57. (b) The Remoter Context
By this we mean that the Word of God, being one whole, is its own Context, for every separate passage, quite apart from all that is outside its own covers; and each passage has to be read in reference to the whole book.
Each passage stands, not only in its own immediate Context, but it stands also in the Context of the Bible as a whole; and is to be read, and explained, and understood, and interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture.
An inexplicable verse, or act, or fact may find its solution in some other part of Scripture. For all of it is God-breathed. All has one Author. The Bible is not a "Symposium" of many authors; for though there are many writers there is only one Author, the Holy Spirit of God.
He has used various mouths to speak and various pens to write: He has "spoken at sundry times, and in divers manners:" but it is the same God who has spoken.
When we realize this great fact, we shall perceive the all-pervading presence of that one Author in all parts of the Word, which was written as holy men of old spake from God as they were moved by that same Spirit.
If any doubt the truth of this fact they will soon be convinced as they consider the Illustrations which we propose to give them.
1. Gen. xix. and xiv. The cities and the city.—Look, for example, at Gen. xviii., where Abraham pleaded with God for Sodom that the city might be spared in the day of His judgment.
God had told him that He would destroy the cities (v. 20) Sodom and Gomorrah. Gen. xix. speaks of "the cities." But Abraham prayed only for "the city." No reason is given. And, for aught that is said in these two chapters, we might conclude that he was influenced solely by feelings of humanity. But on referring back to ch. xiv. 12, we learn that his nephew Lot and his family dwelt in Sodom, and thus we see a special reason why
Abraham should thus feel so acutely, and intercede so earnestly for deliverance of that city.
We may further learn that God has more than one way of answering prayer.
When we are in difficulty, danger, or trouble, we see a way out of it, and we ask God, very "definitely," to deliver us by that way.
All the time He has many ways of delivering us, each better than the one we can see.
No greater evil could happen to us than for God always to answer our prayer and grant our definite request.
Here, in this history, Abraham could see only one way of delivering his nephew Lot: so he prays that God would avert His judgment from Sodom and spare "the city."
God did not grant his request, but he delivered Lot out of the midst of the overthrow; and thus answered Abraham's prayer, though not in the way Abraham had asked.
2. In Gen. xxiv. 24 Rebekah is said to be "the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, which she bare unto Nahor."
From verse 15 we learn that Nahor was Abraham's brother. But there is nothing in all this chapter to explain to us how it was that a grand-daughter of Abraham's brother could be old enough to marry Isaac, Abraham's son; in other words, how Rebekah of the third generation could marry Isaac who was of the second generation.
We have to go back to Gen. xviii. 11, 12, quite a remote context, and there we read that Sarah, Abraham's wife, was "old and well stricken in years," before Isaac was born.
This quite accounts for what otherwise would be a difficulty. Dr. Blunt refers to such an example as this for quite a different purpose. In his work on Undesigned Coincidences he uses these and similar examples as an argument for the veracity of the Scriptures.
We refer to the same examples with quite a different object, viz., to show how, in a difficulty which we meet with in a particular passage, we find the solution in a remote Context, and often in a mere passing parenthetical statement.
iii. TRUTH FROM REMOTER CONTEXT: GEN. XXXVII.
3. Gen. XXXVII. The Ishmaelites and Midianites.—In Gen. XXXVII. 25 Joseph's brethren "lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt."
In verse 28: "Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen: and they [Joseph's brethren] drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver."
In verse 36: "And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar an officer of Pharaoh's."
In ch. XXXIX. 1: Potiphar "bought him of the hands of the Ishmaelites which had brought him down thither."
Grave charges have been brought against the Text on account of these and other so-called "discrepancies" by the "Higher" Critics of the present day. But it will be found that most of these objections are contained in the writings of the French and English Atheists and Deists of the eighteenth century, though the cursory reader may be quite sure that no writer or editor would be so ignorant, or would be so careless, as to make such blunders, if blunders they are.
Moses and his readers knew the facts so well that there could be no possibility of the record being misunderstood.
It is rather an evidence of veracity and accuracy that the interchange of names should thus be made, without any attempt to explain it. A later editor would be sure to have noted the phenomenon presented in the Text, and have made some effort to correct or explain it.
It is in the remoter Context of Judges viii. 24 that we learn from a parenthetical remark, connected with quite another subject, that the Midianites, whom Gideon had just defeated, "had golden earrings¹ because they were Ishmaelites."
Thus it must have been a well-known fact as shown by this parenthetical remark that all Midianites were Ishmaelites, but all Ishmaelites were not Midianites.
¹ Βῆ (nezem), a ring, from Βῆ (nāzam), to bore. Hence, any ring as worn in the ear or the nose. It appears to be a nose-ring in Gen. XXIV. 47. Isa. 31. 21. Prov. xi. 22. Ezek. xvi. 12; and an ear-ring in Gen. XXXV. 4 and Exod. XXXII. 2. In certain passages it is doubtful where the ring was worn, the part of the body not being named. See Judg. viii. 24, 25. Job xlii. 11. Prov. XXV. 12. Hos. ii. 13.
But if we enquire further, and ask how this could be, we have to go to another context altogether, even to two Scriptures earlier than Gen. xxxvii.
We find our first clue in Gen. xvi. 11, 12, where we learn that ISHMAEL was the son of Abram, by his wife Hagar: while from Gen. xxv. 2 we learn that MIDIAN and MEDAN were Abraham's sons by his wife Keturah. So that Ishmael and Midian were half-brothers, and doubtless shared the same countries and the same life. Hence, in Gen. xxxvii, there was no need to add any explanation of this fact, because it would be a matter of common knowledge.
But we, approaching Gen. xxxvii, from its own standpoint, are left to discover the fact; and we do so, from the remoter Context of Judges viii. (where a parenthetical remark solves the whole difficulty), and from Gen. xvi. 11, 12, and xxv. 2.
Thus, it is clear, from Gen. xxxvii., that while the caravan at a distance was seen and known to be Ishmaelite, a closer inspection showed that there were Midianite merchantmen travelling with the company, and were known by wearing the same nose- or ear-rings, which we see from Judges viii. were the distinguishing badge of all Ishmaelites.
We could hardly find an example which more clearly shows the importance of the Canon we are considering, and affords evidence of the exceeding value of carefully studying and marking the Context, however remote it may be, for the purposes of interpretation.
4. Exod. vi. 16—20. *Moses's Parents.*—Another Illustration is found in the case of the parents of Moses.
From Exod. vi. 16, 18, 20 we learn that his father Amram was the *grandson* of Levi, and that he married Jochebed the *daughter* of Levi.
This looks as though there must have been a great disparity of age, belonging as they did to different generations.
But it is not until we look in the book of Numbers that we find there, in the remoter Context, the solution of the difficulty. There we read, in Num. xxvi. 59, that "the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt."
iii. TRUTH FROM REMOTER CONTEXT: NUM. XVI.
Thus, Jochebed of the first generation would be about the same age as Amram of the second.
Dr. Blunt cites this to show that, as the object of Num. xxvi. 59 was not to explain this matter, we have an undesigned coincidence which establishes the veracity of the Scriptures. We cite it to show the importance of always noting and heeding the context.
5. Num. xvi. 1. The Sons of Kohath and Reuben.—In Num. xvi. 1 we read of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, the sons of Kohath and Reuben.
Nothing is said as to why these should have joined together in the conspiracy. But in the remoter context of Num. iii. 29 we find that the tents of Kohath were pitched on the South side of the Tabernacle; and from Num. ii. 10 we find that the camp of Reuben was on the same (South) side also.
These statements are not made to explain how it was that Kohathites and Reubenites conspired together; but so it was, and so the difficulty is explained.
6. Num. xvi. 27. The Sons of Korah.—Again, from this chapter, Num. xvi., it reads as though all shared the same judgment.
But, in the nearer context we find the "sons" of Dathan and Abiram mentioned in verse 27. Korah himself and his "men" who conspired with him and his goods are mentioned also; but no mention is made of Korah's sons.
Then, in the remoter context, ten chapters later, we read in ch. xxvi. 11, "notwithstanding the sons of Korah died not."
Doubtless, therefore, they obeyed the call of Moses and Aaron (ch. xvi. 24) and "gat up" out of the Tabernacle which these rebels had set up; and so were delivered.
These "sons of Korah," thus rescued as brands from the burning, monuments of the grace of God, were in later days conspicuous in the prominence given to them and their descendants in the worship of the Temple, the "true Tabernacle" under David and Hezekiah.
7. Josh. iii. 15. Jordan overflowing in time of harvest.
Josh. iii. 14—17 we have the crossing of the Jordan
T described, and the parenthetical remark that it was in "the time of harvest" (v. 15).
In Josh. iv. 19 we read that it was also on "the tenth day of the first month." This was the season of the Passover, and of barley harvest, seven weeks before the Feast of Weeks, when the wheat harvest was celebrated (Exod. xxiii. 14. Lev. xxiii. 15).
But, according to Exod. ix. 31, this was also the time of the flax harvest.
How wonderful, then, and how simple is the truth of the narrative in Josh. ii. 6, where we are told that Rahab hid Joshua's two spies beneath "the stalks of flax."
8. 1 Sam. xiii. 19. No smith found in Israel.—A brief statement in 1 Sam. xiii. 19 explains many circumstances when read in the light of remoter contexts. There we read "there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel," and the reason is given as the result of the rigorous law of the Philistines, who oppressed Israel at that time, and held them in subjection.
This explains how it was that Ehud "made him a dagger which had two edges"; and made it himself (Judg. iii. 16).
Shamgar had to use an ox-goad in his attack on the Philistines (Judg. iii. 31).
Samson "had nothing in his hand," no weapon, when he slew the lion (Judg. xiv. 5, 6).
There was not "a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel" (Judg. v. 8).
In the days of Israel's liberty we read of men that "drew the sword;" but in the days of their oppression we read of the sling and the stone (Judg. xx. 2, 15. 1 Sam. xvii. 40) and other ignoble weapons.
Dr. Blunt cites all these as arguments for the veracity of Scripture.
We use them for another purpose; to show the necessity of having due regard to the remoter contexts of the Word of God in order to understand parenthetical remarks which are made, and left, without any explanation being given in the immediate context.
9. 1 Sam. xvii. 4. "Goliath of Gath."—In 1 Sam. xvii. 4 and 2 Sam. xxi. 18—22 "Gath" is spoken of and emphasized iii. TRUTH FROM REMOTER CONTEXT: 1 KINGS XVII. 9 as the city of Goliath, and of his brother and sons. It is mentioned incidentally, as needing no explanation.
But the explanation is found in the remoter context of Josh. xi. 21, 22, where we read of the utter destruction of the Anakim (or giants); and it is added that "there was none of the Anakim left in the land of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod there remained."
10. 1 Kings xvii. 9. "A little oil in a cruse."—In 1 Kings xvii. 9 Elijah is commanded to get him to Zarephath which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there; where a widow woman was to sustain him.
He goes to Zarephath and meets the widow, who says: "As the LORD thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but an handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse."
This Zarephath (in the New Testament called Sarepta) belonged to Zidon.
Now, from the remoter context (Josh. xix. 24—28), we find that the district of Zidon fell to the lot of Asher; and if we turn to another context, still more remote (Deut. xxxiii. 24), we learn that in the blessing of the Tribes by Moses it is written: "And of Asher he said:
Let Asher be blessed with children,
Let him be acceptable to his brethren,
And let him dip his foot in oil."
If this last sentence means anything, it denotes an abundance of olive trees and of oil, as the special characteristic of Asher's blessing.
This is just what we find in 1 Kings xvii. 9, where after three years and a half of drought there is still a little oil left; and that in the store of a widow who was probably only a small proprietor.
11. 2 Chron. xvii. 1. "Jehoshaphat strengthened himself against Israel."—The histories of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and of Jehoram his son, furnish us with several illustrations.
There is first the nearer context, 2 Chron. xvii. 1, "And Jehoshaphat strengthened himself against Israel."
This is meant to exhibit the enormity of his sin when, in ch. xviii. 1, he married his son Jehoram to Athaliah,
T 2 the daughter of Jezebel; who afterwards did for Judah what Jezebel had done for Israel.¹
12. 2 Chron. xxii. 11, 12. Joash, Jehosheba and nurse hidden six years in the Temple.—The history of Jehoram goes on to tell us how he slew all his brethren (ch. xxi. 4); how the Arabians came and destroyed all his children, and left him “never a son, save Jehoahaz (or Ahaziah) the youngest of his sons” (ch. xxi. 17).
Then we are told that, when this Ahaziah died, his mother Athaliah “arose and destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah” (ch. xxii. 10).
We are told also how the infant Joash was rescued by Jehosheba, the wife of Jehoiada, the High Priest (ch. xxii. 11, 12); and how she and the nurse and the child were hid in the house of God for six years.
We marvel how such a thing could be; for, for aught that is said there, the worship of the Temple was still going on, and the difficulty of hiding these three for so long a time looks as though the thing were impossible.
If we had no regard to the remoter context we should see here an insuperable difficulty; but when we read the whole context we find that, like most of our other difficulties, they are made by ourselves!
It is not until we reach chapter xxiv. that we learn what had previously taken place.
Not until those six years had run their course, and Athaliah was slain, and Joash sat upon the throne of Judah, not until then does it come out (and even then, not at all for the purpose of solving our difficulty or removing our perplexity) that in the previous reign the house of God had been broken up, and all the vessels removed to the temple of Baal which had been established in Judah (ch. xxiv. 7).
Not until Joash begins to reign are we told this, and even then it is only to explain why Joash set himself to repair it by preparing timber and stones and masons and carpenters for the work (ch. xxiv. 12–14), and not to explain why Jehosheba, Joash, and his nurse found the house of the LORD such a safe hiding-place. These large
¹ See a pamphlet on Jehosaphat: a Lesson for our Times, by the same author and publisher.
iii. TRUTH FROM REMOTER CONTEXT: 2 CH. XXI. 16 preparations made by Joash for the repairs show the extent of the breaches which had been made; and tell us how that ruined and deserted Temple was the safest place in the whole kingdom.
13. 2 Chron. xxi. 10. The revolt of Libnah.—Another circumstance, mentioned quite parenthetically in 2 Chron. xxi. 10, and without any apparent object, throws a flood of light on the whole history when we compare it with its remoter context in the book of Joshua.
The revolt of Edom from under the hand of Jehoram king of Judah (2 Chron. xxi. 8—10) is not recorded as fulfilling prophecy; but it did, as we shall see if we look at the still more remote context of Gen. xxvii. 40.
The parenthetical remark in 2 Chron. xxi. 10 merely states the fact that at “the same time also did Libnah revolt from under his (Jehoram’s) hand; because he had forsaken the LORD God of his fathers.”
What is this remark thrown in here for? To tell us to look and see where and what Libnah was. We have to go back as far as Josh. xxi. 13, and there we find that Libnah was one of the cities of the Priests.
This tells us that when Jehoram and Athaliah broke up the Temple of God, and set up the house of Baal, the priests held aloof, and must have conspired to restore Joash to the throne as soon as the convenient time should come.
This explains why Jehoiada the High Priest had the chief part in the restoration of Joash and the execution of Athaliah, and the slaying of Mattan her priest of Baal (2 Chron. xxiii. 14—16).
This is why the priests took such a prominent part in collecting the money to repair and restore the House of the LORD (ch. xxiv. 4—11).
So that these references to the remoter context reveal all these truths, explain these difficulties, and throw a flood of light on the whole history.
14. 2 Kings xviii. 13, 14. The depletion of Hezekiah’s Treasury.—In the history of Hezekiah we read (2 Kings xviii. 13—16) that his treasury had been depleted by the demands of the king of Assyria; for he had not only given him what was in his own house, but he was reduced to the necessity of stripping the gold from the doors of the Temple.
Yet in Isa. xxxix. 2 we find Hezekiah showing the emissaries of Babylon all "the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices," etc.
No attempt is made to explain how this could be after so short an interval; and that interval covered by his sickness, and the siege of Jerusalem.
But there is one short passage, 2 Chron. xxxii. 22, 23, introduced there quite independently of all else:
"Thus the LORD saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all other, and guided them on every side. And many brought gifts unto the LORD to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of Judah: so that he was magnified in the sight of all the nations from henceforth."
In addition to these presents there must have been vast spoils after Sennacherib's army had been destroyed, if we may judge from another remote context, in 2 Kings vii. 15, where, when the Syrians fled, "all the way was full of garments and vessels which the Syrians had cast away in their haste."
15. Isa. lxii. 4, 5. Thy land shall be called Hephzibah.— In Isa. lxii. 2 we are told that in the day of Israel's future and coming glory both People and Land will be called by "a new name which the mouth of Jehovah shall name."
In verses 4, 5 we read of the giving of this new name:
"Thou shalt no more be termed 'Forsaken'; neither shall thy land any more be termed 'Desolate':
But thou shalt be called 'Hephzi-bah' (i.e., my delight is in her)
And thy land 'Beulah' (i.e., married).
For Jehovah delighteth in thee,
And thy land shall be married.
For as a young man marrieth (i.e., possesseth) a virgin, so shall thy sons marry (i.e., possess) thee:
And as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee."
iii. TRUTH FROM REMOTER CONTEXT: MARK XIV. 51, 52
Now, when we remember that Isaiah prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, we may well conclude that this prophecy synchronized with the marriage of Hezekiah with his wife Hephzibah (2 Kings xxi. 1).
As to when this took place we have no record; but we do know that at the time he was stricken unto death (in the fourteenth year of his reign) he had no son; nor was Manasseh born until three of those miraculously added fifteen years had run their course.
The marriage of Hezekiah therefore occupies an important, not to say a solemn, place in his history; and might well be thus used in connection with another solemn crisis in the miraculous future history of Israel.
16. Jer. xiii. 18. "Say . . . unto the Queen."—In Jer. xiii. 18 we read "Say unto the king and unto the Queen, Humble yourselves, sit down; for your principalities shall come down, even the crown of your glory."
There is nothing in the prophecy to enable us to identify either the king or the queen. But in the remoter context of 2 Kings xxiv. we find that in the second of three invasions of Nebuchadnezzar, "Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes and his officers; and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign" (v. 12); and in verse 15 we read:
"And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon."
Dr. Blunt suggests that as Jehoiachin was only eighteen and had reigned only three months (v. 8), the queen dowager held a position of some influence, which is sufficient to explain the reference of Jehovah to her by Jeremiah.
17. Mark xiv. 51, 52. The young man who fled from Gethsemane.—In Mark xiv. 51, 52, we read of the young man who followed Christ, and when they attempted to take him prisoner "he left the linen cloth and fled from them naked."
There is no indication here as to the identity of this young man.
But from the remoter contexts we learn.
(1) That the Lord was sleeping out at Bethany, each night during that last week (Luke xxi. 37; xxii. 39. Compare Matt. xxvi. 6). He would be staying there with Lazarus and Martha and Mary.
(2) On this night they would be watching for the Lord's return. And seeing the lights in the garden below the mount, what more natural than that Lazarus should go down to see what the tumult was about.
(3) We know from John xii. 10 that "the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death." We read of no one else whom they wished to take, or to kill. All His disciples seem to have been quite safe. The reason for the decision to put Lazarus to death is given in John xii. 9-11.
(4) The linen cloth betokens considerable wealth. This the family possessed, judging from Matt. xxvi. 7, the purchase of the very precious ointment which excited the cupidity of Judas.
This garment must have been put on hastily and loosely, for it was left in the enemies' hands unceremoniously.
All these different contexts unite in helping us to identify this young man with Lazarus whom the Lord had raised from the dead.
18. John xxi. 15. "Lovest thou me more than these?"—In John xxi. 15 there is nothing to show us whom or what the Lord referred to by the pronoun "these": "Lovest thou me more than these?"
But in the remoter context of Matt. xxvi. 31, 33 and Mark xiv. 27, 29, we have the words of Peter, to which the Lord, doubtless, referred: "All ye shall be offended because of me this night . . . Peter answered and said unto him, Though all shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never (i.e., in no wise) be offended?"
From this it is clear that the pronoun "these" refers to Peter's fellow disciples; and the ellipsis must be supiii. TRUTH FROM REMOTER CONTEXT: ACTS II. 16 plied, not "Lovest thou me more than [thou lovest] these"; but, Lovest thou me more than these [love me].
19. Acts ii. 16. "This is that."—Acts ii. 16—21 is an illustration which affects the remoter context as well as the newer, because it is a quotation from Joel ii. 28—32.¹ This fact makes all the difference.
"This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts ii. 16). There is nothing in these words to tell us what is "this" and what is "that." The word "this" is emphatic; and the word "but," with which the new argument begins, sets what follows in contrast, not in correspondence. It does not begin with the word "For," but with the word "But." This points to the fact that the quotation is intended to show that their enemies' charge (that they were drunk) would not stand. So far from such signs and wonders proving they were drunk, Peter asks, What about the prophecy of Joel? He prophesied of similar scenes "in the last days."
Peter does not say that these were the last days, but:—"this is what Joel says" of those days. Will those scenes (he argues) lie open to the same charge of drunkenness? Certainly not! Then, how can these men be charged with drunkenness now, especially "seeing it is but the third hour of the day."
Peter is not expounding Joel. Nor is he saying that that prophecy was then fulfilled. He does not say "then was fulfilled"; or, "as it is written." He merely calls attention to what Joel said of a similar scene, which is to be fulfilled "in the last days."
That this is so is clear the moment we turn to the prophet Joel, and read what Jehovah there speaks by him.
To understand Joel's prophecy it is absolutely necessary for us to see exactly what is the subject of it. What Dispensation is he speaking about? Is it about the Christian Dispensation, or is it the Dispensation of Judgment which shall follow it? Is it all about the Jew? or about the Gentile? or, is it about the Church of God?
¹ Hebrew Text, iii. 1-4.
The Structure will give us the Scope. It is exceedingly simple:—
The Prophecy of Joel, as a whole.
A | i. 1—3. The Call to hear.
B i. 4—12. The evil which had come upon the Land and the People.
A | i. 13—ii. 17. The Call to Repentance.
B ii. 18—iii. 21. The evil removed from the Land and the People
We see, from this, what the prophecy of Joel is all about. It describes the fulfilment of the last clause of "the Song of Moses" in Deut. xxxii.,¹ which finishes up with the solemn but gracious assurance in v. 13:
"Rejoice, O ye nations, with His People:
For He will avenge the blood of His servants,
And will render vengeance to His adversaries,
And will be merciful unto His Land and to His People."
So the member B (Joel ii. 18) begins—
"Then will Jehovah be jealous for His Land;
And pity His People."
"THIS," therefore, is "THAT." This is the scope, or the subject-matter, or context of Acts ii. 16. It concerns Jehovah's "Land" and Jehovah's "People," and not "the Church of God." Peter addresses these "people": he says, "Ye men of Judea" (v. 14), "Ye men of Israel" (v. 22). He calls "the house of Israel" (v. 36) to this very repentance to which Joel calls in view of "the last days." For national repentance is ever declared to be the condition of national blessing.
But the key to the correct understanding of Peter's quotation lies in the word "afterward" of Joel ii. 28. After what? No one can tell us but Joel. We ourselves cannot tell apart from his prophecy.
We see that ch. ii. 28 is part of the member we have marked B (ch. ii. 18—iii. 21), the subject of which is the
¹ For the structure of "the Song of Moses" see our work on The Apocalypse, p. 470. Or Things to Come, Vol. X., p. 55.
TRUTH FROM REMOTER CONTEXT: ACTS II. 16 evil (of B, ch. i. 4-12) removed from the Land and the People.
The removal of this evil is elaborately set forth and described. The member B is no mere conglomeration or jumble of words and phrases. It has its own Structure as follows:—
Expansion of B. (Joel ii. 18—iii. 21.)
B a¹ | ii. 18, 19. Blessings bestowed. (Temporal.)
b¹ | ii. 20. Evil removed. (Judgment prophesied.)
a² | ii. 21-29. Blessing bestowed. (Temporal and Spiritual.)
b² | ii. 30, 31. Evil removed. (Accompanying Judgment signs.)
a³ | ii. 32. Blessing bestowed. (Spiritual.)
b³ | iii. 1-16-. Evil removed. (Fulfilment.)¹ a⁴ | iii.-16-18. Blessings bestowed. (Spiritual and Temporal.)
b⁴ | iii. 19. Evil removed. (Judgment executed.)
a⁵ | iii. 20, 21. Blessing bestowed. (Spiritual.)
These "Blessings bestowed" must be read on from one to the other; and the "Evil removed" must, in like manner, be connected; the members relating to the "Evil removed" being treated as parenthetical to the members which treat of "Blessing bestowed," and the "Blessing bestowed" members being treated as parenthetical to the "Evil removed" members.
From the above Structure we see that ch. ii. 28 is contained in the member marked "a²," and is not a separate member to be treated parenthetically; but it
¹ The expansion of "b" (iii. 1-16) is just as perfect and beautiful:— b² c¹ d¹ | iii. 1, 2. Assemblage.
o¹ | 2-6. Judgment.
f¹ | 7, 8. Threatening.
o² d² | 9-12. Assemblage.
e² | 12. Judgment. f² | 13. Execution. o³ | 14. Assemblage. e² | 14. Judgment.
f² | 15, 16. Threatening.
connects the Spiritual blessing with the temporal, and shows that it follows on from it.
This Spiritual blessing is introduced by the words:
"And it shall come to pass AFTERWARD that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh (v. 28).
After what?
After the Temporal blessings of
The former and latter rain (v. 23).
The fulness of the threshing floors and of the wine and oil-presses (v. 21).
The plenty¹ and satisfaction (v. 26).
The entire and perpetual removal of shame (vv. 26, 27).
When Jehovah shall be "in the midst of Israel" (v. 27).
It is "afterward"; after all these temporal blessings, that these Spiritual blessings shall be bestowed.
This is "afterward"; when the Spirit shall be poured out "upon all flesh."
The most cursory reader must see and know that the Spirit was NOT poured out upon all flesh in Acts ii., but only on those then present: that none of these wondrous and great signs had been shown: that deliverance was not manifested in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem; for the Land and the People were still in the power of the Romans.
This word "AFTERWARD" thus shows that the prophecy of Joel in Acts ii. is not quoted in order to prove that this Pentecostal scene was the fulfilment of it; but in order to show that, as that future scene could not be ascribed to drunkenness, so neither could this Pentecostal scene be so ascribed.
At least, a child could see that Acts ii. is not the fulfilment of Joel ii.; but it is hopeless for those to see it whose eyes are blinded by believing the tradition of those who persist in saying that "the Church was formed at Pentecost."
¹ Heb., "Eat to eat and be satisfied." The infinitive of the verb following its own finite, i.e., eat and eat is most expressive and emphatic