ESCHTOLOGICAL HERMENEUTICS:

THE END OF TIME FOR DISPENSATIONALISM1

General Hermeneutics of Eschatological Assertions

If one were going to frame the question of how to address imposition of God thoughts

about the end times into the broader realm of theology, the best answer would be a catch phrase

of this sections header: The hermeneutics of eschatological assertions2. The two terms have

fairly specific meanings. The word eschatology comes from a Greek term, Eschatos meaning

"last" and -logy meaning "the study of" and in contemporary language is understood as the part

of theology concerned with what is believed to be the final events in history. Technically, the

definition is a theological area of systematic theology that deals with final things as death and

Last Judgment; Heaven and Hell and the ultimate destiny of mankind. The term hermeneutics

addresses the study of interpretation theory. Technically, it is the branch of theology that deals

with principles of exegesis or determining meaning from a text.

The two fields of study, hermeneutics and eschatology, intersect first in Friedliebs

Dogmatics published in 1644 where the first systematized theological development of

eschatology is presented. Now after three and a half centuries, the development of a consistent

hermeneutical approach to eschatological texts remains highly problematic. Not only can it be

said that a generally acceptable hermeneutical method applying to prophecy of Scripture does

not yet exist, but also that the subject itself is most volatile in terms of resultant outcomes

regarding eschatology. Using the idea of a typical lever, the role the hermeneutical system has on

1
This work is taken from the sixth chapter of my D.Min. Dissertation :THE PENTECOSTAL MISSION TO JERUSALEM AND THE

REEMERGENCE OF PESHER HERMENEUTICS - THE PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY (2013)

2
Phrase is borrowed from Karl Rahner, (Rahner 1961, 324)
eschatology is analogous to a fulcrum or pivot point with the Scripture acting as the lever.

Depending on the position of the fulcrum and length of the lever, the outcome, as Archimedes

once said3, can move the world." (See diagram 2b).

Lever and Fulcrum Scripture

Hermeneutical system

In a general overview of the subject of eschatological hermeneutics, three things could be

stated with some certainty: 1) that there are a limited number of hermeneutical approaches that

apply to prophecy of Scripture; 2) there has been some fruitful critical scholarship regarding

literary form that emerged with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran community;

and 3) there are a few camps holding firm to an ontological anchoring resulting in exclusive

allegiance to certain interpretive practices.

In the study of hermeneutics, a limited number of general approaches have existed prior

to Friedliebs Dogmatics. Before the rise of modernity, in a pre-critical worldview, the Catholic

concept of a multiplicity of approaches was accepted.4 The subject of this investigation needs to

be focused primarily within the scope of present day Pentecostalism, therefore, these alternative,

predominately pre-critical forms will not be addressed.

To effectively address the Pentecostal view, five areas will be addressed: Philosophical

Origins, Eschatological Hermeneutics within the closed prophetic tradition, Eschatological

3
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it and I shall move the world.
4
Senor plenoir is popular in Catholic scholastic, the Canonical approach is popular in orthodox groups. These approaches have merit to the
subject being addressed, but they tend with some exception to operate outside of the typical ecclesial framework of Pentecostalism, which is post
reformed and more aligned with protestant pietistic thinking .
Hermeneutics within an open prophetic tradition, Introduction of pesher and present Pentecostal

approaches.5

Philosophical Origins

In order to understand the issues present in the science of scriptural interpretation, we need to

investigate the origins of modern theory on the subject. Most things modern start about the time

of Galileo. In Galileos time (early 1600s) we find the philosophical emergence of the

backbone of modern scientific methodology in Descartes dualism of subjective and objective

reality. At the time, this was a philosophical breakthrough, not only the development of the

scientific or theological method but a fundamental ontological statement. According to

Descartes discovery, there existed two categories of ontological being: the Cognitas and the

Extensa. Descartes set forth a fundamental axiom in explaining the natural phenomena of the

Extensa, that what one can know as true in this realm requires that one first rejects any appeal

to end reason or purpose divine or natural. If such an appeal is to be made, it must come from

the other category of being the Cognitas.

The Ontological Chasm

This dualism which allowed for two categories of being and two bases of knowledge

quickly reverted to a singular focus on the natural realm, producing what is a monism where only

that which could be shown to be of the Extensa objective world has validity. This occurred with

Spinoza, as Kenny (Kenny 1997, 147) has concisely pointed out, the starting point of Spinozas

monism is Descartes definition of substance as that which requires nothing but itself in order to

5 The present Pentecostal approaches are predominately formed in engagement of postmodern hermeneutics.
exist. Modern hermeneutics is contributed to Spinoza whose name is a symbol in Western

thought for rational reconstruction of religion. In the late seventeenth century in his

Theological-Political Treatise, Spinoza, who had been excommunicated from the Jewish

community in Amsterdam for his ideas6, showed that the methods of the natural sciences could

be fully extended to the Bible. Religious tradition, argued Spinoza, had imposed meaning upon

the sacred text but this meaning was from an ontological realm of the mind (the subjective realm

of res Cognitas), a different realm than the text itself (objective realm of res Extensa). Thus, the

knowledge of truth for which the church claimed as authoritative was to be challenged not due to

its content but to its philosophic origins. In essence, all things to be known were to be held

suspect until proof by scientific method could render them true. Spinoza, thus, was at

loggerheads with traditional medieval hermeneutics which held that when the literal meaning

conflicted we would have to interpret the passage figuratively.

In dealing with prophecies in Scripture, a high level of imagery resists simple direct

interpretation, so the idea prior to Spinoza was to interpret the passage figuratively. For

Spinoza, unless radically mediated, this would mean a shift in order. So argued Spinoza, we must

use Scripture from the objective realm (res Extensa) to interpret Scripture, and not impose a

figurative understanding from our own mind. Quoting the reformers, this is essential to correct

faith; Scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Scripture is its own interpreter).7

Eventually, this line of reasoning would result in an increasingly closed hermeneutical

system (which was essentially foreign to earlier interpretations of the Scriptures). By 1757,

Georg Friedrich Meier8 would argue that even signs that clearly signify something other than

6
His excommunication was in part due to the Christian communities reaction to his ideas
7
This concept is deeply rooted in most takes on 2nd Peter 1:20 and, in fact, reading into the text a philosophical construction that didnt exist at
the time.
literal meaning could only find their meaning through their location within a linguistic whole.

What determines the meaning of a sign is its relation to other known signs of the objective realm

(res Extensa). Things that are not clear or that imply mystery, and thus require interpreting, can

be only understood and detangled by reference into grammar and contemporary usage at the

time of the text, not by reference to extra-linguistic elements.

This ontologically closed the hermeneutical system. What the text and the world of the

text could provide is all that could be known. This, effectively, set the stage for Schleiermacher,

who I would argue to be the father of present grammatical historical linguistics tradition. In

1821-2 he published his major work of systematic theology, The Christian Faith, where he

represents the idea of semantic holism9 and argues that where there is interpretation of sacred

texts (such as the Bible), the interpretation may not rely on special principles, such as divine

inspiration (of either the author or the interpreter). It must, instead, be meted out in methods of

the natural sciences in the time taking process of applying basic hermeneutical principles to the

text.

It is important to note that in examining the origins of the historical linguistic approach it

was philosophically viewed as a study within ontology first and with application to the Bible

second. The Bible, in this regard, was to get no special treatment. Yes, it was authoritative

because God inspired it, but for practical purposes of interpretation we should rely only on the

natural elements that could be understood from the realm of the text.

It is important to understand that this hermeneutic was not formed in reference to history

of the theology but in a concurrent debate with German philosophers10. It was not just one

8
in Versuch einer Allgemeinen Auslegungskunst (1757)
9
See appendix A
10
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schleiermacher
approach among many, which was typical of the medieval hermeneutics, but with

Schleiermacher it became the only true approach. In this hermeneutical system, built in the

foundational rootedness of Cartesian dualism, there becomes two essential realms: one realm

(res Extensa) where exegetical practices exist and the other realm (res Cognitas) where the

Spirit or mind operates from inside the subjective category. The Spirits function is to

illuminate meaning and empower, for the matter of personal subjective application occurred

from the other realm (res Cognitas). This dualism eventually became what is termed objective

monism, which excludes meaning from any source other than that which can be externally

known (Extensa) which, in the case of Christian theology, would be self-limiting to what the

Bible has already said.

The Intent of the Human Author - All else is Subjective

The problem that occurs is that in spanning the ontological chasm of the two realms, any

injection of prophetic meaning coming from outside the text is subject to a closed theological

system. In effect, it cannot be authoritative for even if one supposes it exists, it exists from an

ontological realm of which we can have no certainty. In this sense, a word of God can come

from an outside element such as the Holy Spirit promotes or a God-given sign, but, as such, it

simply cannot ontologically be verified within the external realm of the text. Even if the text

seems to support the interpretation, such interpretation has no real authority. It can be understood

as having limited authority to operate within a subjective personal or individual application or to

personally or corporately illuminate a text, but, as such, it is still a matter of the subjective arena.

The reasoning of this hermeneutical system is predicated on a system where outside

revelation is closed. If the hermeneutical pattern of the apostles appears at times to reach out of

nowhere and associate a present event as the fulfillment of something written in the past in
Scripture, the sense that it is coming from an outside source is errant. Meaning can only be

discovered from within the texts world. Thus, defined meaning can only come within the

context of the time of the authors writing. It is impossible, under this method, for meaning to be

derived from a source outside the text, for the knowledge comes from the text from which both

meaning and significance of meaning is thus determined. This creates an interesting

philosophical predicament: although its conceded that God exists outside of time and has

authority over time, scriptural inspiration means God has, apparently, bound himself and cannot

communicate authoritatively outside the authors intent at the time of a texts writing.

Knowledge from a source other than the text, whether or not vindicated by a fulfillment, is by

pre-definition erroneous. Thus any attempt to move beyond the demands of a rigorous, scientific,

hermeneutical process and the addition of illumination of text by the Spirit is viewed

ontologically as in error. Thus, according to ontological classifications, any subjective

interpretation could be amusing, potentially heretical, possibly illuminating, but could not be

authoritative. All such subjective interpretation would have to be speculative.11

Practicing Eschatological Hermeneutics

Within The Closed Prophetic Tradition

A classic problem which results from Schleiermacher in the modern historical grammatical

method is found in the Virgin Birth. Historical linguistic method does not deny the idea that type

and antitype, the sign and the thing signified, can exist from within the text. But it does deny that

the meaning or knowledge to decode the message can occur from outside the text itself. The sign

must be initially understood from the original within a linguistic whole of the prophetic text12.

11
This leads the Christian to interesting post empirical constructions such as personal non-subjective truth or absolute non-objective truth
for Jesus, a person, is the absolute truth.

12
Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics., 1994
The meaning of a sign is its relation to other known signs of the texts time (res Extensa). When

we look at the Virgin Birth as a prophecy of Scripture, a sign is given and the virgin shall be

with a child and you shall call his name Emmanuel (Is 7:16). Here, the sign in its type delimits

that fulfillment to apply in similar or parallel construct as what existed in the text. God, in the

context of the sign per the text, is addressing the unbelief of a specific king at a specific time.

The issue of unbelief has to do with the acceptance of Gods proximity. So a sign of Gods

proximity speaks volumes to the unbelief.

Okay, the sign is set. Its immediate typological fulfillment is waiting and it is prophesied to

occur within the time that the boy born with the name Emmanuel reaches age of self awareness.

Scripturally, the prophecy is fulfilled with amazing accuracy. "If ye will not believe, surely ye

shall not be established."(Is 7:14) Ahaz refused to believe and to specify a sign (Is 7:12).

Consequently, the available deliverance was not given. Because of the unbelief, the Lord

permitted Syria and Northern Israel to attack resulting in the death of 120,000 troops, (2 Chron.

28:5-21). Yet the prophesied deliverance also occurs within the time frame (II Kings 15:30 II

Kings 16:9). There is no indication from the text that a second fulfillment is intended, or that

that the meaning of the event would produce a doctrine which would be absolutely core to faith

itself. Nor does the text represent a radical imposition of the existing order involved in the

Immaculate Conception. That meaning is hidden within text.

The debates that exist over the word usage concerning the Immaculate Conception

indicates the problem of text alone containing meaning. The ontological division does not allow

for meaning to come from an outside source, but the meaning must be forced into the text. The

text and its words must contain the full meaning. The case is thus made for the choice of the

Hebrew term almah in Isaiah 7:14 which designates biological virgin, and to buttress this
argument it is promoted that the Jewish translators in the Septuagint used the specific Greek

word for virgin in Isaiah 7:14 (par-thay-nos) which in the Greek language applies to biological

virginity. The argument is made that if a general sense of young woman was intended, an

alternative Hebrew word bethulah would be chosen which refers to age of maidenhood. The

problem is that such categorically neat distinctions were not really available in the languages.

For example, that par-thay-nos is also used in the Septuagint to describe Dinah after she is raped

is ignored from the treatment.

Now one may try to argue that the centrality of the virgin birth is referenced and alluded

to the world of the prophet at the time of the writing. There is some basis that the Hebraic

concept of closed womb being opened was core to the nations existence, but the simple context

was prophetic confrontation with the unbelief of a king. That the Immaculate Conception and

Incarnation is, in fact, represented in the word usage and follows the greater theme of Gods

intent from the beginning (that God so loved the world that He gave ) is a fact that must be

read into the text. This meaning only occurs after the event of Marys Immaculate Conception,

which is not disclosed in the original text but is, instead, as we will learn with the pesher literary

form, understood to be purposely hidden until the event occurs. The idea that the prophetic

interpretation of an event and its corresponding antitype cannot be drawn from the world of the

text but from the world of the time of the Incarnation itself assaults the Cartesian wall.

Now if one wishes to surrender the ontological field, it is possible to argue that in the

specific context of the personal advent of the Christ, normal processes were suspended and, like

a gravity hole, all things point to who was and is and shall be. But such revelation then must be

closed with the written testimony of the Christ13.

13
Even with the closed system, there is still an echoing forward of meaning. In the Christian exegetical study Walter Brueggemanns call for a
Prophetic Imagination is a legitimate way of knowing and presenting alternative social realities that might lead to direct confrontation with the
 But given the fact that there are still unfulfilled prophecies, this means that either a new

order must open up someday whereby the authority to interpret is reestablished or speculation

will be required. Following this line of reasoning, the things that might govern authoritative

prophetic interpretation such as biblical extortions to judge prophetic words, to watch the fruits

of the prophets, and to receive the prophets as spokesman from God, are held to either be void or

applicable to a previous or future age.

This is not to say there is no meaning within the original text. Neither does it mean that

Behold, a young woman shall be with a child, and shall bear a son and they shall call his name

Emmanuel, which translated means God is with usdid not occur in the reign of a certain king;

an initial reality of the fact that a young woman will bring forth a child and give him a specific

name and that by the time that child is of certain age political events will occur including the

removal of a king from power, and this is a sign that mocks the unbelief of the unbelieving king.

However, to say it was within the legitimate realm of intention of the author that the idea that the

child would be immaculately conceived by the Holy Spirit, providing an essential doctrine

shifting the loci of revelation from Sinai to Bethlehem, is asking way too much from the text. To

imply such knowledge would distort the textual meaning at the time of Gods proximity which

was aimed not at a universal doctrine but a specific application. Such knowledge is clearly

beyond the prophets own mind, for such mystery had yet to be revealed.

presumed taken for granted world.13 According to this approach, the very next Matthean scenario from the incarnation is the Magi from the
East inquiring of the false royal consciousness of institutional hegemonic authority. From the story, argues Brueggemann, the exegete must
find imaginative ways that are rooted in the text but freely and daringly move the text to concrete circumstances. He exegetes prophetic
imagination is thus the vehicle of enabling us to live inside Gods imagination, what the prophetic tradition knows is that it could be different
and the difference can be enacted. Using Brueggemanns method, our Sunday sermon goes something like when we challenge the hegemonic
consciousness we can anticipate wrath and anger. But as illuminating as Brueggemanns work is, is this not the same basis of authority in which
the writer of Matthew operated?
 However, thematically, the fulfillment is actually a typological fulfillment of the

meaning of the name Emmanuel. The sign, as high as the heavens or base as Hades, is fulfilled

in the birth narrative14. The whole arena of the incarnation and its majesty opens before us. To

the type of the original prophecy, there is a new hidden and intended antitype with a parallel

meaning, dealing with belief and unbelief to which God answers with a perfect sign of His

proximity. Of course, in hind sight it all makes perfect sense and we are or should be struck in

awe and wonder.

Thus, we find a core doctrine such as the virgin birth cannot be derived as being

prophesied from the text, but must be imported from the outside, from a different realm than the

text. The New Testament writer is reading into the text something beyond the legitimate

construction of the author at the time. It is well the writers privilege for, of course, they are of

the apostolic age, but why? Is the answer because the writer is under a unique influence of

inspiration which ceased at a certain point of the completed record?15 Or is this a form that can

be replicated into answering the riddles of prophecies of the end of the age?

What was available to the writer of Matthew to inter-relate the sign to an abnormal reality

and in the process proclaim Gods perfect foreknowledge? Once such a proclamation is made,

we see it perfectly. The theological construct of progressive revelation puts the ribbon on the

box; God intends such proximity from the very beginning. The problem is that God intended

such proximity is, in fact, a mystery that the original writer could not see. By what authority

does the author of Matthew make such an interpretation?16

14
Luke shows us a child in an abandoned manger as a sign to the lowly shepherds; Matthew shows us the bowing of the kings of the earth before
Prophecy of the Ages following a star of heaven.
15
(The redacted critics would likely answer the question, why, by telling us that the Matthenian community had a certain necessity for
formulation for continuity with the old Judaic framework from which they needed the greater meaning of Christ. But as though that may speak in
part to the motivation, it does not address the philosophic hermeneutical tradition or base from which the writer of Matthew is working at the
time.

16
Its important to note that now the canonical approach of Christian tradition (besides some modern unbelieving form critics) has accepted this
Chasm

This issue creates a partial problem at the time of the New Testament where for a brief moment

surrounding the Christ event a new hermeneutic was available. At that time, there were apostolic

authorities around to establish the meaning of things. But when projected forward into final

events of the age and we use the picture created of the original authors intent of a particular

passage, there is a crisis of the chasm not just of historical distance but of an ontologically closed

system. Given that presently, we have no apostles or prophets to authoritatively use or be used by

a source outside of the text, those (we) upon whom the end of the age has come are orphaned

and effectively confined to a sea of speculative eschatology. Either we are orphaned or we enter

into a season of grace where the authority present to interpret such things will in some measure

be restored.

The Un-fought Hermeneutic Wars

Pentecostalism has been effectively unable to navigate a clear alternative eschatology from

this evangelical chasm. Those who claim and possess the key of knowledge practice a

hermeneutic of exclusive historical linguistic exegesis. In the realm of eschatology, this results in

speculative interpretation, making any authoritative claim of present fulfillment impossible.

Two points must be raised when the exclusivist historical linguistic form demands regarding

prophecy of Scripture: 1) it operates in an ontological order inherently closed, for the purposes

interpretation of the sign as axiomatic for the faith once delivered. The Gospel of Matthew typically introduces the Canon of sacred texts. The
Nicaean creed uses the born of the virgin Mary, and the interpretation takes on Canonical authority. The question is that of belief or unbelief
and still echoes forward from the original prophets words. (See diagram)
of interpretation, to any realm but the natural (res Extensa) and 2) it imposes a hermeneutic

interpretive grid of modern science quite foreign to the hermeneutic pattern of teachings and

practices in the texts of the New Testament.

Eschatological Hermeneutics
Within An Open Prophetic Tradition

The fact that a hermeneutic war concerning the end between Pentecostalism and

evangelicalism has never actually been fought is, however, somewhat ironic in that the very

foundations of Pentecostalisms claim of a latter rain in preparation of Christs return is that an

apostolic pattern and authority were being restored. But how to practice such a faith has not

been well developed. The Proto Pentecostals such as the Montanists, the French Camesards, the

English Irvingites, or those of the latter rain movement or the Kansas City prophets guild who

functionally act like prophets, have had little to show in the way of matured scholarship. The

history of Pentecostal scholarship is fairly new and has yet to engage the practice of

eschatological hermeneutics.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

I would offer five phases17 in the Pentecostal hermeneutic. First, called an Experience First

Hermeneutic Phase, to interpret Scripture in light of a sought out experience, as in 1901, where

experiences in the early church as recorded in Acts are taken to be simply normative for the

present day. From all accounts, the experience breached the ontological divide by insisting that

the object evidence of the subjective realm could be demonstrated by speaking in tongues and

17
The concept of phases of doctrinal development is basic construction of history church however differing
historians have differing positions see (Althouse 2003)
thus, the apostolic age was demonstrably restored. This was followed by a Discovery of Critical

Theory Phase in the 1970s. A redaction-critical approach championed by Howard Marshall, a

non-Pentecostal wrote, Luke: Historian and Theologian. Lukes Acts represents history with a

purposehistory written with a theological agenda in view. Narrative literature, like the

Gospels, has theological content but is in a different form than didactic literature such as the

New Testament Epistles. This led to what I call the Distinctive Clarification Phase of Lukean

theology, championed by Stronstad and which assisted in clarifying the view of the pneumatic in

distinction between Lukean and Pauline theologies. It also led to Gordon Mcfees critical

assessment that the literary intent of the author was not to emphasize the initial evidence, but,

rather, a fundamental change brought about by a Pentecostal empowerment. The author could

not be said to be arguing for the initial evidence, nor could it be doubted that, central to the

theme of the new eschatological age of the Spirit, any attempt to call for a cessation of such an

age would be counter to the intent of the aduthor.

After Mcfees and Stronstad, the success of Pentecostalism opened the door to large-scale

academic acceptance which allowed the community to effectively interact with and not be

excluded from the larger theological community. This acceptance moved into the present Self-

Critical Dialogical Phase. In this stage, a few approaches have emerged: Menzies pneumatically

integrated theological process, Archers postmodern emphasis on community based meta-

narrative, and Erwins pneumatic based hermeneutic, and are occurring within the context of

theologizing within a self-critical faith community, finding certain integrative centers, thus

increasing concentration on dialogue with other faith traditions. Concerning eschatology, there has

been an academic move to an eschatological refocus looking, in particular, at the work of German

theologian, Jurgen Moltamann.

 The present Systematic Phase, working from the previous phase, makes clarifying distinctions

using robust theological terminology. According to Larry McQueen 18 (Mc Queen 2012) the

present discourse emphasizes the fivefold gospel as the theological heart of Pentecostalism. In this

phase McQueen has advanced eschatology as a field in which a unique Pentecostal hermeneutic

exists, particularly in the early Wesleyan holiness stream of the latter rain as a holistic

approach19 which emphasis of discernment as a dynamic spirituality quite distinct from classical

dispensationalism more static and reasoned conception of textual meaning. 20

Charismatic Side Branch - Non Revelatory But Empowering Gifting

Pertaining to finding a home for my experience is the issue of the Charismatic problem.

Charismatics have typically held to tradition based hermeneutics and fundamentally agreed with

the concept of empowerment. To date, they have offered little in formulative hermeneutic

theology. For example, Wayne Grudem,21 a strong charismatic, holds that the ontological chasm

would offer that the gift of apostleship ceased at the end of the apostolic era, at about the end of

the first century A.D.80. He distinguishes two gifts of prophecyan apostolic-prophetic gift and

a local-church prophetic giftwith the local-church prophetic gift continuing until Christs second

coming. The Holy Spirits role in hermeneutic process is on the other side of the great divide, only

illuminating works in the subjective category of Cognitas. In addressing Ephesians 2:20, since

apostleship is a temporary gift, prophecy is, obviously, a temporary, revelatory gift just like

18
Mc Queen, Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology. 2012.
19
Ibid p63
20
P111 McQueen also aptly illustrates the relation of ecclesiology to the subject where there is a participatory element of the church and
historical elements are brought into the purview of the church as discerning center their becomes an emphasis on the holiness of the bride as
intimate participatory relationship with Christ. p.215, 236

21
Grudmen, The Gift of Prophecy, 2000
apostleship. Essentially, Grudem offers a modified cessationalist stance as a charismatic

evangelical22.

Grudems take on Ephesians 2:20 makes apostleship a temporary gift. That prophecy is,

obviously, a temporary, revelatory gift is not just an issue with Charismatics. It is, instead, an

ecclesiological tension with the implied outcome of Pentecostalisms restorationist paradigm. It

follow that with the restoration of apostolic dynamics of power would come the restoration of

offices (authority) which govern such power. This has created an ongoing tension within more

empowered aspects of the movement.

Latter Rain Movement

In the 1940s and 50s a shift began to occur: with the loss of realized eschatology came

an adaptation to mainstream evangelical, literalistic, futuristic eschatology. In partial reaction or

potential revival, to this trend emerged a latter rain movement which required an aspect of the

restoration to include the restoration of the offices of prophet and apostle. Recently this teaching

had reemerged with by C. Peter Wagner23 and has been conditionally accepted in a restorationist

motif called the new apostolic paradigm. The latter rain as a separate movement from the 40s

included not only a restoration of such offices, but a glorification of an elect from the body which

was represented in the man-child of revelation and would bring forth the manifest sons of God.

These positions were brought forth under strong emphasis on empowerment ministries like that of

William Branham. In a manner somewhat akin to what happened to the pre-Nicene Montanist

schism, the latter rain movement was deemed to be in error by the Assemblies of God.

22
Ibid Apostolic empowerment is available, apostolic authority is not. The open system was present when Jesus
was alive and Scriptures were written, but the hermeneutic system then closed and all we have is text and subjective
illumination
23
Class taught by Paublo Deiros at Fuller Theological Seminary in 1999 on revival and renewal theology emphasized this theme.
 But the tension did not suddenly subside. The same prophetic tension, with less excess,

may be seen in present western third wave movements. An example of this would be the church

organization known as the Vineyard. In the early 1990s the Vineyard Church, under John

Wimbers leadership, effectively embraced a certain prophetic stream known as the Kansas City

Prophets. This stream linked with a renewal movement within the Vineyard. A few years into the

relationship, the Toronto blessing renewal received controversial feedback. In the process, the

Vineyard Church withdrew its covering from the Toronto movement and, in essence, was unable

to address extra biblical activity, as there was no ontological category for the strange behavior

happening under the Spirits influence. There was nothing immoral, but it couldnt be directly

related to the text or extensa of Scripture. There was, in fact, no capacity to discern the teleological

implications of the phenomenon. Whether or not there were parallels of ecstatic behavior in the

Bible or in the earlier revivals was not the point. Nor, necessarily, was the fruit of renewal in

intimacy with Christ with those participating. For Wimber and the Vineyard movement, the

ontological divide had been crossed at extra-biblical activity24. They could not cross the divide

- they didnt have a category to deal with the dynamics that were occurring.

The Kansas City Prophets25 had agreed to be under the covering of the Vineyard and in

this the restoration dynamic of the prophetic function was an assumed reality. They walked like

prophets, talked like prophets; they confessed they had been given a prophetic mandate from God

to equip a particular generation for its end-times role. For those overseeing the third-wave

movement, the renewal was problematic, as the attempt to justify the prophetic significance of

24
In 1983, John Wimber broke ranks with the fellowship of Calvary Chapel Dec. 5,1995 the American Vineyard Board and Council ousted the
Toronto Airport Vineyard at a meeting in Toronto. On Jan. 8, 1996, issue of Christianity Today pg. 66: John Wimber stated I believe that there
has been an authentic visitation of the Spirit there. However, I am unable because of my own scriptural and theological convictions to any longer
give an answer for, or defend the way, this particular move is being pastored and/or explained.

25
Many of the facts can be found in Pytches, David, and Jamie Buckingham. Some Said it Thundered: A Personal Encounter with the Kansas
City Prophets. Oliver-Nelson, 1991. In addition to authors time with vineyard lead Todd Hunter.
extra biblical activity had no ears with John Wimber. There was no basis philosophically so then

it was, as if, to be held responsible for their conduct, he was unable to fundamentally answer,

What is the meaning of this? The marriage offer of cross pollination between Vineyard with its

church planting emphasis and the Kansas City Prophets with their prophetic apostolic emphasis

didnt last. No bridge existed for the ontological chasm.

Ecclesial Recognition Breakdown

This issue of the prophetic/ apostolic authority and its ecclesial recognition break down is

a subject for which serious further inquiry is needed. The New Testament pattern offers an

interesting contrast. Kevin Giles in his work, Patterns of Minstry Among First Century

Christians, skillfully argues that the either/or dynamics of setting charismatic ascension

ministries in opposition to designated offices such as bishop, elder, deacon, as part of the New

Testament pattern must be rejected. He argues that the concept of office shown in the New

Testament allows for development. The first stage incipient office holders were charismatic

apostle, prophet, and teacher; the latter office holders were elder, bishop, and deacon. The

leadership role was effectively handed over in the Acts 15 meeting to the elders. This was part of

Lukes intent, to show the leadership of the whole Christian community as a practical necessity

which starts with the apostolic and prophetic office establishing the church and then turning the

work over to the designated offices. This has significance, for the question in the use of this is

that formula with Peter in Acts 2, without community input or dialogue, is found upon the lips

of a single charismatic leader. Later, as the church is established, the transition is made and a

community hermeneutic is used in Acts 15 for establishing doctrine. So then the community saw

themselves as a realized eschatological base. It would be natural for the leaders to authoritatively

interpret the sign of the times.

 The difficulty for ecclesial recognition of authority of the prophetic voice, as shown with

the Vineyard and the latter rain movement, is clearly a struggle in the Pentecostal charismatic

community. It is likely, in Giles understanding, that the New Testament community didnt have

such a struggle, for it did not have an ontological divide to cross. The charismatic leadership could

give way to a communal base without seeing or requiring an ontological shift. Initially, these would

be particular leadership in and through whom God is providing a prophetic this is that

hermeneutical function. Once the foundation was laid for ministry in that epoch, the focus changed

to stewarding the harvest, as there was no need to re-lay the foundations but, rather,there was a

need to move within an administrative capacity built on the foundation already laid. To simply

state the recognized prophetic/apostolic function (similar to what happened in the New Testament

Ephesians 4) or to deny this dynamic, as Wayne Grudeman and many Charismatics have done, is

a troubling question. The ability to have power without accountability or authority is problematic

and an issue which, for some reason, few have argued.

Individualized Realized Eschatology

To some degree, this problem was resolved by the earlier Pentecostal community in their

practice of an individualized realized eschatology. By saying this is that it, fundamentally,

embraced an eschatological shift which had occurred and a new order or age of the latter rain. It is

clear, from hymnology to the tracts and writings, that they not only anticipated the approach of

the Eschaton, they experienced it. But it happened on an individual level, witnessed by glossolalia.

This restored apostolic faith simultaneously presented the latter rain and soon-coming great and

terrible Day of the Lord. In this new order, there was also a new hermeneutic whereby the Spirit

of Truth interacted to bring the individual Pentecostal into a direct experience similar to those of

the first century apostles. However, it also was a forward looking eschatological dynamic being
realized in its hearing. In prompting the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in

tongues, it embraced a praxis of realized eschatology. But the restoration of apostleship as an

ecclesial dynamic never occurred. The ontological divide was covered because the objective

(realm of extensa) evidence of being in the presence of the Eschaton (realm of cognitas) was

accepted in the sign of glossolalia. The contextual necessity of the role of glossolalia as initial

evidence was required, not because critical scholarship being applied to the text of Luke required

such an interpretation, but because the Cartesian ontological divide required an objective evidence

for proof; and tongues served the one of scripturally mandated purposes to be just such a sign. The

focus was not on reforming the organizational structure but, instead, the individuals subjective

encounter was verified into the objective realm.

Outside the Academy

Early Pentecostalisms sense of an individualized, realized eschatology was an experience

of foundational shifting, doing mission in the presence of the Eschaton and then looking for a

theology. For the early Pentecostals, there was an issue with the rapture oriented-dispensationalism

position of removal by rapture before the kingdom empowerment upon Israel The early

Pentecostals held instead to a restorationist framework. In this was an urgent sense of restoration

of an urgent apostolic faith which embraced the Eschaton resulting in a vision that the world must

be won for Christ the end was coming.

With the 100 year anniversary of Pentecostalism, a great deal has been said about the early

community. A primary self-conception that was formed after the early community, championed

within the Assemblies of God, was the missiological development of the experience. And the

matter of mission had a certain eschatological dynamic: empowerment was for the sake of the
gospel witness at the end of the age. The fact that it became the most predominate global religious

movement of the 20th Century justified the wisdom.

When the hope for the idea that this blessing was to empower the gospel actually started to

become a verified fact, it presented to the academy and historians a certain difficulty. The problem

is that the reality of the present is read back into the past. In effect, a new meaning is placed on the

event - a historical meaning not implicit from the event itself. The idea of this error is that we

read into the past an intent that is only possible to be perceived from the present future. The present

perspective becomes the means by which the past event is given meaning. But this doesnt cross

the great ontological divide very well.

A Pentecostal historiography which would assert restoration of the apostolic pesher

hermeneutic, should be a theological invasion force. The beachhead is readily defended by the

blockades of the ontological chasm of the Cartesian system. But with its clear 100 year track

record of success in empowerment for mission Pentecostalism has a strong case that must be

acknowledged. As such, the Cartesian beach head is defended by saying meaning cannot be

normatively derived from any other perspective than the intent of the author located in a particular

time. The idea that meaning can be derived from a present event which reads back into a past event

is accused of crossing ontological barriers yet this defense creates a logical difficulty. For if it is

pesher is subjectivizing meaning and it is clearly the apostolic pattern of Old Testament prophetic

exegesis and there is no other normative pattern set by the apostolic community then the logical

outcome is difficult. The difficulty (in the claim of the intent of the original author as the sole

hermeneutical base) actually causes the scriptures to loose authority.

Being Teleological, the End of the Divide

 Philosophically, there is logic in reading back from the present. It is, in essence, what is

meant by being teleological. Meaning, purpose, or intent is sought to be found from the

conclusion or final point, which is Gods. But this is exactly what Spinozas and Descartes system

sought to deny pre-suppositionally26. Working from the presence of the Eschaton, perceiving and

announcing the reign of God, there is logic in reading back from the present which produces a

teleological result.

Introduction of Pesher and the Qumran Community

The movement within Pentecostalism to struggle with its realized eschatology, the ecclesial

recognition of charismatic authority, and a presentistic historiography are all related to the

phenomenon of voices speaking authoritatively from within an ontological chasm. Surprisingly,

at this point little has been done to investigate and develop the understanding of a hermeneutical

system which, by its very design, may effectively help to bridge such a gap. To date, I know of

no major work addressing the possibility of the introduction of the pesher form of commentary

from the Essene community27 into the Pentecostal community.

Although there have been some wild claims28 about the pesher form, it is quite a dynamic

literary means to address the prophetic text of Scripture. In general, the idea of the pesher

hermeneutic is a form of present commentary based on an assumption of present applicability of

26
It is important at this point not to be confused with the typical evangelical futuristic hermeneutic. Typically a futuristic approach anticipates an
apocalyptic end event or series of events and from that end reads or looks at present circumstances in sequenced causational manner as
harbinger to an end when God will act.

27
Related to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948, it shows a particular type of literacy form.

28 Professor Barbara Thiering's Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls reinterpretation of the New Testament, in which the married,
divorced, and remarried Jesus, father of four, becomes the "Wicked Priest" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has made no impact on learned opinion.
Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the basis of the new theory, Thiering's use of the so-called "pesher technique,"
without substance. The Qumran pesherthe word itself means "interpretation"is a form of Bible exegesis which seeks to determine the
significance of an already existing prophetic text by pointing to its fulfillment in persons and events belonging to the age of the interpreter.
prophetic text. It does not include the speculative dynamic. In a true prophetic capacity dealing

with a mystery, this form is based on the assumption that the original prophecy being interpreted

needs a present interpreter and that that interpreter will be set apart by God; with the focus of actual

events and their meaning as opposed to a general disposition.29

Could the great divide and its resultant theological and hermeneutical problems in

eschatology be simply answered by a return to Hebraic structures which, fundamentally, embraced

a prophetic dynamic? Perhaps we are like missionaries going back to our foundations and facing

our own cultural barriers. Many of the eschatological hermeneutical problems of modernity would

not exist in the realized eschatological context addressed in the pesher form. Pesher form and

its New Testament equivalent, called charismatic exegesis, presupposes a salvation an historical

movement in revelation that allows, with the speaking of the words this is that, for the correct

teleological dynamic to be made present.

Pesher is both a methodology and a genre and, I will argue, it can used to be a platform of

witness of the present Eschaton. The term pesher broadly refers to both the methodology of the

exegesis and the interpretation found at Qumran, identified as a particular literary genre. The basis

of authority is the difference of this unique literary authority. The authority comes from the

divinely inspired Teacher of Righteousness. The form itself follows a pattern of addressing a

prophetic text and saying Interpreted, this concerns. It anticipates an outside mind differing

from the text - and this outside mind is the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known

all the mysteries of the words of His servants the prophets. This is why it is a unique genre of

commentary30, to be considered separate from midrash, specifically, for three reasons: the location

29
It is far different than present forms of Pentecostal dialogue with Jugen Moltam that reflects a pre-critical eschatology of the medieval period
which practiced quid speres what hope should be placed in (Gerhard Maier 1994) p91.
30
See: Mandel, Paul. 2001. "Midrashic Exegesis and its Precedents in the Dead Sea Scrolls." Dead Sea Discoveries 8 (2): 149-168 ; Jassen, Alex
P. 2012. "The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary in Early Jewish Scriptural Interpretation." Dead Sea Discoveries 19 (3): 363-398.
of the authority, the focus on eschatology, and self-identification for the community31.

Yieh, in a recent monograph32, looking at the Qumran community, sees the styles of

writing of the Qumran community context as a profound literary form33 similar to that used by the

New Testament community. Witmer agrees and effectively argues that it is the combination of

form and content that distinguishes the pesharim as a separate genre.34 Karl Elliger, who addressed

the matter early on, stressed the essentially revealed nature of the pesher exegesis, comparing it to

the dream interpretations of Daniel35 where a mystery is hidden, to be later opened by a prophet.

It is important to note that the factor that separates general charismatic exegesis commonly

practiced by the New Testament writers from pesher is that the content of the pesher form is

centered on eschatological revelation.36 The writer in Hebrews, for example speaking on the order

of Melchisedeck, clearly practices a charismatic exegesis as he reads back into the text, but as the

writer does not address eschatology, Hebrews is not a form pesher. The this is that oracle of

Acts 2 citing Joel is pesher form inaugurating a new age. It is an age of the God dwelling inside of

man. This is clearly in the form of a pesher style oracle.

31
Longenecker,, Can we Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament 1969

32
Yieh, One teacher, 2004, addresses the parallels of Jesus in Matthew and the Teacher of Righteousness

33
The pesher as literary form is different than the pesher as a hermeneutical frame of reference. The idea of pesher as a literary form has been
acknowledged since Brownlees work - The midrash pesher of Habakkuk. Scholars Press, 1979.

34
As a lemmatic structure, a text of Scripture (the lemma) is quoted, followed by an introductory formula, and identified with a contemporary
figure or situation. Lemmatic structure of the pesharim is closely paralleled in some midrashic literature.

P316 Approaches to Scripture in the Fourth Gospel and the Qumran Pesharim Author: Witmer, Stephen E.Source: Novum Testamentum,
Volume 48, Number 4, 2006 , pp. 313-328(16) Brill.

35 Karl Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer (BHT 15; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1953) 155.

36The form also contains a certain self-limiting hermeneutical dynamic. Jesus teaching of the Scriptures clearly points beyond the Scriptures to a
new and fuller revelation of God in himself. Such is not the case in the pesharim, and unlike charismatic exegesis, is not at an initial level
Christo-centric, but eschatological.
 It is a somewhat generally accepted axiom; this form is integral and consistent with the

dynamic of a realized eschatology found in the Qumran and New Testament communities. When

considering the implications of the form, one can clearly see a mirroring of teaching and spiritual

formation which are quite similar to the basic forms of distinctive elements in Pentecostal

preaching and spiritual formation. The pesher style commentary often finds that biblical

characters and contemporary figures are linked not by allegorical sense but in typological parallel

where and biblical stories are directed to present historical events 37. Such a statement is clearly

paralleled in the study of Pentecostal spiritual formation found in testimonial.

Furthermore, the process is involved in community spiritual formation. Yieh states,

regarding the Qumran community: Thus there is a dialectical relationship between the written

text of the Scripture and the living fabric of their life. The Scriptures explain and make sense of

their life and their life finds meaning and significance in the grand plan of Gods will.38

Peshers Ontological Reference

The authors of pesher in Qumran (or charismatic exegesis in the New Testament

community) worked pre-suppositionally from an ontological system that allowed them to claim

the authority that their eschatological references were fully integral to the original text, whose full

meaning was purposely hidden to be subsequently revealed39. This form does not align with the

37
Time of Jacobs trouble is a eschatological event that is linked to the story of Jacob from Jeremiah 30:7 we read, "Alas! for that day is great, so
that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacobs trouble; but he shall be saved out of it" dispensationalist often link this to specific period in the
rapture theology which occurs during the preset pattern of the tribulation period.

38
P117 (Yieh 2004)

39To use this form it takes on a quality very similar to dream interpretation where the dreamer does not understand what he has dreamed and
the interpreter explains the meaning of the mystery, as in the case with Daniel where the king did not reveal the dream. In pesher, instead of a
dream, there is a written text speaking of prophetic matter.
original authors intent or construction, so that the significance and meaning does not lie with the

original author. The ontological difference allows for implicit teleological development to happen.

Similar to the argument about the error of presentism by secular historians, the idea of pesher

commentary contains within it a teleological intent upon history. But that is precisely the

point. That, in fact, it was foretold verifies into an event horizon where the meaning is not in the

past writing or in the present event, nor in the dialogue between the reader and the event. Rather,

meaning is found amidst the spanning of time, for in it is the revelation of the Eschaton over time

itself that the revelation occurs.

Longenecker is known for his developed understanding of pesher as a hermeneutical

system. He makes some pertinent observations regarding the pesher hermeneutical form which

indicates the ontological shift. The text is, clearly, no longer primary in authority but, rather, the

interpretation. Although Longenecker is unable to understand its present interpretive practice40, he

makes the point that an important element in the pesher handling of the text is the rewording of

the Old Testament passage so that it more nearly conforms to the situation in light of larger biblical

and theological understanding. This indicates that the authority exists in the interpretation event

being fulfilled

40
Little direct dialogue exists between Pentecostal scholarship which looks at the typological approach and biblical theology which acknowledges
the pesher form of hermeneutics See Oliverio Jr, L. William. 2012. Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A
Typological Account. Vol. 12 Brill.
 The emphasis is that in light of the Eschaton there is refraction from a medium of the

present to the medium of the past. This reveals the meaning contained in the past event as being

prophecy.

In contrast, speculative eschatology using a hermeneutic championed by Walter Kaiser

works from the position that the human author is aware of all the stages in the sequence from the

first event to the last. The only factor the original prophet does not know is the time when those

events will occur, especially the time of the final fulfillment. I would add that the system does not

have the interpretive guide of the Eschaton, it has only the text in the past. Neither does it reveal

the Eschaton nor can it speak with authority. This is why the book of Revelation states that the

spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus. Although such a system will claim there is only one

meaning to the text, the reality in practice is that this has no authoritative application and neither

can it. When translated into eschatology, there are numerous scenarios of fulfillment, all arguing

for the best alignment within the world of the text. In essence, a best guess probability scenario.
The die is loaded because the biblical worldview is inherently accurate, and thus there is some

truth to the prediction, but no authority.

In speculative eschatology, when the time of fulfillment occurs, then with normal

causational dynamics under Gods hand the prophesied event will be brought to fulfillment. One

prophesied event follows another prophesied event in logical causational order. The sequence of

the fulfillment scenario may need to change. This also produces a potential need to postpone or

readapt the final event. Some of the prophecies may extend beyond the final event into a different

age. There is no capacity for authority, just well reasoned speculation. Correct interpretation is

based on consistence with the intent of the original author interpreted forward through scenarios

into a speculative future.41 The character of Jesus risen to sit at the right hand as the Eschaton is

not a necessary part of the picture.

It could be diagramed as follows:

Speculative eschatology (dispensationalist)

Passage O.T. --> Judaism - NT.

| hope // time of fulfillment | | final event
||

Redefining the Pentecostal narrative using Pesher form

Returning to the example of early Pentecostalism, the meaning of this sign of glossolalia

is defined by the community to be for empowerment towards the great commission. The goal in

apostolic like faith is to complete the great commission before Jesus returns. With 600,000,000

41
A great example of this hermeneutic is found in the writings of Hal Lindsey.
participants and the fastest growing church movement in history, the truth of what is the meaning

of this is actually best defined by the 100 year anniversary. It is a sign for the empowerment for

the spreading of the gospel.

Pesher -- The Eschatological Gift in the Believing Community

For the pesher form to operate, the revelatory influence of the Spirit of God must be

believed to be present as the eschatological gift of God in the midst of the believing community.42

As D. E. Aune, foremost pesharim scholar states, the Qumran community was also conscious

that the eschatological salvation had already entered the present age in the history and experience

of the community. Possession of the gift may be appropriately designated as an eschatological

gift; a means by which eschatological salvation is realized. The Qumran community is the sphere

in which the future eschatological salvation has entered the present age creating a dynamic of

realized eschatology. D. E. Aune43 argues that this must be viewed as a forthright expression of

the piety or spirituality of the Johannine community44. Can the present Pentecostal community

embrace this dynamic?

Being subject to the ontological divide of modernism does not allow for a hermeneutic that

produces a realized eschatology. Furthermore, speculative prophecies can never be falsified, for

they make no claim of authority. To be valid there must be a basis for falsification to occur. The

prophetic ideal is that, as a living God, He breaks through the calculus of our predictions and keeps

42
Bultmann in the 1950s may have been one of the earliest thinkers to express this emphasis addressing prophesy as being mythological in
form a hermeneutic of demythologisation through which he argued the earliest church regarded itself as a community at the end of days. This
basically framing the idea of the early church as an eschatological community standing between the times, an interim people.
43
Aune, The cultic setting of realized eschatology in early Christianity, 1972

44
The description of an elected community of the final generation of the present age, living in the days of travail before the eschatological
consummation. Theirs was the task of preparing for the coming of the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come used to described Qumran may
now be best suited for true Pentecostalism Longenecker, Richard N. "Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament?." Tyndale
Bulletin 28 (1969) (p7).
a progressive disclosure which is consistent with whom He has been in the past. It is a new thing

already told. To integrate this into prophetic praxis requires an outright rejection of speculative

eschatology as false from its philosophical beginnings.

Present Pentecostal Approaches

As referenced earlier, Pentecostalism is discerned at the present self-critical dialogical

phase. In this stage, theologizing within the self-critical faith community is occurring. Finding

certain integrative centers, an eschatological refocus appears to be emerging. Could

Pentecostalism engage a pesher -like hermeneutic and reclaim itself as a realized eschatological

community? Although some preliminary frontline skirmishes have occurred the core

philosophical battle has yet to be fought.

Peter Althouse45 offered a short summary on the status of Pentecostal eschatology 46

. In

the second stage of the movement, quoting Gerald T. Sheppard, there was a shift from hopeful

anticipation to passive resignation in a fundamentalist dispensationalism. He describes this as a

speculative eschatology that emphasized a seven-year tribulation and an antichrist rebuilding a

third temple and breaking a treaty with Israel. This position has declined somewhat and moved to

a third and present emphasis on the already/not yet of the kingdom.

Using this outline, some insights are in order. In the first stage the realized eschatology

bore witness to William Seymours understanding of Pentecostal tongues as an analogy for racial

45
Althouse, Spirit of the last days, 2003.

46Althouse also points out that in the present stage, moving away from the demands of modernity, a potential shift towards a centralized
eschatology is represented in dialogical conversations with and the writings of Jrgen Moltmann in a return to the pre-critical medieval
hermeneutical paradigm which looked for a vision of hope as a chief aim of textual interpretation. Althouses and Moltmanns eschatology is
described as German advent eschatology. But for our purposes, Moltmann is addressing more the theology of hope rather than the specific
aspects of eschatological hermeneutics; eschatological emphasis without an event orientation.
integration. Instead of speculative eschatology there is in the presence of the Eschaton already

present and active. I would argue that when the refraction Richard Longenecker sites occurs in

the presence of the Eschaton, we see a present future which reaches back into the past. For Azusa

Street, the issue of racial reconciliation touched back to dispersion of Babel. The realized Eschaton

radically reaches into the present with a witness of reconciliation of races which was reported from

the front pages of national newspapers and reaches forward under the gospel mission to a literal

harvest of the nations.

Could this refraction be used in the explanation of the empowered witness of 20th Century

global Pentecostalism? Are we of the latter rain empowered from on high to witness bringing forth

a promised global harvest of the nations? Is the Pentecostal communitys narrative bold enough

- without excuse - to be formulated within the realized eschatology of its own heritage?

As I have already stated, Pentecostal hermeneutics have not yet examined the dynamics of

adopting the hermeneutical implications pesher literary form. Land in his seminal work,

Pentecostal Spirituality, refers to a distinctive Pentecostal ontology which would take seriously

the transcendent presence of God who is other, and is yet not outside the world of time, space and

matter47. But Land never discusses this switch in terms of the particular arena of eschatological

hermeneutics. It is clear that the required ontological shift has begun and likely existed in the

earliest parts of the movement, but the real time theological implication of this ontological shift

concerning the unique latter day Pentecostalism is, as of yet, unclear.

The core question that needs to be asked is not , Is the Spirit more than an agent to

illuminate the meaning contained in the text? But can the Spirit in a particular context become

the authoritative messenger brining meaning from an event that far exceeds the meaning contained

47
Land , 93
in the text? The Spirit existed before the Scripture, argues Land, so there is more than mere

illumination. But the position argued by Land has yet to be developed into a well-defined or
48
comprehensive set of hermeneutical tools. On one side of the equation is the suggestion of

Erwins emphasis that a Pentecostal ontological shift is required to properly understand the

Scriptures. Others on the postmodern side, such as Kenneth Archer, maintain the distinctive in a

dialectic between the biblical text and the community. The hermeneut-in-community idea

stressing any epistemological system like hermeneutics is context bound and inseparable from its

intellectual and social tradition.49 So, for Archer, this results in a reflectively distinctive

Pentecostal narrative which is formed within a community restorationist tradition. But, to date,

there is no treatment of the matter regarding the realized eschatological community focused around

the pesher hermeneutic.

Clearly, the foundations exist in Scripture for a general theology of event-oriented prophecy,

but to move forward a solid eschatological hermeneutic will need to be developed. Given that there

has never been developed a comprehensive theological synthesis on the subject of the event

oriented prophetic dynamics, it is unlikely such a monumental work will be quickly forthcoming.

A present Catholic scholar, Hvidt,50 lists a number of reasons why such a work would be

particularly difficult: 1. Discernment is difficult; 2. It requires extraordinary forms of experience

that are not easily reconciled and accommodated within the more rigorous structures of theology;

3. Issue of theological loci in epistemological ontological categories foreign to the prophetic

48
The meaning of being born again seems to appear as a huge weight.

49 If Archers postmodern take is the next step in developing a Pentecostal hermeneutic, the natural direction of its formulation may be at
odds with a hermeneutical approach adapted to the pesher form. I would agree with the need for a community, for there is not developed
within Archers work an adequate view of the tension with the prophetic. Without that tension, a proper realized eschatology will not be
present in the community. Eventually, a canonical, traditional approach will be developed. The origins of Archers position should be re-
examined. Hauerwas narrative theology, which embraces Alasdair MacIntyres traditioned account of rationality is, I would argue, a far cry
from Lands call for a spirit-based foundation.
50
Hvidt, Prophecy and revelation:.., 1998
dynamic; 4. Entails a methodological complexity within several theological disciplines; for

example, what part the prophetic interpreter plays in the life of the church; 5. What is the

relationship between prophecy and the institution? What are the preconditions of prophecy on the

basis of theology of revelation? 6. How it relates to spiritual formation. As we can see from this

study, so far, many of these points have to be addressed simply to speak about the subject.

At this point, we have only addressed part of one of Hvidt subjects in depth - Issue of

theological loci in ontological categories found in the context of event oriented eschatological

issues. The first and primary step, a comprehensive theological synthesis, would be a general

rejection of speculative eschatology. This rejection must be made on the basis that the ontological

chasm requires that meaning and significance are determined from the text in the past and then

applied to present context, and is fundamentally inadequate for an effective Pentecostal witness.

As we have seen, this results in an inability to find meaning and significance unfolding the present

presence of the Eschaton.

In Pentecostal circles, there is a certain breadth of reaction. In more conservative

scholarship, represented by Anderson and the A.O.G., this is the development of a primary and

secondary process. On the more postmodern side, promoting a multifaceted process, however

defined, the hegemonic control of modernism is clearly being breached. The Assemblies of

God holds the more conservative hermeneutical approach represented by Anderson in this model.

The text remains the essential loci of origin, the Spirit acts upon the will, thus the mind can see

correctly. Without the Spirit operating upon the will, the meaning cannot be obtained. This is a

real shift because, in some degree, meaning is dictated by the receptivity of the reader recipient.

Even Menzies, by using an inductive level and deductive level, places spiritual experience at the

end of the hermeneutical process as a means of verification. This approach requires the meanings
final stamp to be found in the reader/recipient, not in the text alone. In this regard, both Menzies

and Anderson acknowledge the Spirits influence as more than just illuminating the text, but both

still anchor the origin of meaning in the text.

Archer and Thomas produce an alternative vision of letting go of requirements of modernitys

ontological categories and taking a triadic or communal approach. Here Scripture authority is in

the role of meta-narrative, where Scripture can be used to weigh the experience but does not require

that the origin begin with the Scripture. This is claimed as being para-modern, and the process is

methodically different from evangelicals.

Pesher Style Commentary and Pentecostalism

The idea of distinguishing pesher-style commentary in a particular context of prophecy of

Scripture has not yet been integrated into the Pentecostal hermeneutical discussion. It is clear

that the location of meaning and power in the Eschaton must have a witness as an in-breaking

kingdom, outside of normal historical causation processes. Clearly, any attempt to integrate the

idea of present charismatic exegesis in pesher-like form would require a non-modern ontological

formation. It would also require the assertion that the Pentecostal movement consists of reopening

of the eschatological event that is paralleled in magnitude to apostolic age.

For Archer, where the Scriptures function in that of meta-narrative authority, providing a sort

of guideline in which prophetic words are to be discerned, the idea of a pesher form of

hermeneutics may be acceptable. But for those who have retained the ontological divide, such as

Anderson and Menzies, the conservative branch of the Pentecostals, such attempts to interject

pesher-like formula would likely be counterproductive.51 The origin of meaning coming from

51
Whether an experience of the unfolding of a prophetic word, such as the one I encountered on the Isaiah highway, could potentially be
examined within the community of such likeminded Pentecostals will be interesting to discover. And this dissertation may, in fact, act as a
catalyst of sorts. If Archer is correct, the model of Acts 15 could be used. But as Kline points out, the developmental curve may not yet be in
place for such council to occur
outside the text is beyond their system. Archer on the other hand seems pressed, and discerns the

need to move forward into mission:

. if Pentecostalism desires to continue its missionary objective while keeping in tune

with its early ethos, it must move beyond Modernity. In other words, a Pentecostal

hermeneutical strategy is needed which rejects the quest for a past determinate meaning

of the author and embraces the reality and interpretation which involves both the discovery

of meaning and the creation of meaning52.

If a word is truly from God it will, in its season, be vindicated; for the almond branch will

bud and those approved will thus be made manifest. Can Pentecostalism afford to restate the claim

of apostolic authority similar to that of the age of the New Testament? Can Pentecostalism

effectively give direction or weigh in upon the meaning of this is that which is written echoed

forward from its founding? The evangelical community scholarship is prone to accept the self-

evident reality that within the Jewish culture the apostles clearly practiced a pesher form regarding

the Old Testament prophesies. Yet this same evangelical community at the end of the age remains

stuck is ontological divide and can only offer speculative eschatology. If the Pentecostal

community reassert its own realized eschatological identity and begin to forge ahead in preparation

of the bride for the bride groom the pesher hermeneutic will undoubtedly play a key role.

52
Archer 2004, 146,7