing for the consummation; and (4) the Holy Spirit is the content
of the consummation.
[82] Raitt, A Theology of Exile, 175-84.
[83] Isa 32:15-17; 44:3; Ezek 36:27; 37:14-39:29; 59:21; Joel 2:28-32; Zech 4:6; 12:10(?).