The Creative Power Of The Prophetic Dialogue

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 118

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004

S SP

Dialogue

The Creative Power of the Prophetic Dialogue

Matthias Wenk

Introduction

Christianity in general has been defined as a prophetic religion,1 and Pentecostalism in particular is oftentimes associated with prophetic mani- festations.2 This is especially true for the denomination in which I have my personal roots and that comes out of the Apostolic Church in Great Britain, with its beginnings in the revival of Wales (1905).3 At the same time Christianity has been called a “religion of the book,” and that is definitely also true for Pentecostalism; Pentecostals are “a people of the book”.4 It

1

Hans Küng, Das Christentum: Wesen und Geschichte (Munich: Piper, 19953), 53.2

Cf. the programmatic title of David du Plessis’ book, The Spirit Bade Me Go: The Astounding Move of God in the Denominational Churches, rev. ed. (Plainfield: Logos, 1970) as well as the account of Smith Wiggelsworth’s prophecy over David du Plessis in2

December 1936 (W. J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals [London: SCM, 1976 ], 346; R. P. Spittler, “Du Plessis, David Jonathan” in S. M. Burgess, The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002], 592). For the importance of prophecy in Pentecostalism, see C. M. Robeck, Jr., “Prophecy, Gift of,” in Burgess, ed., Dictionary, 999-1012.3

Prophecy and the prophetic ministry have always played an essential role in this movement, to the extent that in Wales up until the 1960s, during board meetings of the national executive committee, one board member has always been designated as “prophet,” in case the Lord would like to speak directly into the meeting. Many decisions made both on local and national levels went back to prophetic words, and many articles in the church’s periodicals testify to this rich prophetic activity as well as to the problems related to it. (Showers of Blessings [first published in 1910] and Riches of Grace [first published in 1925].) (Cf. James E. Worsfold, The Origins of the Apostolic Church in Great Britain. With a Breviate of its Early Missionary Endeavours [Wellington: Julian Literature Trust, 1991], 73-89; 183-207.)4

G.L. Anderson, “Pentecostals believe more than in Tongues,” in H. B. Smith, ed.,

© 2004 Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., Boston pp. 118–129

1

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 119

The Creative Power of the Phrophetic Dialogue

seems, however, that the commitment to “the book” and the value attrib- uted to the prophetic word stand every so often in a (healthy) tension with each other.

For a community of faith that wants to be faithful to both the word and the “prophetic experience,” it might be helpful not only to look at the con- tent of biblical prophecy—that is, to “weigh” prophecy on its content—but also to examine the nature and the process of biblical prophecy as a role model for its own prophetic ministry in her midst. This shift in focus from the content to the nature and the process of prophecy “in the book” tries to be faithful to both the book and the dynamic and open-ended character of the prophetic word. Thus, this paper will explore some aspects of biblical prophecy as they relate to its communal and dialogical dynamic with the aim of raising some issues that might be of help for the Church’s experi- ence of prophecy today.

As indicated in the title, I would like first to address the creative power of prophetic speech. In order to do so I will refer to the Speech-Act- Theory. Second, I would like to question the concept of prophecy as “an act of proclamation” and argue for an understanding of prophecy as part of a process. The two parts reflect two approaches for one and the same argument: prophetic speech is not intended to inform but rather to trans- form. Thus, it is self-explanatory that I proceed on the premise that the OT concept of prophecy has the aim of restoring the covenant between God and his people, either in calling for repentance or in nourishing hope that God will open up a future for his people beyond exile and the experience of the end (once more the Spirit will overcome the chaos and create a new cosmos).

Obviously, the quest for prophecy is always related to the quest for the Spirit, for there is no doubt that Judaism and the early Church, Luke in par- ticular, associated the Spirit with proclamation and inspired speech.5 This question shall be dealt with only in a secondary way, and it also needs to

Pentecostals from the Inside Out (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 57-58; C. B. Johns, Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy among the Oppressed, JPT Suppl. Series 2 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 130.5

Some argue that this assessment reflects the essence of what is defined as “the Spirit of Prophecy” both in Judaism and in Luke-Acts (cf. R. P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology, with Special Reference to Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). For a different view, see M. M. B. Turner, “The Spirit of Prophecy and the Power of Authoritative Preaching in Luke-Acts: A Question of Origins,” New Testament Studies 38 (1992), 66-88; idem, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).

119

2

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 120

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004

be mentioned that not all prophets claimed the Spirit as the source of their message.6

The Creative Power of Prophetic Speech

The Speech-Act-Theory as presented by Austin and Searle7 has recently found its way into biblical exegesis.8 Austin and Searle pointed out that speaking is a form of behavior that is governed by certain rules. Speaking means to do certain things according to certain rules, such as arresting somebody, opening a session, marrying a couple, and so forth. Language is no longer perceived primarily as being descriptive but, rather, as inten- tional. Even describing something is done with a certain aim (for example, describing a person in order to identify her or him, stimulating certain feel- ings, and so forth). The theory assumes, however, that a speech act is only effective if certain rules (conditions) are fulfilled. Thus, words in and of themselves have no “magical power,” for whoever performs a speech act must be authorized to do so. Hence, no one can declare someone else to be president of a certain nation unless she or he is authorized to do so. Or, no wedding is legally acknowledged, even if performed by an authorized per- son, if it later turns out that one of the two parties is already married to someone else. In such cases the speech act is invalid because one of the conditions for performing a marriage has not been fulfilled. Hence, the couple is not considered a married couple.

Each speech act consists of three aspects:

1. the phonetical dimension, the articulation (the locutionary aspect) 2. the intentional dimension (the illocutionary aspect)

3. the pragmatic or effective dimension (the perlocutionary aspect).

The intention and the actual effect of a certain speech act do not neces- sarily have to agree. I can tell a joke with the intention of amusing the audi- ence, but the actual effect can be quite contrary (as often experienced with my sons at home, who never laugh at any joke of mine).

6

Cf. S. Mowinckel, “The Spirit and the Word in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets,” Journal of Biblical Literature (1934): 199-227.7

J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975); J. R. Searle, Speech-Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1984).8

Cf. A. C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 272-312.

120

3

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 121

The Creative Power of the Phrophetic Dialogue

For our purposes the main focus will be on the intentional dimension of speaking: what is the intended effect of a prophetic speech? That prophecy does not simply want to inform but, rather, is effective in the very act of being proclaimed is represented in Isaiah’s vision, among other places: “Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” Isaiah’s message was not to announce the judgment of God to Israel but rather to realize it. In his message the judgment began to be realized.9

According to Austin there are five different speech acts:

1. verdictives: an exercise of judgment

2. exercitives: an assertion of influence, or the exercise of power 3. comissives: an assuming of an obligation, or the declaration of an

intention

4. behabitives: adopting an attitude and social behavior

5. expositives: clarifying of reasons, arguments, and communications.10

The question now is: what kind of speech act is performed in a given prophecy? Or, asked even more simply: What is God doing in a given prophecy?

Some texts from the writings of Luke will be used as case studies.11 In doing so, however, we must be aware that in retrospect we can fairly eas- ily analyze a certain prophetic speech act because the decision as to whether or not the speech act has been authorized, meaning God-inspired, has already been made for us:12

1. The Spirit-inspired promises of Luke’s infancy narratives (Benedictus,

Luke 1:67-79; Nunc Dimittis, Luke 2:29-32) clearly represent Austin’s

third category: God assumes responsibility. In order that a promise be

truly considered a promise, it must be spoken in the first person. No one

can make a promise on behalf of someone else. Hence, the Spirit

9

Cf. W. Houston, “What Did the Prophets Think They Were Doing? Speech-Act and Prophetic Discourse in the Old Testament,” Biblical Interpretation 1 (1993): 167-88.10

Austin, How to Do Things, 150-63.11

Cf. Matthias Wenk, Community Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 120-48.12

There may be some examples in Scripture in which even the Bible does not clearly decide whether or not we have to understand a certain speech as “God inspired.”

121

4

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 122

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004

guarantees that the promise, spoken by the prophet, actually is a God-

spoken promise and not just a reflection of the prophet’s opinion. The

promises spoken in Luke’s infancy narratives do not simply pass on

new information for the audience, but rather they lead to an altered per-

spective and a renewed worldview; they create new realities. God is

about to establish the Kingdom. This will stir up hopes and provide

comfort, and already now the prophetic word transforms the realities in

order to fit the word. In addition, a renewed perception of the world

(symbolic universe) will always lead to a renewed praxis.

2. Slightly different are Elizabeth’s words in Luke 1:42-45. The Spirit-

inspired words of Elizabeth focus on the status of the young, pregnant

woman from Nazareth in Galilee. At the beginning of his Gospel, Luke

introduces the elderly, honorable priestly couple Zechariah and

Elizabeth. The mention of their age, their place of living, and their fam-

ily, as well as of the husband’s priestly office, all serve to present to the

reader a godly couple of excellent status. In contrast to them, Mary is

depicted as coming from the religiously mixed region of Galilee with

no special family background or status at all. One could even argue that

the work of the Spirit has only lowered her social status: not being mar-

ried yet, she becomes pregnant. After these people have been intro-

duced, the two women meet. The socially appropriate procedure of

greeting would be for the younger to submit to the older. In addition,

the younger woman’s shame would normally stand between her and the

older woman’s honor and prevent any form of community between the

two. But through Elizabeth’s prophecy a reversal of social status is tak-

ing place. Two persons, who according to the general norms of their

society would have nothing to say to each other, confirm and acknowl-

edge one another. True community and mutual acceptance is made pos-

sible even in a situation in which one person might not understand fully

what is taking place in the life of the other. Hence, Elizabeth’s prophecy

realizes a renewed social order (Austin’s fourth category).

3. The last example is drawn from Acts 13:9-11: Paul’s Spirit-inspired

cursing of Elymas, the sorcerer. This is a fairly clear-cut example of the

effective power of prophetic speech. In Paul’s Spirit-inspired words

God’s curse upon Elymas is realized. Thus this example represents an

exercitive, the assertion of an influence and exercise of power.13

13

For an example of an unsuccessful speech act in trying to exercise power, cf. Acts 19:13-15, in whch the sons of Sceva attempt to cast out a demon “in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches.”

122

5

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 123

The Creative Power of the Phrophetic Dialogue

Trying to understand the creative intention of prophetic speech in our contemporary time is more complex. In addition to the “analytical task,” we are confronted with a metaphysical question: How can we be certain whether a certain speech is truly God-spoken; whether it is really God who wants to do something, or whether it is merely “human speech”? The often quoted statement that “each prophecy must agree with Scripture” is not without problems and would have caused great problems, at least for Peter, when he was summoned in a vision to eat what was declared as defiled by Scripture (Acts 10:9-23). Also, Isaiah would have failed the test when he prophesied “against Deut. 23:1-9” that in the messianic age even eunuchs will be counted among God’s people (Is. 56:3-5). We have not enough time to tackle the issue at length, but some thoughts might stimulate further reflection:14

1. If God is indeed Life and the Spirit is the “Spirit of Life,” then Spirit-

inspired speech will in one way or another foster life and help it to

unfold—even if through judgment, as in Isaiah. A possible guideline for

our question may be phrased: Prophetic speech will serve life. 2. The power manifested in prophetic speech is empowering and not

manipulative power.

3. If the Spirit-anointed Messiah is, according to Isaiah 11:1-4, to restore

justice, peace, and the knowledge of God, prophetic speech will con-

tribute to the realization of justice, peace, and the knowledge of God—

however, never in an individualistic, internalized, or spiritualized

manner.

4. Prophets generally never spoke as “uninvolved critics.” Judaism as well

as the New Testament knows the motif of the weeping prophet who

himself suffers the judgment he has proclaimed.15

5. God’s truth should never be understood in static concepts but rather in

relational terms. Hence, the quest for truth is more concerned about

14

Cf. the Apostolic Church’s struggle with the issue and its “guideline,” published in Riches of Grace 3, no. 1 (1927): 73-74, as well as in Apostolic Church Constitution, p. 225: “The teaching of ‘Infallibility of Prophets’ should be avoided because as men, all are liable to fail. We are on Scriptural basis when we affirm that we are having the infallible Word of God (a) where the prophet is a chosen and predestined vessel in the Body of Christ, (b) when he is living in holiness, humility, obedience, (c) when he is responsive to the movings of the Holy Ghost within him.”15

Jeremiah obviously is the prototype of the weeping prophet. In the Second Temple period, Josephus tends to describe himself applying similar categories (Wars 1.9-10, 27-8). Cf. also Josephus’ depiction of Joshua ben Ananiah (Wars 6.304-9), and especially Luke’s portrayal of Jesus as a weeping prophet (Luke 19:41-44).

123

6

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 124

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004

people than about facts. People are true (or not) to God and to one another. Thus, revelation will always be contextualized.

Thus far we may conclude that prophetic speech in the Bible has a cre- ative power. Its aim is not to inform but to transform the world. The prophetic word realizes the judgment, creates a new cosmos out of the chaos, or redefines the social categories within a group or society.

This will lead us to the second part of the paper’s title, which describes prophecy as part of a dialogue.

Prophecy as Initial Spark for a Dialogue with Yahweh

In one of his studies, Thomas Overholt argues that prophecy no longer should be considered a monologue (that is, merely a declaration). It is, rather, a process and an interaction among three actors:

1. God (or the supernatural, as Overholt states it) 2. the prophet

3. the audience.16

This process of interaction includes, on the one side, God’s revelation to the prophet, but also feedback from the prophet. This feedback comes in the form of questions or comments from the prophet to God, a renewed revelation from God, the prophet’s proclamation of the revelation to the audience (often associated with symbolic acts and signs), and feedback from the audience to the prophet. Often either a fresh proclamation or fur- ther questions from the prophet to God result from this feedback. The audience may respond positively or negatively to the prophetic proclama- tion, but in either case it acknowledges the prophet’s legitimacy (for exam- ple, Elijah and King Ahab). The aim of the whole set of interactions between God, the prophet, and the audience is to move the latter two into a process of transformation.17 Only when this transformation takes place is the prophetic process successfully completed. When the audience does not acknowledge the prophet as such, or does not enter into this transforming

16

Thomas W. Overholt, Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity (Minneapolis: Fortress), 1989.17

Although in the story of the Flood (Gen. 6–9) one almost gets the impression that the only one who really has changed is God himself (cf. Gen. 6:7 and 8:21).

124

7

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 125

The Creative Power of the Phrophetic Dialogue

process, the communication between God and his people is interrupted and we may speak of prophecy as “ceasing” (which does not mean that it is no longer effective).18

In Overholt’s model what we normally define as “prophecy” is best compared with an initial spark that is to initiate a dialogue between God and his people. Prophecy as such is not the aim in and of itself. Rather, it is a means and a way of initiating a dialogue and a process of transforma- tion, for example in the form of turning (repentance) or a renewed hope. At other times, the transformation may result in a newly defined symbolic universe of a given group. The transformation does not only affect the audience, however, but always the prophet as well.

This “prophetic process” can be seen in the structure of the Book of Malachi, which is made up of six cycles, each including:

• revelation of God

• proclamation of the prophet

• feedback from the audience to the prophet and sometimes from him to God

• renewed revelation and proclamation.19

In the New Testament John the Baptist’s prophetic ministry provides a good illustration of this “prophetic process” as a dialogue (Luke 1:17 and 3:1-18):

• Spirit infilling and calling of the prophet (Luke 1:17)

• proclamation of the “classical” prophetic message: repent!

• feedback from the audience (three different groups: the people in gen- eral, the tax collectors, soldiers)

• new proclamation, building on and elaborating the first one in light of the feedback received from the audience

• renewed feedback in form of the audience’s quest for the Baptist’s identity

18

Overholt, Channels of Prophecy, 17-25, 69-161.19

La Sor et al. have characterized the style of prophecy in Malachi as “disputation- questions,” or even as “question-and-answer format” (W. La Sor et al., Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982], 502-3; cf. O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament [Tübingen: Mohr {Paul Siebeck}, 1976], 596).

125

8

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 126

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004

• new revelation and message: “One more powerful than me will come….”

It is only the dialogue between the prophet and the audience that leads up to the prophecy concerning the coming Messiah’s Spirit and fire baptism.

Some observations from the New Testament may help to illustrate the thesis of prophecy as being part of a dialogue:

1. In 1 Cor. 13:9, Paul speaks of us as “knowing in part.” In order to sup-

port his claim he refers, among other things, to prophecy. It seems that

for the apostle, prophecy was not something that was “complete” or

“absolute.” Nor was it something that could claim to be above any need

of completion. Prophecy “knows in part,” it is partial and as such con-

tributes to the whole. Similar to Peter’s experience with Cornelius in

Acts 10–11, the Spirit-inspired vision of Peter is just one part of the

entire process and is aimed toward establishing a conversation among

Peter, Cornelius, and God.20 Because of his vision Peter went into the

Gentile’s home, but all he knew thus far was that he had to enter this

Roman’s house. God had spoken, but up to this point Peter did not yet

grasp the consequences of the entire prophecy, and thus he asked: “May

I ask why you sent for me?” (Acts 10:29c). It is only after Cornelius

shares his experience that it starts to dawn on the apostle what is taking

place, and so he begins to preach. Yet, even now it seems to him to be

more unclear than clear. It is only at the end, when the Spirit falls upon

Cornelius and his household, that Peter concludes: “Can anyone keep

these people from being baptized with water?” (Acts 10:47), meaning:

Is there any reason why these people cannot become part of God’s

eschatological people? Peter’s statement implies that even during his

sermon he did not yet assume that Cornelius, being a Gentile, could

become a full member of God’s people. The vision Peter received at the

beginning of the story did not resolve all questions; rather, it raised new

ones. And these questions could only be answered by all participants in

the story entering into a transforming process with one another. At the

end, not only does Cornelius turn from being a Gentile to a Christian,

but the Church turns toward the Gentiles—and this was probably by far

20

Cf. Wenk, Community Forming Power, 288-307; idem, “Community Forming Power: Reconciliation and the Spirit in Acts,” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 19 (1999): 17-33.

126

9

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 127

The Creative Power of the Phrophetic Dialogue

the more difficult move. A similar process can be observed in the story

of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). Here, too, the

prophecy initiates a dialogue in which not only the eunuch, but also the

church’s self-understanding, changes radically.

2. Another illustration of the interaction among Spirit manifestation, the

community, and God (God’s word) is presented in Acts 15, although it

follows a slightly different pattern. This time the community is already

in conversation with one another and with God, expressed by their

reflection on the Spirit manifestation in the house of Cornelius (Acts

15:7, 11) and the reference to God’s word (Acts 15:16-18; cf. Amos

9:11-12). Apparently Peter’s speech before the Jerusalem Church (Acts

11:1-18) had not resolved the issue once and for all, and thus the com-

munity’s identity-marker was still being debated at that time.21 Whether

one understands the statement at the end of the conversation—“it

seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”—as referring to a prophetic

utterance or to the community’s reflection on the Spirit manifestation in

the house of Cornelius, it is only in the interaction among the commu-

nity, the Spirit manifestation, and God’s word that settles the issue: the

community in conversation, God’s word, and the Spirit manifestation,

which in turn shed a new light on God’s word, were interdependent in

restoring joy and encouragement among the churches (Acts 15:31). 3. In 1 Cor. 14:29, Paul speaks about “weighing” (examining; diakr¤nv)

prophecy. Often this is understood as “validating,” in the sense of “true

or false prophecy.” Perhaps Paul is not so much preoccupied with

“true” or “false,” but rather with the fact that prophecy must be “under-

stood,” in the sense of “keeping, moving, treasuring in one’s heart” (not

unlike what is said about Mary in Luke 2:51). Dealing with prophecy

demands insightful sensitivity. One needs to ponder over it in order to

grasp what has been said. So to “weigh” may not mean primarily

“examining,” but rather trying to understand what God wants to do

through a certain prophecy, just as Peter and Philip were attempting to

understand what God was about to do through the prophecy they

received.

Slightly different from this concept of “prophecy as dialogue” is Isaiah 6: The prophetic message was to callous the hearts of the people so that they might not hear and might not be healed (Isa. 6:9-10). Although this

21

Cf. Wenk, Community Forming Power, 303-7.

127

10

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 128

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004

was no longer a time for dialogue, the mere fact that the prophet records these words implies that they are thought to engage at least a later genera- tion in dialogue with Yahweh, as they still do in our days.

I would like to summarize by referring once more to the story of Peter and Cornelius. Neither Peter nor Cornelius knew everything. Neither of them had comprehensive information. Both knew something that the other one did not know. And for both of them the word of prophecy (or vision) raised new questions. They had to ask each other questions. Peter had to ask Cornelius, Cornelius was asking God and Peter, and Peter again God and his fellow disciples. Later, when Peter was called to account for his behavior in front of the church in Jerusalem, he could with great confidence tell what had happened, for by that time he understood what God had done.

These observations have an encouraging aspect for prophecy in our churches: Whoever gives a word of prophecy does not need to be able to survey the entire picture from A to Z. There is the community who is try- ing to understand (to examine) what God is about to do. The prophet need not know everything before hand—there is room for knowing in part. This encourages the people to pass something on and at the same time ask: “Does anyone understand what God wants to do in (how God wants to move with) this?” Prophecy, understood as part of a dialogue, assumes not only that the Spirit inspires a certain speech, but that the Spirit initiates a dialogue by which both the prophet and the audience are going through a process of transformation.

Conclusion

Prophecy is intended to initiate a process of transformation and create new realities: “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak ten- derly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her service had been com- pleted, that her sins have been paid for, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins” (Isa. 40:1-2). The word of comfort realizes this comfort in the same way as the word of judgment effectuates the judgment. This explains why Jesus in Luke 4:21 can say, after having quoted from Isaiah 62:1-2, “Today this word has been fulfilled in your hearing.” In his proclamation of salvation, this very salvation was realized among the audience. Those imprisoned were freed, the blind could see, and “the year of the Lord’s favor” became a reality—even though often in a paradoxical manner.

128

11

PNEUMA_f8_118-129 2/27/06 17:12 Page 129

The Creative Power of the Phrophetic Dialogue

In addition, it will be helpful to cease limiting prophecy to the act of proclamation and, rather, to perceive it as an initial spark for a dialogue between God and his people: “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord” (Isa. 1:18). Only the conversation among all involved—God, the prophet, and the audience—will allow us to understand what God is about to do. Hence, a Pentecostal/prophetic hermeneutic will always comprise the Spirit, the word, and the community22—a community living in a specific political context striving for a renewed understanding of what God is about to do in and through it.

22

Cf. Amos Young, Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Aldershot, Hants., England: Ashgate, 2002).

129

12