to modern biblical studies, including claims about the nature of Scripture
itself, the location of biblical interpretation within the Spirit-formed com-
munity, and the need to attend to the voice of the Holy Spirit in biblical
interpretation. With these emphases, we have moved a country mile away
from the twin concerns of modern critical study, autonomy and distantia-
tion, yet fi nd ourselves very much at home in a tradition that has as a core
identity marker the person and work of the Holy Spirit dynamically pres-
ent among God’s people.
The signifi cance of these last two points should not be passed over
lightly. They can serve as milestones by which to measure the chasm sepa-
rating critical biblical studies from a Pentecostal hermeneutics of Scripture.
Why is this important? Those milestones can easily be experienced as mill-
stones around the necks of Pentecostal scholars seeking recognition and
respect qua scholars. Simply put, given its accredited status, legitimated
by its longevity and authorized by powerful cultural forces associated with
modernity, scientifi c study of the biblical materials is standard operating
procedure for many, so that a real danger facing biblical scholars in the
Pentecostal tradition is that they will be wooed by the promise of respect-
ability offered by institutions built on and supported by scientifi c exegesis.
In the face of such a temptation, as with other temptations, the appropri-
ate response is that offered by Jesus: “Get behind me, Satan” (Mark 8:33,
CEB); or by James, his brother: “Resist the devil” (Jas 4:7, CEB). What
Thomas and Archer demonstrate is the wisdom and promise of framing
a Pentecostal hermeneutic by working from within the Pentecostal tradi-
tion. To borrow from another context a well-turned phrase from Gustavo
Gutiérrez, “we drink from own wells,” 12 that is, whatever else they are
and do, Pentecostal hermeneuts should be Pentecostal. At their best,
Pentecostal hermeneuts identify both how they are infl uenced and how
they ought to be infl uenced in their reading of Scripture by their particular
theological tradition and ecclesial life.
THREE CONCERNS
Having sketched a Pentecostal hermeneutic within the larger mural por-
traying the contemporary emergence of theological interpretation of
Scripture, I want briefl y to raise three areas of concern, each of which,
admittedly, derives from my theological location as a Wesleyan: (1) what
role to give the church’s tradition in our interpretive work, (2) the signifi -
cance of formation in relation to an ecclesially located interpretation of
166 J.B. GREEN