Intertexture Analysis of Acts 2: The Divine Empowerment of Leaders in Early Christianity

 
Abstract
This intertextual analysis will examine the social-rhetorical use of Joel 2 in Luke’s depiction of Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost. This will be accomplished by comparing and contrasting Acts 2 with the intertext in Joel 2. Moreover, by examining Luke’s additions to the text we understand what Joel was communicating to his addressees, what Peter was asserting to his onlookers, and what Luke was attempting to highlight to his intended audience. Additionally, by comparing Acts 2:18 with Joel 2:29 and by examining Psalm 16 and Psalm 110:1 this paper will accentuate an understanding of how New Testament writers use Prophecy by means of social-critical analysis. This paper will conclude with an examination of leadership empowerment and how Luke’s depiction of empowered leadership relates to contemporary concepts of leadership models.








 
The Intertexture Context of Acts 2
Finley (1990) stated on the day of Pentecost Peter stood up to explain to a skeptical crowd exactly what had happened to the Christians [referencing the out pouring of the Holy Ghost]. In doing so, he cited the text of Joel with various changes. Peter had no hesitation about connecting the two texts, but numerous questions arise because the passages do not completely overlap in their contextual meaning. Socio-Rhetorical criticism will be the model used to interpret his intentions. Gasque (1989) stated, “In the words of Ernst Haenchen: By telling the history of apostolic times through many individual stories, the book [of Acts] primarily intends to edify the churches and thereby contribute its part in spreading the Word of God farther and farther, even to the ends of the earth” (p. 304). Most scholars agree that the book of Acts is a historical treatise based upon Luke’s preface in the gospel of Luke 1:1-4.
In comparing Luke-Acts to other historical works of literature he adds, “Prefaces to historiographical works included the conventional topoi of “the praise of history, the claim of impartiality and the permanent value of the subject.” Desilva stated, “The ancient reader of Acts would probably have understood this work as a piece of historiography. Moreover, Desilva (2010) suggested, “Other features shared by Luke-Acts with ancient historiography include “synchronisms” such as the ones found in Luke 3:1-2, the use of the genealogy of Jesus in ascending order back to an illustrious ancestor, which is typical of Greco-Roman histories, the use of summary statements and opportunities to effect smooth transitions between narratives, and an interest in how murky divine oracles worked themselves out in actual history. Desilva (2010) determined, “Acts would probably best be considered a monograph on the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, since this stream of events holds together the whole and is programmatically announced (Acts 1:8) and presented as the outworking of divine oracles at various points in the narrative (e.g., Acts 15:14-18) (Desilva, 349 – 350). Witherington (1998) concludes the contextualization by stating, Acts recounts for us in episodic fashion some of the events of importance for early Christianity that transpired between 30 and 60 BCE (p. 79).
Comparing Acts 2: 17 with the Intertext in Joel 2:28
In comparing Acts 2: 17 with the intertext in Joel 2:28 we see that Acts 2: 17 recites words from Joel written "with some additions and changes." In Acts, Peter’s rendition of Joel’s prophecy is longer. For instance, the clause, And they shall prophesy, and the phrase, AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW, are not even included in the original prophetic declaration by Joel. These two embellishments add length to Peter’s rendering of the Old Testament prophecy. Moreover, in Joel 32b a statement of explanation indicated by the literary connective For, which is followed by a sentence of explanation that Luke does not include in Peter’s speech to his Jewish audience.
Additionally, the sequence of verses in Acts is altered from their original sequence in Joel; the two phrases Your old men will dream dreams and Your young men will see visions are inverted in Acts. Furthermore, the clause in Joel It will come about after this rewritten by Luke as AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS. Luke also adds the preference God says to the end of the rewritten phrase as well. DuPont (1964) indicated Luke, the writer of Luke-Acts, is not satisfied with transcribing his sources; he rewrites the text by putting the imprint of his vocabulary and his style everywhere (p. 166). Regarding Luke’s uses of the OT in Luke-Acts Witherington (1998) stated, “It is fair to say that Fitzmyer’s conclusion represents a rather broad consensus when he says, “ in [the] forty-five examples of OT quotations introduced explicitly by formulas …in no case is there a citation that follows the Hebrew MT rather than the Greek, when the latter differs from the Hebrew…Luke quotes the OT almost always in a form either corresponding to the LXX or close to it, and not according to the Hebrew MT (p.123).
Luke’s Additions to the Text
There is a change from "then afterward" in Joel 2 to "in the last days it will be" in Acts 2. Regarding Joel’s use of “then afterward” Finley (1990) stated Joel uses a striking expression to place the second part of his book in a later age. Finley (1990) stated this statement often introduces new prediction in the prophetic books: Jeremiah (46:26; 49:6) uses “then afterward” to refer to a time when the Gentile nations will be brought under God’s blessing. Finley (1990) cites Hos. 3:5 as a parallel passage: It refers to a time “afterward” when Israel will “return and seek Yahweh their God and David their king,” and the parallel phrase in the same verse mentions “the last days”.
Parsons (2008) commented the Joel citation has been modified by the addition of several significant terms and phrases that this new community itself is an eschatological sign underscored by the change from the rather nondescript “after these things” in the LXX text of Joel to in the last days (2:17). The Pentecost event is recast here as one of those wonders and signs (2:19) that will precede the coming of the great and marvelous day of the Lord (2:20). Finley (1990) argues “In the last days” may refer to a variety of events: in Gen. 49:1 it looks simply to Jacob’s future and according to 1 Pet. 1:20-21 the “last days” began with the first coming of Christ, Peter’s citation of Joel proves a further connecting link between the earlier prophecy and the events of Pentecost. Therefore, Finley (1990) argued Peter interpreted Joel’s “after this” as being “in the last days”.
Comparing Acts 2:18 with Joel 2:29
In comparing Acts 2:18 with Joel 2:29 Finley (1990) stated Acts has “upon My servants and upon My maidservants,” whereas MT has “the servants and the maidservants.” The Acts passage implies that the recipients of the Spirit are the Lord’s servants. This does not contradict Joel’s statement and is a legitimate extension of his general teaching. Witherington (1998) adds this Pentecost must be seen as an end-time event.
Notice also the addition of “my” to the LXX text in v.18, which turns “servants” into “my servants,” making them servants of God, not merely persons of low social status. Parsons (2008) adds the Christian prophet, Peter, stands in direct continuity with the prophet of old, Joel, who stands directly in line with God who is, we learn, the speaker The Word of the Lord is directly from God. This point is underscored by the next Lukan addition to the quotation at the end of 2:18: and they will prophesy. Stott (1990) adds this seems to be an umbrella-use of the verb ‘to prophesy’. That is the universal gift (the Spirit) will lead to a universal ministry (prophecy). If in its essence prophecy is God speaking, God making himself known by his Word, then certainly the Old Testament expectation was that in new Covenant days the knowledge of God would be universal, and the New Testament authors declare that this has been fulfilled through Christ.
The Social Intertexture of Acts 2:18
Trail (2001) stated among Greek women, only the immoral went unveiled. The veil was a sign of subjection to one’s husband. If the woman wore no veil it would bring disgrace on him. The veil was not worn until a woman was married—once married she could not go out without being properly covered. To do so disgraced her husband and he could use it as grounds for divorce. The veil was recognition of the authority of the man over her. It is possible that Luke was giving perspective to his audience in the letter without directly usurping social order. Yes, the husband had authority over his wife, yet because she is also filled with the spirit and had the gift of prophesying she should not be considered inferior to her husband, but she should also be recognized as a sister in Christ.
A Distinction in Acts 2:19-21 with Joel 2
Witherington (1998) stated perhaps we are meant to think of the signs “below” (blood, fire, thick smoke) as relating to the death of Jesus and the fire of the Spirit coming down on the disciples, but that still leaves v. 20 unaccounted for. More likely we should simply see vv. 19-20 as references to the final eschatological events before the end, and thus we are being told that the coming of Spirit is an eschatological event, indeed the inauguration of those end times, with more events to follow. Finley (1990) stated Peter stressed that God had performed “miracles and wonders and signs” through Jesus while He was present on earth “wonders and signs” being the same words Peter cited from Joe’s prophecy. Parsons (2008) stated the further additions of about and below are needed to complete the parallelism that the narrator has introduced with the additions of “signs.”
The phrase “wonders and signs” or “signs and wonders" is a refrain throughout the first half of Acts. Notice the recontextualization of Joel 2:28, "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" in Acts 2:33. Finley (1990) stated the extension of the promise of the Spirit to Gentiles was something new, but it was not inconsistent with Joel’s vision. As Paul would explain later, the Gentiles were like a wild olive branch grafted into the cultivated olive tree, which represents God’s chosen people, Israel (Rom. 11:17).
Witherington (1998) stated Peter is also a witness of the coming Spirit, and so he explains in v. 33 that it was the ascended Jesus who was given the promise of the Spirit, and sent it now on Pentecost. The audience themselves could attest to this last fact on the basis of what they had just seen and especially what they had heard. David did not ascend to send such a gift to God’s people. Stott (1990) argued we must be careful not to re-quote Joel’s prophecy as if we are still awaiting its fulfillment, or even as if its fulfillment has been only partial and we await some future and more complete fulfillment.
For this is not how Peter understood and applied the text. The whole Messianic era, which stretches between the two comings of Christ, is the age of the Spirit in which his ministry is of abundance. Kaiser (2001) commented we conclude that the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the last days has received a preliminary fulfillment in the series of events at Pentecost, Samaria, and Caesarea. But those events, and the subsequent baptisms of the Holy Spirit that take place whenever anyone receives Christ as Lord and Savior and is thereby ushered into the family of God, are all mere harbingers and samples of that final downpour that will come in the complex of events connected with Christ’s second return. However, these events—past, present, and future—make up one generic whole concept, for in the prophet’s view there is a wholeness and totality to what he sees.
Who is "the Lord"
In Joel YHWH is Lord (Finley) 1990 stated Joel seemed to be quoting Obad in which he clarifies the speaker with the comment “Just as YHWH says. Witherington (1990) states in some passages one could debate whether Jesus or God is the referent. This sort of ambiguity does not trouble Luke because in his view the terminology is fully appropriate when used of either God or Jesus, not least because she viewed Jesus as a proper object of worship and petitionary prayer. Parsons (2008) argued despite the emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus, this Christological formula has a thoroughly theocentric character. God performed the mighty works and wonders and signs through Jesus (2:22); God destroyed the pains of death and raised Jesus from the dead (2:24).
He went on to say and even though, Peter says to his audience, you crucified and killed [Jesus] by the hands of lawless [Romans], in reality even in Jesus’ death, God is in control: this Jesus was delivered up according to the fixed intention and for knowledge of God. Finley (1990) adds Peter was given new insight when he took the event Joel foresaw and linked it with the beginning of the new age of the Spirit. In other words, Joel saw the end point of the whole process, while Peter fixed his eyes on the onset. Hawkins (2011) stated Peter does not deal with the final fulfillment of Joel 2 in the coming day of national repentance following the signs in the heavens (Joel 2:30-31). These anticipated blessings of this event are dealt with in Joel 3 (chap. 4 in Heb.) (http://bible.org/seriespage/joel-introduction-outline-and-argument).
Intertextualization of Psalm 16
In Psalms 16 Williams says, “This is a prayer of trust for David.” Yet, Williams adds, this was also true of Jesus as a man during His earthly ministry. Kaiser (1980) stated while few commentators have laid much stress on the fact that the title designates David either as the author ("from David") or the one praised in the psalm ("to David"), Franz Delitzsch and E. W. Hengstenberg have listed numerous points of contact between the phrases used in this psalm and other better-known Davidic hymns. Bratcher & Reyburn (1991) argue there is no way of knowing who the psalmist is. P. 139 Craigie (1983) With respect to the initial meaning of the psalm, it is probable that this concluding section should not be interpreted either messianically or in terms of individual eschatology; but it should simply be contextualized for its intended audience.
The acute concern of the psalmist was an immediate crisis and an immediate deliverance (Kaiser et al, 1996, p. 158). In Psalm 4:4[5] David claims that he is Yahweh’s Hasid. Likewise, Psalm 89:19-20 connects David with this term: “Of all you spoke to your Hasid in a vision and said: ‘I have set the crown on a hero, I have exalted from the people a choice person. I have found David my servant [another messianic term] with my holy oil, and I have anointed him [a cognate term for Messiah]’. What else can we conclude but that David and Yahweh’s “Holy One” are one and the same (p. 265)?
Graigie (1983) with respect to its initial meaning is neither messianic nor eschatological in nature. Yet it is apparent that in the earliest Christian community, the psalm was given a messianic interpretation with respect to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (p. 158). Williams (1986) stated David speaks prophetically, beyond his own time and experience, of the messiah to come who will conquer death. The negative assertion in verse 10 means that God will not give the Messiah’s soul to “Sheol”, the place of the dead (p. 128). Sheol was conceived as a kind of underworld; the word is translated as hades.
Graigie (1983) In Sheol, persons were believed to exist in a form of semi-life, at rest, yet not in joy, for they had not the fullness of life which made possible the richness of relationship with the living God. Death was thus to be dreaded. The psalmist feared death, for in the state of Sheol there would be neither memory of God, nor the praise and worship of God (p. 93). Stott (1990) noted David could not have been referring to himself, when he wrote that God would not abandon him to the grave or let his Holy One see decay, because David had died and was buried, and his tomb was still in Jerusalem. Instead, being a prophet and remembering God’s promise to place a distinguished descendant on his throne, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ (pp. 30-31).
Who is the Holy One?
Trull (2004) stated Peter introduced the Psalm 16 quotation with three significant statements about Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. Witherington stated that verse 22 introduces the subject of Jesus, and it is here that Peter begins to go on the offensive. Furthermore, Witherington adds, Jesus was accredited by God in several ways: (1) by deeds of power and wonders and signs God did through Jesus, and (2) by God’s raising him up from the dead, the ultimate divine validation. Notice, as Marshall points out, that the resurrection of Jesus is not argued for, it is simply proclaimed.
Following Peter’s quotation of Psalm 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25-28 he explained that David was speaking not of himself, but of the Messiah (vv. 29-32). Witherington (1998) added as was customary, since David’s name was appended to the psalm it is read as a comment by David, and Peter says David was commenting about Jesus’ experience. In this citation, then, Jesus is said never to lose sight of God even in death. Rather, Jesus’ flesh lived in hope, for God would not abandon his Holy One to the land of the dead or allow him to see corruption.
Trull (2004) suggested Peter made five important declarations that demonstrate the messianic reference in the psalm. First, Peter referred to the presence of David's tomb as proof that David could not have been speaking of his own physical resurrection. Second, David could speak of the future Messiah because David was a prophet. Third, David could speak of the Messiah because the Davidic Covenant involved a messianic hope. Fourth, David had prophetic insight into the future appearance of the Messiah. Fifth, Peter asserted that David spoke of the Messiah's resurrection in Psalm 16, specifically verse 10b. Graigie (1983) added there is a new ground for confidence for all mankind, for the untimely death of Jesus was consummated in resurrection; that resurrection offers hope to all who read the sermons of Peter and Paul, whether their deaths be timely or untimely. The psalmist wrote from a particular experience, and yet his words touched upon the experience of all mortal beings, namely the fear of death. It is a fear which must be controlled confidently if life is to be lived fully, yet it is a fear which can never be controlled absolutely. Yet its sting is removed in the new meaning of Ps 16: the terminal threat of Sheol was conquered in the resurrection of Jesus (p. 159)
Intertexualization of Psalm 110:1
Bateman (1992) stated Of the Psalms the NT used for theological purposes; two of the most prominent were Psalm 2 and Psalm 110. As royal psalms, both coronation hymns were employed in the Christian community to reflect on the identity of Jesus, to affirm the relative status of Jesus as the Davidic king, and to exalt Jesus as the very Son of God. Read Acts 2:32-35 and compare the recitation in 2:34-35 with Ps 110: 1. Bateman, (1992) believed the New Testament is a foundational factor in determining that Psalm 110 is a pre-exilic psalm spoken by David. Additionally, Trull (2004) stated according to Longenecker, Peter linked Psalm 16:8-11 and Psalm 110:1 through gezerah shawah. The two passages were connected through the shared phrase "at my right hand" (έκ δβξών μου). Peter then used them together to support the resurrection. The shared phrase indicated that the two "are to be treated together." Longenecker also holds that Peter used a pesher understanding of Psalm 16:8-11, thus leading to the introduction, "David said concerning him" (Δαυίδ λέγει elç αυτόν). This pesher interpretation allowed Peter to apply the psalm directly to Jesus. Longenecker then says that Peter did not literally interpret Psalm 16, but rather came to a meaning through Spirit-directed midrashic and pesher exegesis.
Luke’s Understating of Divine Empowerment
Luke’s understanding and use of the Old Testament concept of the divine empowerment of leaders to proclaim the legitimate leadership of both Jesus and the apostles was Christologically and Phenomenologically focused. Luke’s hermeneutical process was intended to take Messianic impressions of the Old Testament and with the back drop of the atoning sacrifice of Christ and the outpouring on the Holy Spirit and reinterpret them as accessible certainties to the reader of his writings. Luke’s focus of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit assisted in legitimizing the Old Testament prophetic oracles by recontexualizing them through the redemptive work of Christ.
For Luke the empowered leader was the idea of God for the fulfillment of his plan to “save the world”. We see in Luke-Acts, Luke depicts the Christian leader as empowered and guided by God, which enabled them to overcome the works of the devil for the expansion of the Kingdom. Luke’s intention was to make his readers aware that they were in the last days, and as a result to make them aware of the need of God’s ability, which was accessible by faith. Osborne (2006) stated Luke’s interpretation intend to show that Jesus is the one foretold in Scripture.
As H.G. Wells sated, “this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.” Whether they were Jewish or gentile everyone who put their faith in Jesus received from God the gift of the Holy Spirit. Osborne (2006) stated the important theme of the Holy Spirit inaugurating the witness is seen in the Pentecost sermon of Acts 2:14-36 in which Joel 2:38-32 is used to undergird the outpouring of the Spirit “on all people” (v. 17), and even David spoke “by the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:25). Fitzmyer (1998) suggested that because of Jesus Sacrifice the church was enabled to receive from God the one gift essential for it to fulfill its purpose—empowerment from the Holy Spirit. Luke’s focus on the empowering aspects of the Holy Spirit was intended not only to inspire believers to live above sin but to endow them to overcome the influence of the enemy by means of the Holy Spirit as well. This empowerment also included overcoming the various socio-economic issues that were present at that time as well. This power, according to Luke, is made available in Acts 2:17 to “all people.” The esoteric phenomenon of God’s empowerment was no longer regulated only to the spiritually elite Jew.
Finley (1990) stated The Acts passage implies that the recipients of the Spirit are the Lord’s servants. Yet, the servants of God had a very difficult road ahead of them if they were going to fulfill the Great Commission. Not only would believers face religious opposition, but they would face political, philosophical, financial, and military opposition as well. Empowerment was the key to their success. Luke’s interpretations of the Old Testament are contextualized to draw in the reader and to allow the reader to see how the scriptures touch and affect their own life. Luke consistently draws from the Old Testament and reinterprets them with Jesus Christ actions fulfilling their prophetic implications.
Principles of Leadership Empowerment
Empowerment behaviors refer to leader actions that emphasize the development of follower self-management or self-leadership skills (Pearce et al., 2003). Luke implied that the purpose of receiving the Holy Spirit was to “be witnesses unto the uttermost part of the earth." Like transformational leadership, we see leadership empowerment, by means of the Holy Ghost, motivates followers to work for goals instead of short-term self-interest and for achievement and self-actualization instead of security. (Bass, 1985) For Luke, leadership empowerment is essential in order to fulfill the great command of Christ, which is the vision of God (Matt 28). The empowered leader within the context of Luke contextualization expresses God’s vision by persuading followers to work hard to achieve the goals envisioned.
Bass (1997) stated the empowered leader has the responsibility to point to eternal rewards, which are the result of those who choose to labor for Christ. Like transformational leadership the empowered leader provides the follower with the motivation for hard work that is self-rewarding (internal) not necessarily materialistic. Bass (1997) also added various times Luke depicts Paul’s actions as disrupting social order. The empowered leader similar to the transformational leader will overhaul the entire philosophy, system, and culture of an organization. Bass (1997) remarked the fruit of the empowered leader is a life that is radically transformed by the power of God with a new moral disposition to radically obey the commands of Christ. The transformational leader uses and expounds upon attitudinal, charismatic, and transitive methods of leadership. The empowered leader may adhere to these methods, but ultimately he or she is dependent on the power of God.
Luke depicts the empowered leader as a responsible moral agent whom God entrusts to represent Him and expand the Kingdom of God. There were several aspects of the concept of Stewardship theory that were highlighted within Acts. Barney & Hesterly (2008) the stewardship theory suggests that managers, left on their own, will indeed act as responsible stewards of the assets they control. Luke depicts Paul’s leadership as one whose actions are based on inherent values as well as on those that are contractually induced (Barney & Hesterly, 2008). Moreover, Luke shows the inherent responsibility of being empowered by the Holy Spirit and the consequences of failing to do so. (Acts 13:11) Therefore, we can conclude that the power of God that resides in the empowered believer is to be used for the purposes of God and not for personal gain, which is in itself stewardship.
Conclusion
Ivancevich et al. (2008) stated the measure of effectiveness of leading, that no one is tired of reading and reflecting about, is results achieved. Thus, with this truth as a back drop, modern leadership in its various forms is trying to provide results. Achieving goals is still the goal of modern leadership concepts. Even though the focus of leadership studies is turning its attention to the follower instead of the leader, the fact remains if new concepts do not result in accomplished goals, they will not be considered viable.
Looking at Luke’s depiction of empowered leadership we see hierarchy and centralized leadership. This concept of leadership for the most part is considered outdated in leadership circles. Yet, the fact remains that within the intertextual analysis we see the one truism that exists, which has always existed when gauging effective leadership—results. We see that the empowered leader is the fulcrum for achieved results in the book of acts.
Whether it is by the Holy Spirit’s guidance or through the Holy Spirit’s power; we are consistently made aware that the empowering agent of the Holy Spirit is the occasion for results in Luke’s letters. The contrast between the actions of the disciples before and after the in dwelling Spirit highlights the dynamics of empowered leadership even more. Therefore, it can be deduced that empowered leadership which is only possible by the Holy Spirit is essential for successfully spreading God’s kingdom throughout the world.




 
References
Barney, J. B. & Hesterly, W. S. (2008). Strategic Management and Competitive Advantages. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Bateman, H. W. IV., (1992) "Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament." Bibliotheca sacra 149, no. 596: 438-453. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 26, 2011).
Bass, Bernard M. (1997) “The Ethics of Transformational Leadership.” In Kellogg Leadership Studies Project, Transformational Leadership Working Papers Transformational Leadership Working Papers, The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership.
Bratcher, R. G. & Reyburn, W. D. (1991) A Handbook on: Psalms. United Bible Societies, New York, New York.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. S., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., Halpin, S. M. (2006) What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), pp. 288-307.
Craigie, P. C. (1983). World biblical commentary: Psalms 1-50. Word Books, Waco, Texas.
Dupont, J. (1964). The sources of acts. Herder and Herder, New York, New York.
Finely, T. J. (1990). The Wycliffe exegetical commentary: Joel, Amos, Obadiah. The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Gasque, W. W. (1989). A history of the interpretation of the acts of the apostles. Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Massachusetts.
Kaiser, W. (1980). The promise to David in Psalm 16 and its application in Acts 2:25-33 and 13:32-37. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 23(3), 219-229. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Kaiser, W. C., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F.F., & Braunch, M. T. (1996). Hard sayings of the bible. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
Parsons, M. C. (2008). Commentaries on the new testament: Acts. Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Parsons, M. C. & Culy, M. M. (2003). Acts: A handbook of the greek text. Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas.
Stott, J. (1990). The spirit, the church, and the world. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
Trail, R. (2001). An exegetical summary of 1 corinthians. SIL International, Dallas, Texas.
Trull, G. V. (2004). Peter's interpretation of Psalm 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25-32. Bibliotheca sacra, 161(644), 432-448. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Trull, G. V. (2004). Views on Peter's use of Psalm 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25-32. Bibliotheca sacra, 161(642), 194-214. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Wallace, D. (2003). The use of psalms in the shaping of a text: Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:1 in Hebrews 1. Restoration Quarterly, 45(1-2), 41-50. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Wendy L. Pirie, & Michael K. McCuddy. (2007). A preliminary test of the validity of a proposed intertemporal stewardship theory. Managerial Finance, 33(12), 970-979. Retrieved September 29, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1454350861).
Williams, D. L. (1986). The communicator’s commentary: Psalms 1-72. Word Books, Waco, Texas.
Witherington, B. (1998). The acts of the apostles: A socio-rhetorical commentary. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan.