Biblical Studies

The identity of the Spirit’s scope in Joel 3:1-2 (English 2:28-29)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Be aware: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references in the following, which can be different than what one will find in English translations of Joel.

In Joel 3:1-2, Joel describes the scope of the Spirit’s outpouring. Almost all commentators would understand the identity of this scope as referring to all the inhabitants of Judah. However, some, namely Barton, push back against this consensus by suggesting that aspects of the text do not fit neatly within a “merely Judah” perspective, but actually indicate a more universal extent. The significance of this exegetical issue is demonstrated by Barton’s observation that his interpretation would “make this prophecy one of the most ‘universalistic’ in the Old Testament . . . almost unparalleled in the Old Testament” (96).

The scope of the Spirit’s outpouring is identified asכָּל־בָּשָׂ֔ר. The high majority of commentators understand this as referring to all the inhabitants of Judah for the following reasons. (1) The 2nd person pronouns littered throughout this text indicate that this promise is limited to Judah, the addressee (Garrett, 369; Achtemeier, 148; Hubbard, 73; Wolff, 67). (2) Context: (a) As Wolff succinctly states, “According to the introduction in 2:19 this oracle . . . pertains to Yahweh’s people, and immediately preceding it the manifestation of Yahweh ‘in the midst of Israel’ has been announced (2:27)” (emphasis added, Wolff, 67; cf. Allen, 98). (b) Rather than addressing the nations in 3:1-5, Joel’s message to the nations awaits the final chapter (Crenshaw, 165; Wolff, 67). (3) Joel is most likely building upon, interpreting, or expanding the hope anticipated in texts such as Ezek 39:29 and Zech 12:10 which were intended for the “house of Israel” (Ezek 39:29) and restrict “the outpouring of a compassionate spirit to David’s descendants and residents of Jerusalem” (Zech 12:10; Crenshaw, 165; see also Garrett 369; Allen 98; Wolff, 67). (4) Crenshaw notes a (doubtful) suggestion made by Cheyne, that Joel intended כל־בשׂר to function as a poetic abbreviation for בישׂרל כל due to their phonological similarity (165). (5) The early church’s interpretation. As Allen keenly notes, “It was obviously in this sense [as referring strictly to Judah] that Peter understood it [Joel 3] in his exposition of the passage in Acts 2, especially in light of the amazement expressed at the ‘Gentile Pentecost’ in Acts 10:45” (Allen, 98).

On the other hand, Barton believes the message Joel 3:1-5 is ‘universalistic,’ extending beyond Judah’s borders. He provides the following arguments: (1) Although the previous commentators recognize that כָּל־בָּשָׂ֔ר can mean “everyone,” “the whole of humanity” (Wolff, 67; Allen, 98l Crenshaw, 165; cf. Gen 6:12-13; Isa 40:5; 49:26; Sir 8:19), nonetheless, they think the context restrains the meaning of “all” to “all Israel.” Barton, however, argues that this view conflicts with all other OT uses of כָּל־בָּשָׂ֔ר, which either means strictly “all humans” or “all creatures,” but none clearly meaning “all Israelites” (96). (2) The reference to male and female slaves quite likely includes non-Judeans (Barton, 96; cf. Crenshaw, 166). (3) The immediate context includes a promise of salvation for everyone who calls on YHWH (v.5) (Barton, 96). (4) The earlier church applied the message of this text to gentile converts, which, if nothing else, “took up a hint that is clearly present in the text” (Barton, 96).

One would be mistaken to assume that the interpreter faces these two perspectives in terms of “either/or.” Certainly, the majority of interpreters are correct to assert that the immediate context intends Judahites as the immediate recipients of this hope. However, the level of ambiguity, well pointed out by Barton, alludes to what becomes explicit in the New Testament—the eventual inclusion of Gentiles in this promise of the Spirit (Acts 10:45, Gal 3:14, 26-29). Ultimately, Joel uses vastly inclusive language primarily as a rhetorical device—defining “all flesh” as widely as possible in order to convey, “the major characteristic of the outpouring of the Spirit is its universality” (Garret, 369).

The Meaning of “I Will Pour Out My Spirit” (Joel 3:1; English 2:28)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Be aware: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references in the following, which can be different than what one will find in English translations of Joel.

As Joel paints a unique portrait of Israel’s eschatological restoration in 3:1-5, he begins with the anticipation that YHWH will pour out his Spirit. The repetition of this phrase אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי (forming an inclusio) identifies this concept as particularly important in vv.1 and 2. As such, a proper understanding of אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי is vital for an accurate comprehension of these verses.

The prophetic utterances that result from the Spirit’s outpouring (3:1-2) specifically identify רוּחַ as the Spirit of prophecy (cf. Num 11:25-29; 1 Sam 10:10), that is, the divine, personal Spirit of God.

The most basic meaning of שָׁפַךְ is “to pour out” (BDB, 381). It is often used to refer to the “sudden, massive spillage” of blood (e.g., Lev 17:4, 13; Deut 12:16, 24; 15:23, etc.) or the pouring out of other objects such as water (e.g., Ex 4:9; Amos 5:8), broth (Jdg 6:20); entrails (2 Sam 20:10); tears (Job 16:20), etc. (HALOT, 1629-1630). However, as is clearly the case here with רוּחַ, שָׁפַךְ often has a metaphorical meaning, for example, referring to the symbolic outpouring of one’s “heart” (לֶב, Ps 62:9 [8]; Lam 2:19) or “soul” (נֶפֶשׁ, 1 Sam 1:15; Ps 42:5 [4]) (Wolff, 66).

Among scholars, much consensus halts at this point in the discussion. Regarding the significance and background of אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי, interpreters differ. Chavalas provides one of the most detailed hypotheses:

“The concept of having God’s Spirit ‘poured out’ on an individual signified election by the deity. This was done in Mesopotamia with the monarch, who was endowed with melammu, a word denoting the glory of the deity. In fact, monarchs have their own melammu, which often in context meant ‘royal terror.’ Assyrian monarchs such as Shalmaneser III and Shamshi-Adad V described themselves in this way in their annals, especially in regard to the enemy, ‘I poured my melammu over them.’ Demons and even inanimate objects such as palaces and royal weapons could also be endowed with this divine material.”

However interesting or valid such ideas may have been in the ANE, Chavalas’ melammu explanation is entirely foreign to the concerns and emphases of Joel in 3:1-5 (cf. the following two articles).

Building on the frequent use שָׁפַךְ with objects of water (e.g., rainfall), Garrett postulates that Joel used rainfall as an analogy—“The pouring out of the Spirit is distinct from but analogous to the pouring out of rain on the land. Both are saving works of the day of the Lord” (367). However, although Garrett’s observation finds validity in such parallel texts as Isa 32:15 (ערה) and 44:3 (יָצַק), where the pouring out of the Spirit is poetically compared to rainfall that nourishes the ground, this analogy does not transcend these texts as a paradigmatic framework for every instance of this sort of language (cf. Ezek 39:29; Zech 12:10). In other words, despite what it may connote in one instance, אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי is flexible imagery. Case and point—the nourishing work of rain is an alien analogy to Joel 3:1-5.

Rejecting the water/rainfall metaphor, Reymond claims that the unction of oil explains the אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי language (cited in Allen, 98). But again, however real such oil connotations may have been, this explanation misses Joel’s purpose in employing this language.

The lavish nature of God’s granting his prophetic Spirit best explains the significance of the אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי language in Joel 3:1-5. Pouring out or spilling “suggests that God is not being niggardly” (Hubbard, 72-73). The content and structure confirm this proposal—the mention of all types of people receiving the Spirit (content) within the inclusio of אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי (structure). Joel uses אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי to express the liberal manner in which YHWH will distribute his Spirit.

The placement of vv.7-12 in Proverbs 9

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

As Waltke summarizes, “Because vv. 7-12 interrupt the competitive invitations of Wisdom (vv. 1-6) and Folly (vv. 13-18), most modern scholars regard these verses as a diverse composition and secondarily added to the text” (438; cf. Clifford, 103). Consequently, various explanations concerning the placement of vv.7-12 in Proverbs 9 have been provided. The significance of this literary-critical issue extends into how one understands the composition of the entire book of Proverbs let alone the interpretation of chapter 9. This paper will use Fox’s interpretation as a case study of the “literary-critical view,” examine the validity of his approach, investigate the potential of “unified literary unit” alternative explanation using Waltke’s view as a case study, and finally draw some tentative conclusions.

Fox advocates that ch. 9 is one among many interludes that was added to the original “10 Lectures” of chs. 1-9. Whereas vv.1-6 + 11 provide WW’s invitation, and vv.13-18 Woman Folly’s counter-invitation, Fox regards vv.7-9, 10, and 12 as undoubtedly later additions to this otherwise unified text. Verses 7-10 interrupt the juxtaposition of Wisdom and Folly’s speeches and displace v.11 from its proper position after vv.1-6 as the reinforcement and sequel of v.6’s exhortation. This transposition of v.11 is evidenced by the כִּי clause beginning v.11, which provides the reason for v.6’s appeal, as well as the use of a 1st person pronoun which clearly links this verse with WW’s address in vv.1-6 as opposed to the maxims of vv.7-10. Finally, Fox argues that “the passage [vv.7-10] does not echo the vocabulary of the preceding section and does not confront Wisdom’s invitation directly. . . .” Verse 7-9 address “who is capable of learning”; v.10 provides an independent definition of wisdom; and v.12 “identifies the recipient of wisdom’s benefits” (295-318; cf. 322-330).

Fox’s explanation is compelling. However, despite its draws, alternative explanations which treat the text as a unified literary unit (e.g., Waltke’s below) question the necessity of Fox’s complicated, theorized revisions. Furthermore, although the appropriateness of v.11 as a conclusion to vv.1-6 is reasonable and attractive, various factors challenge this view. First, the reversion to a 1st person pronoun in v.11 may actually indicate that vv.7-12 is a continuation of WW’s speech (Longman, 218-220). Second, the LXX, Peshitta, and Targum’s rendering of the beginning of v.11 (see BHS apparatus), i.e., “for in this manner,” would eliminate this 1st person pronoun altogether. In this case, v.11 could easily be interpreted as referring to the preceding content of v.10 (Leibeck). But finally, if a scribe(s) in fact edited this text as Fox suggests, one wonders why he would insert an emendation between an otherwise clear unity of vv.1-6 and 11.

Waltke, “although not denying the probability of their diverse origins” recognizes vv.7-12’s inclusion as logical and meaningful (438). Verses 7-12 supplement vv.1-6 and 13-18; whereas “the first and last stanzas of this poem are invitations to the gullible; the middle insertion is instruction” (430). He explains,

“Verses 7-9 contrast the opposing responses of the mocker and the wise with the corresponding negative and positive effects that their responses have on the wisdom teacher. . . . Verses 11-12 contrast the personal gain of being wise with the great loss of being a mocker. . . . Looking back to vv. 7-9, v. 10a states that the essential foundation of being educable or wise is ‘the fear of the LORD,’ and looking ahead, v. 10b names ‘insight’ from knowing the Holy One as the essential foundation form wisdom’s benefits (vv. 11-12a).” (439)

Such explanations like this, which competently handle the text as a final literary unit, challenge the necessity of complex explanations like Fox’s.

Finally, even if the component parts of chapter 9 were not originally a literary unity, their final composition is and can be interpreted as such (e.g., Waltke). Therefore, to rearrange the text, as Fox does, is to privilege one’s hypothesis over the received text. But more so, the existence of such sound explanations as to why vv.7-12 may have been added to Prov 9 (e.g., Waltke) prompts the question of whether or not vv.7-12 are even an addition in the first place (Tully). A heavy burden of proof certainly lies with those who seek to argue otherwise.

The personification of wisdom in Proverbs

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

In the book of Proverbs, wisdom is given a voice and personified as a woman, “Woman Wisdom” (WW). She holds a central role in the book as she provides two key addresses (1:20-33 and 8:1-36; cf. 6:22; 7:4; 9:1-6) in the discourse section of Proverbs (1-9), which serves as the introduction, even “hermeneutical prism,” for interpreting the rest of the book (Longman, 58, 61). This foundational role in the book speaks to her exegetical significance.

Determining her precise identity, persona, and origin has been the subject of much discussion and controversy among scholars. Various proposals have been suggested. The apocryphal writings Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon are the first to provide a development (interpretation?) of the theme. Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, describes WW in terms of Jewish particularism (24:8) and correspondingly understands the Mosaic Law as the embodiment of WW (15:1; 19:20). Wisdom of Solomon, on the other hand, “uses the figure to try to assimilate Jewish with Hellenistic wisdom, in particular a Stoic and Neoplatonic mind-set. . . .” (Longman, 70), e.g., “she is a reflection of eternal light” (Wis 7:25-26; NRSV).

Various theological interpretations have also been made. Some suggest that WW represents a hypostasis of the divine. However, as Schnabel points out, “wisdom is not given the status of an independent entity” but “is a vivid poetic personification” (845). Unsurprisingly, feminist scholars treat WW, or “Sophia,” as a feminine alternate to the male Christ. Representing this position, Paula Johnson states, “Sophia is a female personification of God’s own being in creative and saving involvement with the world” (cited in Waltke, 85). However, such an interpretation pushes the text beyond its poetic intent, making WW a literal description rather than a literary personification. (Wisdom is personified as female most likely because חָכְמָה is a feminine noun; Waltke, 83). Arius, the early church leader who was declared a heretic, used a similar hermeneutic in contending for his view of Christ as a creature. Noting the connection between WW and Christ (e.g., Mt 11:16-19; 12:42; Mk 1:21-22; 6:2; Lk 2:39-52; 7:31-35; 11:31-32; Jn 1:1, 10; 1 Cor 1:24, 30; Col 1:15-17; 2:3), Arius pressed Prov 8:22-26 to a literal extreme in order to argue that Christ was created (Longman, 70). However, Prov 8 is not a prophecy of Christ; and therefore, one should be cautious to draw Christological conclusions from it, especially in ways that contradict clear NT passages.

Many have sought to explain the origin of WW by theorizing that Israel borrowed religious aspects from surrounding cultures. For example, Bernard Lang sees a Syro-Palestinian goddess as Israel’s model for WW (cited in Clifford, 23-24). Clifford understands WW as “derived from mythological bringers of culture in Mesopotamian mythology. . . .” (24-28). However, despite correlations between WW and these suggested origins, such relationships appear distant from the concerns of Proverbs; these theories are largely supported by correlations found in other ANE sources but not ultimately from exegesis of Proverbs itself. Nonetheless, Fox’s observation is beneficial to a proper understanding of WW: “Lady Wisdom can gather a variety of phenomena from the mundane and literary domains without herself representing any singly known reality” (625). Therefore, for example, she possesses characteristics of a prophet-teacher-preacher (1:20-33); she is portrayed as a hostess (9:1-6); by her rulers rule well (8:15-16); and she played an intricate role in creation (8:22-31).

Evangelical scholars bring the discussion closer to home. Waltke rightly suggests that WW is the personification of wisdom, understood in terms of the book’s appended proverbs (83, 86-87; cf. 4:5). But going beyond Waltke’s interpretation, one must recognize that wisdom is not limited to the literary unit of Proverbs, but transcends it. The book itself recognizes that wisdom is rooted in God’s character and is therefore woven into the very fabric of creation. As Longman notes, WW personifies God’s wisdom. But contrary to Longman’s conclusion that WW “ultimately stands for Yahweh himself” (58-59, 79), Proverbs 8 portrays wisdom as distinct from and subordinate to YHWH in some sense.

In sum, this examination leads this author to the following conclusion: WW is the personification of wisdom, the communicable attribute of God, rooted in God’s character, portrayed in diverse personas, and demonstrated in (but not limited to) the various parts and literary whole of Proverbs.

The Biblical Background of Winepress

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Be aware: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references in the following, which can be different than what one will find in English translations of Joel.

As the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, the winepress is “an evocative biblical image. . . .” (954). Central to the life in the ANE (Deut 15:14; 2 King 6:27) and employed with rhetorical variety, a proper understanding of the winepress’ background and usage in various Biblical themes are crucial for understanding certain portions of scripture. One of those texts is Joel 4:13, in which the entire verse involves winepress imagery.

Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery summarizes well the ancient nature of winepresses and practice of wine pressing (see also Isa 5:2; Mt 21:33; Mk 12:1):

Once the grapes ripened, they were spread in the sun for up to a week to increase their sugar content. Then the grapes were taken to the winepress where they were crushed beneath bare feet so that their precious juice might be collected. The winepress consisted of two basic parts – a gently sloping, flat floor on which the grapes could be stomped and one or more collection vats connected to the stomping floor or hewn channels (274).

Winepresses served a foundational role in Israel where drinking water was somewhat rare and water quality was a definite concern (Zondervan, 274).

In biblical-rhetorical use, the winepress often becomes a picture of fortune or lack thereof. It serves as an image of abundance (Num 18:27, 30; Deut 15:14) and blessing (Prov 3:10; Joel 2:14). A winepress harvest was cause for rejoicing (Deut 16:13-14). Therefore, a winepress’ emptiness served as a vivid example of devastation and loss (2 Kgs 6:27; cf. Job 24:11). In such cases, it emptiness often represented God’s judgment (Is 16:10; Jer 48:33; Hos 9:2; Hag 2:16; cf. Mic 6:5).

Of particular importance for Joel 4:13, the prophets often employ winepress imagery to describe the judgment and wrath of God in an extremely vivid manner. The trampling of grapes often denotes the expression of God’s wrath (Isa 63:1-6; Lam 1:15; Rev 14:19; cf. Joel 4:13).

The harm that comes to the grapes is likened to the harm that will come to those who oppose the Lord. . . . For people who stained their garments year after year in the winepress, these images were a graphic reminder of the judgment to come (Zondervan, 276).

As such, one often finds that reaping and sickle language often accompany this winepress metaphor (Joel 4:13; Rev 14:14-20). In these incidences, the juice of the crushed grapes frequently symbolizes the blood of God’s enemies (Rev 14:20; Isa 63:1-6; cf. Rev 19:13). As Crenshaw notes, “Because the juice from grapes resembled blood, the image of treading grapes was a natural one for pouring out the blood of enemies” (191).

However, the wine imagery tends to vary. For example, wine can refer to sin with which men are “intoxicated” (Rev 14:8). A harvest of grapes and vats of wine commonly represents the immense measure of human wickedness, as if iniquity is being stored up until it reaches its limit and overflows (Joel 4:13; Rev 14:14-19). Wine symbolizes God’s wrath that the wicked shall drink (Isa 63:6; Rev 14:10). Unsurprisingly, such pictures of winepress-judgment are associated with the Day of YHWH (Isa 63:4; Lam 1:12).

Concerning Joel 4:13 in particular, Joel uses grape-winepress imagery to describe God’s impending judgment against the nations. He employs a mixed metaphor of sorts (contra. Allen [118] who provides an explanation for harmonizing the latter two images), each image describing a distinct stage in the winemaking process. However, they all portray the same reality (note the three parallel causal כִּי clauses)—the wickedness of the nations is primed for judgment. The unharvested grapes are ripe. The winepress is filled to utter capacity; the vats are described as overflowing; evil has gone beyond the limit. YHWH says, “enough is enough!” Therefore, he commands the judgment of the nations (רְדוּ, “tread”). In sum, the winepress imagery in Joel 4:13 portrays the nations as on the verge of judgment due to their overabounding wickedness (Wolff, 80-81; Garrett, 391).