Reviewed by: The Reformation of Prophecy: Early Modern Interpretations of the Prophet and Old Testament Prophecy by G. Sujin Pak Timothy J. Wengert The Reformation of Prophecy: Early Modern Interpretations of the Prophet and Old Testament Prophecy. By G. Sujin Pak. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. xii + 376 pp. Sujun Pak, professor at Duke University, is both student and successor to David Steinmetz, in whose memory she dedicates this book. In it she expands upon her earlier analysis of the "Judaizing Calvin" to look at the understanding of prophecy among Protestants and at their interpretation of the Hebrew prophets. She first traces the early application of prophecy to the priesthood of all believers by Luther and Zwingli before showing how prophecy (especially as described in New Testament texts) becomes associated with the office of preaching/teaching and the proper interpretation of scripture. She points out that Protestant exegetes entertained two interpretations of the word"prophet" as either an interpreter of scripture or a foreteller of future events. In the second part (chapters 6–8), she looks specifically at different approaches to the interpretation of Old Testament prophets, distinguishing three different possibilities: Luther (and later Lutherans), who emphasized the apocalyptic and oriented many prophecies to Christ's first coming; Zwingli and Oecolampadius (and later Zurichers), who emphasized the single covenant that bound the Testaments together while not gainsaying literal Christological interpretations; and Calvin and his followers, who viewed the text as containing metaphors that by analogy could apply to Christ but signaled God's providential protection for the church (i.e., believers of all ages). Throughout, this book has many helpful insights into the nature of Reformation churches and the consequent confessionalization of biblical interpretation. [End Page 216] Despite helpful discussion of these fascinating interpretive issues, some matters deserve more attention, expansion, or correction. In her introduction of pre-Reformation discussion of the issue of prophecy, Pak misses the opportunity to include the medieval Ordinary Gloss and Nicholas of Lyra's Postil on the Bible in her discussion. Given how widely the reformers debated the definition of prophecy and given their familiarity with the Gloss and Lyra, comments on the Ephesians 4 text would have shown Pak exactly how the tradition had already merged the two definitions of prophecy, so that Ambrosiaster's insistence (cited in the Gloss) that prophets were "explainers of Scripture" was set next to examples of prophets (notably Agabus) who predicted the future (as Lyra insisted). Even more problematic is the treatment of Lutheran exegetes. Had Pak concentrated only on the developing Reformed interpretive tradition, she could have simply called upon Wittenberg's exegetes to back up her careful investigations of Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin, among others. Instead, her handling of Luther and later Lutherans is sometimes superficial. For example, the influence of the so-called priesthood of all believers, while central for Zwingli, played a much less well-defined role in Luther so that, even in his earliest comments, he never undermined his high regard for the pastoral (and, thus, prophetic) office. Her description of Melanchthon as a "second generation" exegete is completely mistaken. Although Bullinger and Calvin often disagreed with Melanchthon on a variety of issues, they held him to be among the earliest Wittenberg theologians rather than with later interpreters. When Reformed theologians read and used Melanchthon, they clearly viewed him as in the first generation of Wittenberg interpreters. In her careful description of the reformers' interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14, she not only misdates the publication of Melanchthon's 1551 notes on 1 Corinthians (it occurred in 1561, the year after he died), but she also neglects his earlier annotations of 1522, where he simply begins by announcing that "prophet" means "teacher," a point that actually would have added nuance to her argument. Her apparent unfamiliarity with Peter Fraenkel's Testimonia Patrum (1961), which is still the best work on Melanchthon's hermeneutics (and not just his view of the church [End Page 217] fathers), is unfortunate, as is her narrow use of commentaries for Melanchthon. Since Melanchthon wrote few works on the prophets, one might imagine that he was only tangentially involved in some disputes. However, his correspondence reveals that...