John Wyckoff’s 1990 Ph.D. dissertation has finally come to print and is long overdue. In fact, it is perplexing how a scholarly treatise on such an intriguing topic was not snatched up by a publishing house in search of book candidates on controversial topics of perennial interest. Pneuma and Logos is just such a book. It sharply focuses on a hermeneutical question that has commanded the attention of church fathers and theologians from the earliest times of theological reflection in the Church. Simply put the question is, “Does the Holy Spirit have a role to play in the interpretive process called hermeneutics?” A necessary follow-up question, if the first is answered in the affirmative, is “How and to what extent does the Holy Spirit facilitate a person’s understanding of the Scriptures?”

Scholars and teachers interested in biblical hermeneutics are well aware that the central focus of this book is one well worth considering, if for no other reason than the Bible itself raises the question in passages like 1 Cor 2:10-15 and 2 Cor 5:5-17, not to mention John’s gospel where the “teaching” function of the Holy Spirit is amply attested. Oddly, seldom do hermeneutical textbooks contain a substantive treatment of the question at hand. In his introduction to the problem, Wyckoff describes a paradox. Scholars representing a wide spectrum of Christian tradition recognize the importance and challenges of biblical hermeneutics. Many of these hold to a high view of Scripture as the inspired Word of God and posit an active role of the Holy Spirit in its production. Yet pneumatology has received short shrift when it comes to hermeneutical reflection. Our author seeks not only to speak to this neglect, but make a major move toward remedying it.

In the space of five compact and well constructed chapters, Wyckoff conducts a historically-informed exercise in philosophical theology around the issue of the Holy Spirit’s relationship to biblical hermeneutics. Chapter one clearly states and defines the nature of the problem, establishes the need for the present study, circumscribes its scope and describes its internal organization. Admittedly the complex and multifaceted character of hermeneutics will raise a host of issues and questions beyond the scope of this book, but the author is determined to stay focused on the primary question which he argues deserves our singular attention.

Chapter two surveys the history of biblical interpretation from Early Church to the Reformation; the Reformation to the Enlightenment; and the Enlightenment to mid-twentieth century.

As a teacher I thoroughly enjoyed this helpful historical survey of the Church’s consideration of the Holy Spirit’s relationship to hermeneutics because it also serves as a primer to the field of historical hermeneutics in general. It provides a needed supplement to most textbooks in hermeneutics. Wyckoff conducts an overview of the major schools of biblical interpretation, their major figures and a succinct statement of their contribution to the field. Students will especially appreciate the summaries that appear after each historical period and the author’s conclusions at the end of the chapter. He lingers over major figures such as Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Schleiermacher, Barth etc. to highlight their specific contributions to hermeneutics and specifically how they related the Spirit to a believer’s understanding of Scripture. Numerous choice quotes from the early Church Fathers and theologians demonstrate their high view of Scripture owing to their conviction of its divine origin and inspiration. It is this theological conviction which naturally led to their hermeneutical consideration of how the Holy Spirit continues to function as a mediator of Divine truth through the Scriptures. Nevertheless, while most affirmed this role of the Holy Spirit, some denied or deemphasized it. The author provides sharp insight into why this was so by revealing the theological, philosophical and epistemological presuppositions at work.

The shocking parable of the Good Samaritan provides an example of how the church can be an agent of transformation. In this story from Luke 10, a despised minority person demonstrates God’s love and shows today’s Christians the essence of authentic social transformation.

Image: Romary / Wikimedia Commons.

The story of the Good Samaritan is one of the best-known and best-loved of Jesus’ parables. For many it has become the story of the archetypal good guy who unselfishly helps a stricken stranger. What is more, he does so at great personal expense and inconvenience and without the prospect of getting anything in return. To be sure the above portrayal is there, but the story is much more than that. In fact, beneath the story is a paradigm of how God wants those in His kingdom to affect their world.

A Lawyer’s Bold Question

The Lawyer’s Astute Answer, But Hidden Motive vv. 27-29

Without hesitation (I imagine), the lawyer quotes two verses that summarize the heart of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments: “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength, and with all your mind’ [Deut. 6:5]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” [Lev. 19:17]. His answer actually distills Israel’s covenantal responsibility to two all-encompassing principles of the Torah, i.e., to love God supremely and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus can hardly find fault with this answer. After all, on another occasion, the Pharisees asked Jesus to identify the greatest commandment in the Law, and he answered with the same two scriptures adding, “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (See Matt. 22: 37-40). Consequently, Jesus affirms the correctness of his answer and says, “Do this and you will live.”⁴ Nevertheless, the answer raises the fundamental dilemma for a Jew. Under the Law, the covenant responsibility of loving God is inseparable from loving ones neighbor as oneself. Jewish teachers tended to identify “neighbor” with “fellow countryman” (i.e., Israelite).⁵ However, the broader context of Moses’ instruction was given to all the congregation of Israel (Lev. 19:2) and dealt with how they were to conduct themselves as a “holy” people. This included how they were to treat the “stranger” (v. 10) in the land. The lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?” is really asking, “To whom do I owe that covenantal love Moses spoke about?”

The power of personal faith in Christ changing people and society around them. A study in Luke 19:1-10 by James D. Hernando.

Zacchaeus by Niels Larsen Stevns / Wikimedia Commons.

The story of Zacchaeus is one of the most intriguing in Luke’s gospel—a literary masterpiece filled with vivid imagery, drama, and biting irony. It is the story of the conversion of an arch villain in Jewish society who has a transforming encounter with the Lord. But it also offers marvelous insight into how the church transforms society one converted sinner at a time.

Enter the Villain

Luke quickly opens his story by introducing the main character in the briefest fashion. However, English readers seldom catch the innuendo of the Greek syntax. “There was a man called by name Zacchaeus.” Luke is undoubtedly calling attention to the man’s name, which is derived from the Hebrew root¹ meaning “pure” or “acquitted one.” The irony leaps out from Luke’s pen with the ensuing words, “and he was a chief tax collector.” Tax collectors (Gk. telonai) were locals hired by cities and towns to collect taxes for the Romans. Zacchaeus was a “chief” tax collector (Gk. architelones), which meant he probably had supervision over a region and number of tax collectors. Luke’s words “and he was rich” would certainly not go unnoticed by Jews in Jesus’ day. The privilege of collecting taxes was offered at a steep price and those who held that job set tax rates that often exceeded by far any quotas demanded by Rome. While tax-collectors had no authority to confiscate funds or property, they held great leverage over the people as they could exact severe penalties by reporting tax delinquency to the Romans. This they often did whether the charge were true or not.² And so here Luke presents an arch villain who is ironically named. He was anything but someone of pure or blameless character; he was, in fact, the exact opposite of his name. Keep in mind also that “tax-collectors” were notorious for their corruption and the mere mention of their profession aligned them with “sinners.” (See Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:15f; Luke 5:30).

The Action of Zacchaeus

In this article, Professor James Hernando is sure to challenge you with the urgency and mandate of prophetic preaching.

But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words.

“For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says, ‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams; Even on My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth My Spirit And they shall prophesy’” (Acts 2:14-18).

What “Pentecostal” minister has not heard, read or preached from the above passage countless times? And yet what does it mean to the average believer in our churches except that we speak in tongues and believe that the gifts of the Spirit are for today? Look closely at Peter’s words and you can detect a special emphasis. The words in capital letters are those from Joel 2:28-29, but the quote does not include the final words of Acts 2:18, “And they shall prophesy.” Those words are added by Peter, repeating the words “shall prophesy” from v. 17 for emphasis.¹