Peter's Use of Joel 2 in Acts 2 in Dispensationalism: Analogy or Partial Fulfillment?

Introduction

One of the most discussed passages in dispensational hermeneutics is Peter's use of Joel 2:28–32 in his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:14–21). When Peter declared "this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel," what did he mean? Was the prophecy fulfilled? Partially fulfilled? Or merely illustrated?

This question has divided interpreters—including dispensationalists themselves. Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) has been frequently criticized by some traditional dispensationalists (TDs) for affirming a partial or inaugurated fulfillment of Joel 2 in Acts 2. The PD reading is sometimes accused of compromising the dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church, or of importing "already/not yet" categories foreign to a consistent literal hermeneutic.

But here is the surprising fact: when one actually surveys the history of dispensational interpretation, a remarkable number of traditional dispensationalists have held essentially the same position as PD on this text. They have argued, in plain and explicit terms, that Pentecost was a partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy and that the rest awaits the eschatological future. They have simply not used the technical label "already/not yet."

In other words, what PDs articulate with one vocabulary, many TDs have articulated with another—but the substance is the same.

This article will (1) lay out the three main interpretive options on Joel 2 in Acts 2, (2) present the PD position with its representative spokesmen, and (3) demonstrate that the so-called PD distinctive of "initial/partial fulfillment" is in fact widely shared among traditional dispensationalists.

Three Approaches to Joel 2 in Acts 2

Broadly, interpreters have taken one of three approaches:

1. No fulfillment, partial or total. Peter is only drawing an analogy or illustration; nothing of Joel's prophecy was actually fulfilled at Pentecost.
2. Partial / inaugurated fulfillment. Part of Joel's prophecy began to be fulfilled at Pentecost (especially the Spirit's outpouring), while the cosmic signs and the Day of the Lord remain future. This is the PD position—and, as we will see, the position of many TDs.
3. Complete fulfillment. Joel 2 was entirely fulfilled in the events surrounding Pentecost and/or AD 70. The NT effectively reinterprets Joel and transfers Israel's promises to the Church. This is the view of preterists, covenant theologians, and reformed interpreters like Stott, Matthew Henry, and Kenneth Gentry.

View 1: No Fulfillment—The Strict Analogy View

Some traditional dispensationalists insist that Peter was not claiming any fulfillment of Joel at all. The "great prophecy of Joel" awaits a future, literal, national fulfillment for Israel; what happened at Pentecost was simply similar to what Joel described.

Arno C. Gaebelein put it sharply:

“

"Careless and superficial expositors have often stated that Peter said that all this happened in fulfillment of what was spoken by Joel. He did not use the word fulfilled at all. Had he spoken of a fulfillment then of Joel's prophecy, he would have uttered something which was not true, for the great prophecy of Joel was not fulfilled on that day." (A. C. Gaebelein, The Acts of the Apostles: An Exposition)

Thomas Ice argues similarly:

“

"Joel was speaking of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the nation of Israel in the last days. However, there was one point of similarity, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, resulting in unusual manifestations. Acts 2 does not change or reinterpret Joel 2, nor does it deny that Joel 2 will have a literal fulfillment when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on the whole nation of Israel. It is simply applying it to a New Testament event because of one point of similarity." (Thomas Ice, in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Willis and Master, 40)

In another essay Ice presses the same point:

“

"A close look at Peter's reference to Joel is not that of fulfillment (the word 'fulfill' is not used in Acts 2), but one of similarity ('this is that,' i.e., like that in Acts 2:16) between the working of God's Spirit in the future—as noted in Joel—and what the Holy Spirit was doing in starting the church." (Thomas Ice, Peter's Quotation of Joel in Acts 2)

Charles Lee Feinberg agreed:

“

"That fact alone does not constitute a fulfillment. In the first place, the customary formula for a fulfilled prophecy is entirely lacking in Acts 2:16. And even more telling is the fact that much of Joel's prophecy, even as quoted in Acts 2:19–20, was not fulfilled at that time… The best position to take is that Peter used Joel's prophecy as an illustration of what was transpiring in his day and not as a fulfillment of this prediction." (Charles Lee Feinberg, The Major Messages of the Minor Prophets)

Hixon and Fontecchio summarize the view well:

“

"The prophetic events quoted by Peter, from Joel 2:28–32, clearly did not happen on the day of Pentecost. The events were similar, but not the same… Peter was not testifying that the events on the day of Pentecost were the fulfillment of Joel 2. Instead, Peter was telling the crowd at Jerusalem, 'Do not be surprised that God is moving in this way… because look at the promise from Joel that God will yet one day accomplish. This is not the fulfillment of it, but the teaching of Joel instructs us that this type of ministry of the Holy Spirit is possible.'" (J. B. Hixon and Mark Fontecchio, What Lies Ahead)

Thomas Constable concludes similarly:

“

"Peter seems to have been claiming that what God had predicted through Joel for the end times was analogous to the events of Pentecost. The omission of 'fulfilled' here may be deliberate in order to help his hearers avoid concluding that what was happening was the complete fulfillment of what Joel predicted. It was similar to what Joel predicted." (Constable, Notes on Acts, 2:16)

This is the position from which the PD reading of Joel 2 is most frequently criticized. The underlying concern is that any concession of "partial fulfillment" risks ceding ground to non-dispensational interpretations and undermining a consistent literal hermeneutic.

The Progressive Dispensational Position

PDs argue something more modest than complete fulfillment but more substantive than mere analogy. They contend that Joel's prophecy began to be fulfilled at Pentecost (the Spirit's outpouring), while other aspects (the cosmic signs, the day of the Lord) remain future.

Michael Vlach exemplifies this view, classifying the use of Joel 2 in Acts 2 as a form of literal prophetic fulfillment—simply a literal partial fulfillment (Michael Vlach, The Old in the New).

Darrell Bock states the PD position with characteristic clarity:

“

"A careful study of the use of Joel in Acts 2 shows that 'this is that' is not 'this is all of that' or 'this is like that;' the meaning rather, is 'this is the beginning of that,' since the cosmic signs of Joel 2 are not fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus." (Darrell L. Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church)

And again:

“

"The citation in Acts 2 on Spirit outpouring and the last days is not in reference to something like what Joel 2 predicts but is that. This is identification, not comparison. The fact that this is fulfillment, and last day fulfillment at that, is the basis for the point of application in 2:36. Israel can know Jesus is Lord and Christ because this designated outpouring signifies the last times have come (Lk 3:16 with 24:49 and Acts 1:4–5 and Peter's intentional explanatory change to last days in Acts 2:17). It is called the promise of the Father (and that must be from the Hebrew Scripture). It also is Messiah's gift of the Spirit to his people in line with the new covenant work established by his death on the cross." (Darrell L. Bock, "A Progressive Dispensational Response," in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, 238–39)

Robert Saucy makes the same case:

“

"A natural interpretation of both the prophecies and the events of Pentecost leads easily to the conclusion that the first part of the prophecies concerning the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit had been inaugurated (Acts 2:17–18)—messianic days had arrived. But it is difficult to see the great cosmic events described in verses 19–20 connected to the coming of the day of the Lord as fulfilled by the phenomena on Pentecost. Moreover, these same cosmic phenomena are several times associated with the return of Christ in glory with effects of dismay and fear upon the people, which are not seen at Pentecost (see Matt 24:29; Mark 13:24–25; Luke 21:25–26)." (Robert L. Saucy, "The Progressive Dispensational View," in Perspectives on Israel and the Church)

And further:

“

"Peter's statement that 'this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel' (v. 16) clearly indicates that he understood what had just happened as a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy of the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit." (Robert L. Saucy, same source)

In short, PDs read Acts 2:17–18 as the beginning of fulfillment, with Acts 2:19–20 still future. Critics within traditional dispensationalism sometimes call this a betrayal of literal, futurist eschatology. But is it really?

Walter C. Kaiser:

“

"All interpreters know that Pentecost took care of only the first two verses in that prophecy, and that only to an initial degree." (Walter C. Kaiser, Back Toward the Future)

The Surprising Convergence: Traditional Dispensationalists Who Read Joel 2 the Same Way

Here is where the irony emerges. A long line of traditional dispensationalists has articulated exactly the same position—that part of Joel 2 was fulfilled at Pentecost and part remains future—without ever using the label "already/not yet." But in substance, the view is identical.

Charles Swindoll:

“

"Peter pointed to the beginning of an outpouring, not its completion. Peter claimed that this particular Pentecost marked the beginning of a new era that would ultimately lead to all living people receiving the Holy Spirit." (Charles Swindoll, Acts 2:17–21)

John MacArthur:

“

"The complete fulfillment of Joel's prophecy awaits the coming of the millennial kingdom. On the Day of Pentecost, and indeed throughout the church age, God has given both a preview and a sample of the power the Spirit will release in the kingdom. Believers in the present age have a foretaste of kingdom life." (John MacArthur, Acts 1–12)

Notice MacArthur's language: "preview," "sample," "foretaste." This is, in substance, an already/not yet hermeneutic in everything but name.

Stanley Toussaint, in the Bible Knowledge Commentary, writes:

“

"This clause does not mean, 'This is like that'; it means Pentecost fulfilled what Joel had described. However, the prophecies of Joel quoted in Acts 2:19–20 were not fulfilled. The implication is that the remainder would be fulfilled if Israel would repent." (Toussaint, BKC, 1985, 358)

Toussaint here explicitly rejects view 1 ("this is like that") and affirms partial fulfillment with future completion. This is precisely what PDs say.

Mal Couch is even more direct:

“

"This does not mean that the church is replacing Israel, but rather, that the prophesied covenant has begun, and it will have its ultimate fulfillment among the Jewish people in the future kingdom. Presently, the church benefits from this covenant but is not fulfilling it." (Mal Couch, in Hindson, Exploring Bible Prophecy)

Steven Ger:

“

"What Peter appears to have been declaring is that, in a limited sense, the 'spigot' of the Holy Spirit had been opened. The Pentecost experience was merely a 'down payment' on Joel's prophecy, a 'taste' of God's future blessings; a foretaste of the eventual outpouring of the Spirit upon all Israel." (Steven Ger, The Book of Acts)

The Moody Bible Commentary on Acts 2:14–21:

“

"Though debatable, it seems best to interpret the day of Pentecost as only a partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy—'an already, not yet' kind of fulfillment. The division between 'the already' and 'not yet' comes between vv. 18 and 19. The gift of the Spirit marked the beginning of the Holy Spirit's work, but not the complete fulfillment of the events at the day of the Lord." (Marty, Moody Bible Commentary, Acts 2:14–21)

Strikingly, this thoroughly traditional dispensational commentary not only affirms the PD position; it uses the actual phrase "already, not yet."

Larry Pettegrew, of The Master's Seminary, similarly affirms an initial fulfillment:

“

"After His ascension, Christ inaugurated the New Covenant by pouring out the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost… Peter insists, that in initial fulfillment of the promised Holy Spirit, Christ, 'having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, … poured forth this which you both see and hear' (Acts 2:33)." (Larry D. Pettegrew, "The New Covenant," Master's Seminary Journal 10:2 (Fall 1999) 266)

William MacDonald, in the widely circulated Believer's Bible Commentary:

“

"Actually, the events of Pentecost were not a complete fulfillment of Joel's prophecy… But what did happen at Pentecost was a foretaste of what would happen in the last days, prior to the great and awesome day of the LORD." (William MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary, Acts 2:16–19)

Zane Hodges, a stalwart of free-grace traditional dispensationalism:

“

"A fulfillment of Joel's words about the outpouring of the Spirit is one feature of this passage. However, it appears that Joel's prophecy about signs and wonders is not fulfilled here (or anywhere else in Acts either). For that matter, this prophecy has never yet been fulfilled… Part of Joel's prophecy had just taken place. Would the rest very shortly be fulfilled as well?… What we now can see is the nearly 2,000-year hiatus between the words of Joel's prophecy given in Acts 2:17–18, and those given in verses 19–20." (Zane C. Hodges)

A Brief Note on the Third View: Complete Fulfillment

For the sake of completeness, the third option—total fulfillment—is held mainly outside dispensational circles. John Stott writes:

“

"We must be careful not to requote Joel's prophecy as if we are still awaiting its fulfilment, or even as if its fulfilment has been only partial, and we await some future and complete fulfilment." (John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts)

Matthew Henry holds that the prophecy was fully accomplished, with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 marking the "great and notable day of the Lord":

“

"This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; it is the accomplishment of that, it is the full accomplishment of it… The destruction of Jerusalem, which was about forty years after Christ's death, is here called that great and notable day of the Lord, because it put a final period to the Mosaic economy." (Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible)

Preterist Kenneth Gentry concurs:

“

"In Acts 2:16ff [Peter cites Joel 2 to interpret these AD 30–70 events]… Preterism refers to that understanding of certain eschatological passages which holds that they have already come to fulfillment." (Kenneth L. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 1997, 162–163)

This third position is, of course, incompatible with any form of dispensationalism, traditional or progressive, because it dissolves the future for national Israel.

A Terminological Disagreement, Not a Substantive One

What emerges from this survey is striking. Within dispensationalism, the genuinely contested choice on Joel 2 in Acts 2 is between views (1) and (2)—between "no fulfillment, only analogy" and "initial/partial fulfillment with future completion." Both views safeguard a future, literal, eschatological fulfillment of Joel for national Israel. Both reject view (3).

And the "already/not yet" terminology used by PDs is not unique to them. As we have seen:

• The Moody Bible Commentary uses the exact phrase "already, not yet."
• MacArthur uses "preview," "sample," and "foretaste."
• Ger uses "down payment" and "foretaste."
• Pettegrew uses "initial fulfillment."
• Kaiser speaks of fulfillment "to an initial degree."
• Toussaint, MacDonald, Hodges, Couch, and Swindoll all explicitly affirm that part of Joel was fulfilled at Pentecost while part remains future.

This means the criticism that PD's "already/not yet" reading of Joel 2 is a dangerous innovation simply does not survive contact with traditional dispensational literature itself. Many TDs hold the same position—they just describe it with different words.