IETS ss/1 (2012) 65-8s

JAMES'S QUOTATION OF 9 TO SETTLE THE COUNCIL DEBATE IN

J. PAUL TANNER-

I. INTRODUCTION

The book of Acts is the story of the eady chwch in ttansition. Oae of the definhg moments ir1 its transition ftom an initially all-Jewish chwch to a chutch composed of both Jews ard Gentiles occurred at the Jerusalem Cormcil recotded in Acts 15. That Gentiles could become part of the people of God had been accepted eadie! as a result of Peter's ministty in t.l.re home of Comelius (Acts 11:18). Yet there were liogering questions, patticulatly in what would be expected of Gentiles regarding their conduct alrd adherence to Jewish customs. Some Cfuistians of Jewish desceot were ofthe opinion that Gentiles needed to keep the Law aod be citcurncised. In fact, some held that Gentiles could not be saved apait ffom this (Acts 15:1, 5). More "enlightened" Christiarr leaders (such as Paul and Bamabas) strongly obiected to arry attempr to impose such Jewish customs on the Gentiles. Yet the issue was so cofltentious that a summit meeting was needed in |erusalem in order for the senior leaders of the church to make an officiel pronouncement on this subject. This council took place in AD 49, ptobably oot lorg after Paufs fust missionary joumey. At the council, James (the brotler of the I-ord) spoke lasg which seems to reflect that by this time tle eady chwch looked to him as one of its seniot spokesmen, if oot its most ptominent leader (cf. Gal 2:6-9), Wi&James's speech, the debate was setded. Of particulai importance was James's appeal to Amos 9:1.1.-72, as this text gave dre scriptural basis for his argurnent and the resulting decision of the couocil. The Amos quotation fefeis to the rebuilding of David's "booth" (ot hut) and links this with the r€atheting of Gentiles who are known by God's name. This paper will seek to undetstaad the meaning of the Amos quotatiofl in its own cofltexg horrr' tle IXX rendeted the verses into Greek, hdw the NT relates to bodr the MT arrd L)O( and finally &e hermeneutics inwolved and what theological conclusions can be &awn from James's appeal to Anos 9. The use of Amos 9:11-12 ia Acts 15 has been the subject of much discussion in modem theological debate. Covenant theologiaos have understood this as indicative of the church replacing in God's program (replacement theologJr), s/hereas dispensational theologiaos have

' Paul T2nner is Middle East diecrot ofBEE \r7orld,23262 CR 181, Bulldd. TX 75757. 66 JOURNAL OF THE EVI\NGELIC-{L THEOLOGIC.II SOCIETY taaditiooally algued dlat the ftrlfillment of Amos 9:11-12 is not for dre present age but rather in the millenaium when Israel is restored. In this paper, I will seek to ptopose a thitd altemative that avoids what I believe to be the pitfalls of the othet two approaches.

II. THE CONTEXT OF AMOS

In light of dre inroductory information found irr :1, the can be dated about 765-760 BC. The book is primadly coacemed with tle nordrem kingdom of Israel during the years preceding the Assyrian invasion. During the days that Jeroboam II ruled ovet Istae! the land expetienced a ceftain ptosperity and tlanqufity, yet this was but a deceptive veneet over the moral aad spititual wicke&ress of the kingdom. As a rcsult God aonounced drat judgrnent was comiag in the form of foreign invasion and exile ftom tle land (note esp. :25-27;6:7; 7:11). God used the Amos to de.lounce the oatioo's coruptioo ard the leadership behind it, and then to pronouoce the judgment that was soon to fall. The book of Amos teflects a carefi:lly worked literary artistry.l Following a bdef prologue (1:1-2), the book is composed of thtee major sectrons. The fust (1:3-2:16) consists of a seties of judgment otacles against vatious nations, the eighth and linal one being Istael itself. The central section Q:1,4:14), consisting of words of wamiag and woe pronouncemeflts fot Israel is composed of five divisions araoged in a chiastic sttuctute. The final sectlon (:1-9:15) consists of trvo major divisions. The fust (:1-8:3) is a seties of visions to reinforce the notioa tlat judgment will not be forestalled. The second (8:4-9:15) comprises tl.re fina.l coaftontation about judgment upoo the natior, but witl the added note of "salvation"-a feftlaot will be spared and 6.nal restoration is envisioned. Although the thrust of the book is upon the indictrnent and ploflouflcement of judgment upon Israel the topic of Gentiles receives minot attention. In the opening section of the bool t}le sins of six Gentile nations are stuveyed, and punishment is ptoclaimed for them. At the end of the book we find a short but cleat description of Istael's testotation. Included in dris testotation motif, however, is a positive statement about blessing upon Geotiles. Such Gentile blessing is associated with God's raising up the fallen booth/hut of David (Amos 9:11-12). It is this thatJames appeals to in Acts 15.

1 For a detailed presentation of the litetari' stmctue of Amos, see J. Paul 'Ihmer, 'Amos; StnctMl Features of the Book," Supplement to Sesslon Twenty-Three, ar hnp://w.p,ultanner.org, under Old Tesr Notes,Vol. IL JAMES'S QUOTATION OF AMOS 9 67

III. TltE MT OF AMOS 9:11-12 Translation of the MT Hebtew MI rn1ot:l,, I vill nisc up the fal€n booth/hur ofDavjd n)pi1'r11 npq-ns o'py and I will Mll up irs bleaches li't''lF-nts '!_r'ql aod ns tuins I will nisc up Di:,ir t,!bl+ and I will lebuild it ir'4ErJ ,s (h) dr days of old, :Eh9 ?,! 'rh order rh.t thel mighr posr$ the remnant olEdoo blrr nt$r'rN $_r. pd," and/even all the ceircs, E:ij;--tI upon whom IlI name is czl]cd, Eit')! 'Fu, Nli?J,.rgiN declares thc LORD who do€s ihis. :nq ntpl ;rl,nt-El! 1. h that dry. The opening phrase "in t}lat day,, places tle following scene in the indefinite futue., This is often used of a time of judgment, sometimes in regard to the day of the LORD, occasionally in reference to God's testoration worL but at other times as merely ttaositional witl no specific time in view. In the present corrtext, it moves the scene beyond that described in the preceding velses. The pteceding pericope (9:1-10) highlighted the inescapability of God's judgrnent upon Israel at the hands of foreign nations. Their covenaflt status before God would not protect them ftom the impendiog doom. Neverheless a ray of hope was offeted in Amos 9:8, "a.levertheless, I will oot totally desffoy the house ofJacob,, ,temel,, declares the LORD." God would spare a rerrnant (the in v. 9) rvith whom he would eveotually briog about a gtacious iestoratioo. The words "in that day'' advaoce the revelation from God,s oupouting of judgment to tlut futute day when rcstoration begins. 2. The falhn boath of Datid. The restoration commences vith God taising up the fallen booth of David (:'11 n;o). This phrase does flot occut elsewhete in the OT. Rather, this is a metaphorical way (itorrical) of refering to "the house of David," i.e. the Davidic dynasty of kings (e.g. 1 "12:19 Kgs 20,26).'flirs is not so much the kiogdom itself as the kingship that govems the kingdom (oote 1 Kgs 14:7-8), although admittedly one goes wit}l t}le other. God had made a covenant srith David (the Davidic coveflant) promising that one from his seed would have arl eteriral throne and de (2 Sam 7:11b-16). The wod i.rpp commonly refers to a booth for the Feast of Tabemacles, but it can also tefer to a tempoiary sheltei (2 ,.booth Sam 11:11; l Kgs 20:12; lor. 4:5).3In the cofltext ofAmos 9, the of David' looks at t}re dilapidared state of the kingship from Davids Iine ..huC, (rence, it is itoaically described as a "bootH' or rathet than hawing

iFor funhtr discussioo, see Dodas Srurft,.nmos,,, n Hor .Jatuh [xtsC 3\,W^co, TX: Word, 198? 399. I ,tabemacle Some kxflslado.s 1fl Acts 15:16 hrve the ofDavid.,, bur this shoutd noi be mi,u.der",ood r, rhe raoernacli qhse s,tcri6.e. rnd $or.hp rool, pt,(. 68 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAI SOCIETY

the dgnity of a "house'),a This rotion is reinfotced by speaking of it as "fallen." Pdor to Amos's day, the Davidic line of kings had suffered the indigrity of seeing the nation split iflto t}le rorthem aod southem kingdoms in 931 BC. Following Amos's day, the notthem kingdom would go into eile by Assytia Fn/21 Bq and the soutlem kiagdom by Babylon (586 BC). Amos 9:11, however, predicted that in a future day this fallen khgship from Davids line would be faised up, thar is, reestablished and given prominence once again.5 In the rcmainder of verse 11, the metaphor shifts dighdy, so t}tat the Davidic kingship appears as a sttuctwe whose walls and ruins are fepaired and rebuilt. Care should be exercised not to equate this with a literal rebuilding of Jerusalem. The twofold use of o'?g in veise 11 suggess &at the entire verse looks at the restotation of dre kingship, not necessatily a physical rebuilding of a city,6 3- The pnfo.re ckaw: to po$xj Yerse T2begts with the conjunction of pu4rose l!Df, "in order that." According to the MT (which differs considembly from the LXE, t}le pulpose of restoriflg the Davidic kingship is that "they might possess the remoarrt of ." Edom had been tie historic enemy of Istael in the OT.7 In light of the following line ('and aU the nations'), it seems that Edom is used in tl.ris vese as an illustration. Edom repteseoted a nadon once at great eimity with Istael but v,hich in the futute day of the restored Davidic kiagship would have a completely different reJationship. The word "possess" reed not signi$ miiitaty coflquest. Although the word ra1 was often used of Israel defeating the nations of Canaan and taking possession of their terdtories following the exodus from Eg;pt ("s 105:44), *ris type of terminology is

I ,,reftrs Mccomiskey is coffect in concluding rhat the booth to a tude shelter (a 'hut) and pictures the ftouse' of David that was becoming a dilapidated shack. By AmoJs rrrne the Davidic dynasty had falen so lov that it would no longer be cz1led z house,, flhomas E. Mccomrskey. 'Amo. pBC /rGrmd Rapids: Zondeaan. lr8)l ]lrJ. 5 That the promise in Amos 9:11 would 6od tu1fillment in the messjadc Davidic hog was oot uaique to the tust cefltury Chiisriafl comuiry. A document cornposed by a men ber of the qrrDmn cornnuoiq, 4Q Flor eglrm (4eFlor), quotes Amos 9:11 in this regrd. M. Milgrom d2tes this to the earty tust century (,Fiorilegiufl A Midfish on 2 Sarnuet PsaJ-J:rs 1-2," a n Pxhain, Olbel Connenlaner, ad Rr/ated DMneNr Vo]l. 6B ot The Dead Sea Scmk; Hebrea, Annaic, d d Gftek Text! ,,tth Erytirh TranhtiuLr, Lowsttlte Westrniaster John Kno\ 20021 2aD. Qurran document CD 7116 atso quotes Aoos 9:11. 6 The tust persoo si.gular Qal impedect verb fom E i$ only occuft foul olhe! times in the Ol and interesdngty in two ofthese we have n1essj2nic prooises. In Deut 18:18, cod ..Da1,id promises to raise up a prophet oae$iah), and h Jq 30:9 we read of then kmg, vhoo I vifl raise up for them." The verb E pS (.I vifl rarse up,) is very wel suited to the notion of God elevatiry one to the position of ruling as king . ]Fo: a heleFn surey of Edom and the Edomites, see Ke!tredr G. Hoglmd, "Edom ies," n Peo?l$ aJthe OldTertane , World (ed. AEred J. Hoerth, cerald L. Matti,gtn and Ed win M. Yamauchl Grmd Rapids: Bake! 1994) 335-47. Cf. cary v. Smith,lz,i 1A Uent", Comentffr Ros-Shie, UK: Christian Focus, 1998) 380. Hoglund (p. 3a2) notes, .,Orades agahst ryom b

3 One possible exception is Obadiah 17-21. The rulc nu,rnce ..ro cnl . upon Cud.. name ,, eT.e-ed wil}I ,he O,i unDerre., ,,.- oreDo',uon :. as in p. \o. ..rd r. N-Ir ljjrr:r. *" *il .Ai o",lpo" Vorrl tsl-hcrempter.referedroinlKgsS:ar..youfl,meis(,i|]edorerrtx,hou:e :10. Lr. I(r i .l.r. J0:12.J4r !r:t5:2 Lhr {,:J-J. In te, 25:10. s.e roa. lhecjryslx(h,hs .r.r see drc c,,l .f l"-.J.;.";;;,:; r,t. num.can,ao.lr:r Drnq: S i;. 70 JOURNAL OF THE E\TANGELICAI THEOLOGIC,{I SOCIETY

In iight of the usage of this passive construcrion in t}le OT, the point irr Amos 9:12b is that the Gentiles in view are those vrho have the stanrs of being God't peopk, in covenant relation s/ith the LORD (ust as those irt Istael had expedenced). Al&ough we caonot coaclude ftom this that tlre church was ptophesied in Amos 9:12 @ph 31J calls the chuch a "mystery"-1161 pteviously tevealed), from a NT perspective it is easy to Iook back to the OT arrd see the chutch in proleptic fonn.

IV. THE LXX TRANSI-ATION OF AMOS 9:11-12

V{hen we come to an examination of the LXX ttanslation of Amos 9:11-12, we discover a rathet interestiag charge in the text. Fot the most pat! the LXX is a neat-literal renditiofl of the MT, but &e initial line of vetse 12 teads quite diffetendy. Rathet than "in order that they might Possess the iemnalt of Edom" (so lff), we find "in otdet that the test of mankind might seek (the Lord)."tt f6ough the changes irl the text are not difficult to accouot fot, the more pelplexing iss.;rc is how ot wlry the L)O( came to have such a different teading. Mclay s,,tites, \X4rere did this ttanslation come ftom? Is it totall-v due to a theological pont (k en) that dre tianslaror wished to introduce, or did the ttanslator misrcad tl,e Voiage (rhe soutce text from rvhich the transla- tion was made), ot was the souice text for the OG diffetent ftom what we have ilr the 1\'II? tz Most scholats today admit that we have rro certain $/ay of knowing how the LXX came to have this rcading.13 The following chatt helps us to see a comparison of the two texts rJ/e have.

LXX Translation Hebrew l\ilT xrir; ri]1" dvddlrido r,i, qry rirv nEmoruiov h5!ii r'J.r niqn{ o,?N. ^dur6 xdi dvo,{o6ouido id n.noK6rd oiria ti,9l!n| 'i]l.ql {di rn xal.4duuavd diris dvd6,idu E,pt l,IrD_rit! xoi ,ivo, xo6ouiou oiliv ilr')l kdo;q di iua?dL 1o0 di6bs, ,q,'P r bi rx n'},'u-nq lriryl pp}" kdi ndvrd r; iovr, Eiirn-t?r .p oi/ La,..1t_or'o d,o,ro -ou'-'ou.uu,, Eirt! 'pti x:tplq{ riy.r k6pbq ,i e.oq o nortjv rdord. :n$ nlr- 1., nlnt-E$r.

1' In thc lx)a, d1e objecr of the vetb is not speciEed tl manuscript B (Vaticanus). How ever, naouscript A (AlexandnouE docs have rhe vords "r;v xip,ov" Ghe t-rd). In the NT (Acts 15117), rdv (.p,ov is present. 1'zR. 'rimothy Mclay, "The Use of ScriptuJe in the New Testanent," rn Trr Ltue ,/r' Sep'tdgttt i, Netu Te$dnenl R r.zr, (Gland Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 20. 13 I 2m not presumioS L\at thm was only one ffaoslaror behind rhe LXX of Amos. I vin use the singular "translator," though I realize that the L)C( of Amos could easdy have b€en the product of multiple scribcs. J-1\IES'S QUOTATION OF AN'IoS 9 71

1 . Diferenc* ,rith the MT. Setting aside minor vatiatioos, the differences between these two texts are prirnatily three:ra (1) MT\ lUl'l (they will possess) appears in LXX as ir(4riior,totv (they will seet). (2) MTt n'rxu oirl (the remflalt of Edom) appears in LXX as oi xor6trorror -riv &v0pc6mov (the rest of mankind). (3) The patticle ni! in MT Gigfl of the accusative) is not leflected in LXX \X4:rereas "the ternnant ofEdom" in MI functioned as the object of the verb "they will possess," "t}le rest of mankind" in LXX functions as dre subject of the verb "shall seek-" These tluee changes can be explained. Ir'irst, the Greek verb ix(q-irlooorv would appear in Hebrew as llr"l'Jl, so that the difference betweefl "they will possess" 0!rr') and "they will seeli' fu'lll) is slight. We must keep in mind that the Present Hebtew script ia today's printed editions (which actually use the squared off Aramaic letters) would appear differeody than the hand-writteo Hebterv letters used in the post-erilic period (when the LXX was produced). In many of thc older manuscripts predating the time of Christ (pdmadty the Dead Sea Sctolls), the text was flot as clear as we vould wish.ls

1t rtlt\!

I

Second, &e differeoce in Hebtew betweeo "Edom" ald "maflkind" is merely that of a single vowel 'Edom" is written Dlln $ith a hobn-oaw),

1r For a completc list of texrual variaats found rn the LXX trr3utoq see DaodeLin Pft,?hnde, n Se\adg;ntd Vcru Tettanenttn Gruwn A,tai/dt2 Sod*ai! Lifienru1| Coti4qma (Vol. XiII; ed. Ziegler; Gdttngcn: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19.13) 204 5. 15 ve musr also keep in miod that the letter-t / 0) tended to drop down lorver in older manuscripG th2n e-c scc in today's pinted edrtions, makng the difference betwcen theJ"/ rnd tfe /zlrl much lcss ob ous. ]]. .- . .;IE E\"1.NGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

t:: =:rijad" is expressed in Hebrew by some form of E.lr-s,he*ter : iI! 7: (Gefl 7121), oId,I (l\lum 5:6), or in some cases simply o1ry (?s 73:5). When we take into accouot that Hebrew before the time of Christ was wdtten without the vowel pointing, there would have been very little difference between Et'tx and D'tx, Furhemore, even the DSS wimess the fact tlat there was iocoosistent use of the historically lorg vorvels in manusctipts, meaning that the Vorlage of the MT and LXX did not necessadly have the t an]'way (tegardless of s'hich word was intended).16 Herice, E]'iR/E'lx might have been uodetstood as ei&er "Edom" ot "marJ

16The 1is presenr m Amos 9:12 cited in NIS x,ru 88 from eunran (in frasmenraiy

r? Amos 9:12 mal be picking up on rhe exhortation for tsmel to ,.seek the Inrd,, mcn tioned erlie! rn Amos s:4, 6. I!odcal\', rhefl, ccnrles do vhat rsraet was comanded to do. 13 F. F. Btuce vdtes, "In tuning rhe prophetical books from Hebrcv hto creeL rhe tnflslators were qurte readv to confom the rvording to thcir own retigious out- looloro hen,r.e ro,drp. I o/.rrerprcraronshc\ra,ar.efrcdinrhecr.e.rotrlx.h they belonged" ("Prophetic Inre+retauo! in the Septuasint,,, BIO_rC.t 12 t19791 17). Jobes and Silva add, "Since thc Hebreu. presm,ed m the MT is not pafticularh diffictnt. u-c mar. coosider the possibitit_v thit the l)O{ translato! \'hether or not he rnadc 2 mistake in read- ing the Hebrev characters was pnmarily motivated by hcrmeneuticat concerns. Etscwheie in rhe Nfmor (Hos. 9:6t Aoos 2:1t Ob. 17, 19, 20; Mic. 1:15; Hab. 1t6rzech. g:t) thc Hebrew vord ul is rcprcsented with kitpovouao (.,to a1hent,,) ot one of us coqnatei. .uch but a nrderre ma\ hrle apDcared.o rhe rjr'nd"rorie* approf.a-e hcre lRj;en H and Mois€s Silva, L"nddax Jobes ta lha Sqtuagtu,lcmnd R,pidsi B;k;, 2000J 195). The! so on to,s'rggst, "Possib\ inspred b) the paraltet coocepr of,aU the nations,, he [L\e translator] in effect harmoaDed 'Edoo' to the context, an instance of the pan for the whole, that rs, one pagan nation tepresenting all nationJ, (p. 195). JAMES'S QUOTATION OF AN{OS 9 73 the LXX translator might have been inlluenced in his thinking by an eschatological and messiaoic passage such as Isa 11:10: '"|\en h that da) (El'I Rlnn) the ratiottt (Dl\t) wil rerort to (u,.r'!l) the root of]esse, who will stand as a signal for tle peoples; and His resd.rrg place will be glodous." The textual affirides $rith Isa 11:10 are quite sttong (cf. Zech 8:22, "5o many peoples and might:!' atiz s (nl\l) * .come to.rrrk the LoRD of hosts in Jerr-rsalem and to entfeat the favor of the I-oRD').1e As different as the LXX and MT might seem to us whefl rcading an English tanslation, the actual diffetences are not neatly so large. Furthernore when we recognize that the appateflt differences are actually a -niatt way of reading the Hebtew text, and realizing we do not hawe access today to tlre Hebrew Vorlage that statds behind eithet the L)ol or I\,rf, we must conclude that both ttaaslations should be allowed to stand as possible legitimate renderings ofwhat was otiginally intended.zo

v. JAMES'S QUOTATION OF AMOS 9:11-12 IN ACTS 15 When we come to the text of Acts 15:16-18, it is cleat thatJames is essentially quoting ftom the L)O( of Amos 9:11-12. Howevet, there ate nlunefous minot differences betweeo the text of tle I-)(X and the corresponding portion in the NT. The following chart helps to see botl simultaaeously:

1' In the case of Zech 8:22, allhough the Hebrew word for "seek" is not dt:i but uP?, the vords are conceptualy related. lrFor frrther help io uoderstanding hov early Jewish exegesis beated the biblical text, see tuchard Baucklaq "Jancs and the Gefltiles (Acts 15.13-21)," ifl Hn rt), Litentuft, Md Sanet in the Baak aJArb (ed B. \flitheri.gton III; Cambridger Cambridge Universitv Press, 1996) 160 {1. B2uckhm concludes, "The 'misreading' of dr Hebrev text presupposed by the DO( of Amos 9.12 is quite compmble widr many eraoples of deliberate 'altemative readings' (di dqra) in the Qurnran pesharin1. Thus there is not the s[ghtest difficuity io sup poshg that a Jewish Christian exegete, frmilial with the Hebrev text of the but writ g in Greek, should have welcomed the eregerical potentlal of the IJO( text ofAflos 9-12 2s a

legilibate \ray of reading rhe Hebrev text of rhrt ve$e" (p. 1 61). 7,+ JOURNAL OF THE EV,\NGELIC-\I THEOLOGIC,{I SOCIETY

LXX Translation The NT Text: Acts 15:16-18 L6 und &ird &vq@pfuo An{ ine inhs! L I tu dvad"ioo !,i! oxavrlv llP ffioxuiov xqi dvorxoSofioo ilv dKllnv Aqui6 qv n€dokDiqv Iw ftn tplh.EbsBcLof^dul6 Druiddnbsfilla,ndl*inrbuildll bbsMd.of DsvidrhdiEbnm kdi &volxoSoyido td rcrlok6ld dnliiq

kdl !d kqcqqF;ld ditiis dvadido (di !n @.ftdFlrddailriq &vo,xo6oPioo ,idnspGlhd@ddnJdI*inE'up !.di6p.ftl1llffi!dd.y.d]li0dnild xdi dvoLxoSouri.o qilil! kdi dvope.ioo d,hiv,

xoeds di if dpo roi di6vos, KioLov jud a {ir) ine drys ofold tav ,n , 6tus4, oi Koro,\orror rLn! alepntuv "ritus iK(rliooow oi KqtdnomL !6v &vep6tu! i(lqo-orr rh. in ordE rllt rt d of @6id ti!!I s.l I?-' tr ,{"rh. lsdl h rd.r Ibd ln. d ofhFli, Bigij sI Loi (qi tuiwd tdtevn, *di tuiv!( rd ;e!i

iO oi)q aL#dnt( !d dvou6 Fou ir'dn!o,iq, irp'ons aLxdxlrFur td 6vouri sou a'citoJq,

1' l6ya xipbs 6 Osi'q 6 noLdr! tdltq. iEYsL Kiprc( trol(nv lqftq wdddir' di6loi . rlrd rhs, dri€J kffi,m orord ry; l!. r; c.d-h. d"." 6*,ti, *i. 'rt*

The most ctucial verse in regard to tlis study is Amos 9:1'2a., atd tt tlis case both the LXX and the NT have essentially the same text (i.e they do not have a statement about Edom as does the MI). Othetwise, despite rninor vadatioos, dre mote notable differences ate: (1) LXX werse 11 begns with 'in that day," s'hereas NT verse 16 begins with "aftet these things." (2) LXX verse 'l'lb, c seems tobe nthapal in the NT to what v'e see in vetse 16a, b. [Notice that tlle vetb cvorxoSop{or,r in LXX 11c has been combined with rilv oxqvlv Aaur6 tilv nelrurxuiav in NT 16b. (3) The phtase xcer)q oi ilpipor ro0 cirivoq in LXX vetses 11-12 ate onitted in verse 1 6 of the NT. Howevet, a rcmnant of this phrase appeats in NT verse 18. (4) The final line of each text is different. The LXX follows the MT almost identically, but the NT adds yvcoord cn' aiOvoq ('knorvn from of old).

vi. AN ANALYSIS OF JAMES'S SPEECH AND HIS APPEAL TO AMOS 9:11-12

L. The Nntetit. Jornes's speech begins in Acts 15:13 with the words "After they had stopped speaking." The discussioo must have gone on fot quite some time in light of t}le words ir vetse 7, "Aftet thete had been much debate." Appatendy marry people had a chance to speak theit mind, following which Petet spoke, aod then Paul and Barnabas. Yet tlre last to had speak was James, the brother of the Lord Jesus. Although Peter been tlre primary apostolic leader oo the day of Pefltecost aod in the ea,ly yeats, James eventually becarne the tecognized spititual leadet of dle Jerusalem OF AMOS 9 J5 JAXIES'S QUO1ATION rn Acts l5', if chlrch.'z Apparendy by rJre time of the Jerusalem Council looked to as the no, .arli.r- 1rrot" \crs l2:t-1, the beLievers James an Indian foremost baLr, and appropriate\ he spoke last (much like chief ot tribal head might do) the 2. The Getilet at 'God'ipeople'" tt verse 14, James acknowledges loaded: testimofly of Peter. Th" -o.i, h" os"t, however, are theologically notion :.tiog fro* among *re Gerriles e people 17'ao9 for.Hi une'.'The draws us back of Uar'g Codt pe"ple who are associared wir-h Cod's name A tf-t",rifrr," Ot,i-es. This recalls God's promise in Exod 19:5 that the would be a people for H.Ur"-'r, Uy g into God's coveoant at Sinai' "rrt"tit crb C;'" ';; porr.rr'iorr." The LXX rendered this: lcdq nepto6oios The status of Jrr, ,a, ie',tav (a spectal people ftom all the nations)' the privilege treins God's 'beople''-a covenant status-had flo$/ become on the .ii"""t"., oot or, *" basrs of the Mosaic coveflant but tather The principle in the basis of the new coveoant (note esp l Pet 2:4-10) My people" and io.t of ff*., Uy *frich God took those who wete "not application) -J" *t"t" "My people" had found firl6lLneflt (not metely vith Gentiles io the clurch on the basis of the new covenant'22 to add' "with 3. Agreetng uith the Prl?belr.In verse 15, James weot on to the thi. th" orirds lf the Ptophets agree " By saying this, we are alerted is oot found in this one fact that the trutll he ds-ws from '{mos 9:11J2 Prophets 23 Had passage alooe, but is teflected elsewhere among the OT 't.r. other passages affrming this' a ao so, James could have cited In "nZr"ofact carefi:I observatioo of Acts 15:16-18 alerts us to other passages the ,frri f.r. have had io mind'?a In dre ptevious section' one,of -igfr, latter added the differencesietweeo the LXX ard the NT was that the

ILs.ldme.!' ' lmej lalhtiU\ rhe L.rd l'sus a leffalem lor rear\' rhirq )'ears 'eNed (huch' La m mc le,de- sr" knom tzr beyond rhc cucle ol $c eaJl\ Jorohh' ,a chn.un or 1,.'o-" tlr{ tenru^' recordc ni' de'Lh L4'r '20'o'l ' LlPon rhr dearn n"'"a t.*i'], "f$c II'hssm, ;"';;;;;;.i..*',. .\D orr. rhe niwlv aPpont(d yo.ns high Pri€st \nru' brorher ol le'us lrbo \r'" caueo bled rhe Sanheoon of tudge'. and btought before ficm the ;;;;h;". *,"i,-.".,.a;-. md whcn he h'-d rormed -'::i:l'."." "^-. rhe laq. he dcl$ered"'..,'. rhem ro be 'D l-dmond HrberL' "F;;;.;;;;;1,,::t;ma"r tlem a. breals';f "toned r'and''un- h*qo: Mood). rr?el \o IheJe$i'r-m1*e"on nc other rheJu"t" a",. ln(hroltu'god\ Lre he sined heorle lame' ,. ".-.ii,r''.-, ^^ 'l-u,ad.rr,ledd5c;.sronulrheaposrJePauJ"useulHo'eallrnRom'n"'):rF"o1"and ?aul\ J,r, C"",*s, see mv earlier article '"Ihe New Coven2nt Quotations "n rr,*"""i' o5-ll0 ftom I'lu.ea n Rorons q:l)-2o. Bla r0l 2005' 4'' one - l,,nes mav l'rv. been emplolms i jewish merhodolog) Lnosn 15 3-'?'rr '" Ha-cc'LL rhar naLe' m lr i,a o,i u' utrv.r a Jo"e 'rsunrmt "r,h.'t;* "*g.',. conramins r':","11:]' rrom enalogy. ]n rh' iechnque. brbLcal Ps'3ge' ')":"v1" " re'Pecrs ro rdentrcrl dehflDuns md .ubr.cI- h""';., r much Ihe) drffer io o$cr 'PPrr2uom , ''' ui rhc proPner' Mcck, on rhe orheri-nd. doe. no-*mk the exris"ron "rhr $ords sdcllfute see Nrccn' indicates that the ciralioo is a composite, nor is rhe rcference Jtunes ^\4n" oa i,a ::rr," i,*a.- Cenrne, irmo.o.lr l2mAcr" lr'tGl8. m 1' \'?,'a/P -a 'he P rP^? ol Nes lesraflent:ruo- O,dTerai,qt < -iafta[ ia 4it : 1 ?x!. tlemPft'n" a"d nibr'1 schol&s however' dFrgree $rttr ies 385; Ncw York T & T C14rk,2008) 62-61, 80' Mo\t lr,Ieck s conclusion. 76 JOURNAL OF ']HE EVANGF,LICAL THEOLOGIC:\L SOCIETY re'ords yvoord qn' di6voq ftnowo from of old). Although the fotm is different, *ris last line of the NT text (Acts 15:17c-18) has similatities to the LXX of Isa 45:21: I-XX Isa 45:21: [God speaking] dxouord inoilosv ro0.ro an dplrls Nl'Acts 15:17c 18: liyer x6ptoq not0v roOrd lryvolord ar'aiivoq

If James had Isa 45.,21. n miod, this would be quite appropriate, because the next verse (v. 22) states, 'Tum to Me and be saved, all the endt al the ednh; fot I am God, and there is no ot.he!." Isaiah wrote prolifically about the theme of Geatile salvation and of the Servait's ministry to "the nations." Hinting at Geotiles being brought into covenaot status, God declared of his Servant in lsa 42:6, "I will appoht You as a covenant to the people, as a )ight to the nations." Again in Isa 49:6, God promised his Sewant, "I will also make You a light of the oations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth" (cf.lsa 42:1; 52:10, 15; 55:5; 60:3; 65:1). Of course, none of dlese prornises are really surptising, since God had declared in Gen 12:3 that his ultimate intentioo was for all the Gentiles of the wodd to be blessed through Abram's seed. Both the Davidic covenalt and the oew coveflaflt are feally an outwotking of that prom.ise theme. A clue to another OT passage that might have been in the mind of James is suggested by dre wotds "aftet these tlings" (1-rerd roirc) that he uses i.rr Acts 15:16 to introduce the quotatioa from Amos 9.25 But these words are neithet found in the LXX of Amos 9:11, oor do they have an approptiate correspondence with the MT @oth the MT arrd LXX have "in drat day'). Significaody, perd roi.tro was used in tl.re LXX ofJoel2:28 to intioduce the passage Petet quoted from on the Day of Pefltecost. Ofl that day, Petet ptoclaimed that Joel's prophecy was being fr:lfilled irr the pouting out of the Holy Spitit. '"This is what vas spoken of," he a.nflomced. This need not mean that the Joel passage was completely frrlfilled on that occasioo, but it vas ttuly fulfilled (i.e. the prophecT was beginning to be fulfilled, though the events of Acts 2 did flot exhaust the

ri The phnsc "aftet these things" cannot oean that Jamcs is intcnd$g a time sequence of fulfiInent with his statcmcnts, that is, thnt "after these thingJ' meads the -^mos 9 quota- tion onl! comes afer God Enishes taking a people for himself from thc Gcntilcs' ^bont Rather James uses this to (1) placc ,{mos 9;11-12 aftet the time of judgment upon Israel mcntioncd earlier (ther exile); andlor (2) to link lmos 9:11-12 vith other oT passagcs that 6nd tu1fiIment in the messianic days. Bock ootcs, 'The onlj' Iikely antecedeflt to 'this' G the rcfcrcncc in verse 1,t to the Geotile hclusion that Simeon had erperienced. Efforts to tic thc expiessioo llxs' to the begDtrng ofversc 16 afld the phrase 'after this,' so that a look to the tutue can be defended, are forced and go aginst the normal teadiq of such constructions. They also ignore the linkage within the citatron that looks back to l.erse 11.'Ihe connection of thiJ to past cvcnts is reinfotced br the fact rhat the only pan of the r\mos cit2tion thxt matches the expositioo of]xmes lS the phrase 'a[ rhc Gcfltilcs vho are caled by m,v name' ir vene 17, and it matchcs vcrcc 1,1. The Gentne inclusion ofverse 14 is s'hat James is interest' ed in noting. \\,11eoJmes sals that the prophets agr.c vith 'tlis,' hc is not lookng foN'aJd, but brclsard to thc cvcnts Peter just expenenced" @atell L. Bock, "Evidence from .^cts," n A Cae for Prenilkn;al*n;,1Nea Coreuu led. Donald K. uampbcll and Jefftel' L. Town- scod; CHcrgo: Nloody,19921 196). JAMES'S QUOTATION OF AMOS 9 7'7

Joel passage). This should not be sutprising because the ptophet Ezekiel had predicted the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and imp)ied that this would be a hallmark feature of the new covenrrr. @zek3|2d28).26 Since Peter had preached to Comelius, afld these Gentiles believed and theo received the Holy Spirig they had been brought into the bond of the new coveflant. Peter's quotation ended uri*l the promise, "Aid it shall be drat everyone who calls on the name of rhe I-otd will be saved" (Acts 2:21). Although this was dre message fot those of Jetusalem when Petet pteached (cf. Acts 2:,10), in the cowse of time and with Petet's pteaching to those of Comelius's household, it became apparent that dre word "everyone" weot beyond those ofJewish descent. The conclusion ftom these obsewations is that James was ptobably not just thinking of Amos 9:11-12, though that is the primaty passage he cites. In saying "the words of the Ptophets" (phual), he had in miod a numbet of OT passages that aoticipated God's gteat votk of salvation among the Gentiles. This was the logical connectioo to the fact that God had already evidenced the por:ting out of dre Holy Spirit upon Gentiles

(Acts 1 0), srgniryiflg that tley wete also participants of the new covenaot.

VII. THEOLOGICAI CONSIDER,{TIONS REGARDING CHR]ST'S RL'I-E

1. Debatirg the tine of;fulfllnel. \Nlhefl we look at the 6rral vetses to the book ofAmos (i.e. 9:11-15), it is clear that these constitute a salvation oracle depicting eventual restoration to blessing followiag God's severe and cetain judgrnent upon dre natioo of Israel for her covenant unfaithfulaess. Of these, the fust two veises are quoted in Acts, because they mention "the nations upon whom My name is called." The 6nal tlrtee verses go on to ptedict Istael's ultimate iegathering to the laod afld testoration: r3Behold, days are coming,' declates the LORD, qWheo the plo,idnan rvill ovetate the teapet And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; \Yhen the mounufis will drip sueer wrne And all the hills will he dissolwerl. laAlso I will testote the captivity of My people Istael, $rr': I will bting back my cxiled people] And they will rebuild the ruined cities and lir.e in them; They will also plant vincyards and &ink their wine, \nd mzke gardens and eal their &uit. rsl will also plant them on their land And they will not again be rooted out ftom theit land rvhich I have given tlrem,' Says the LORD your God. 9:13-15, [,{mos ^"-\sB]

,6 The pronise "you vin be My people, and I vil be ],our God" foud h Ezek 36:28 is ,lso reflected inJer 31:33. 78 JOURNAL OF THE IIVANGIILICAI THEoLOGICII SOCIETY

The cmcial question is how Amos 9:11-12 relates to these verses. Premillennialists believe the flaal three veses find Frlf:llment in a iiteral restolation of Israel to the land following dre Second Coming of Cldst. Does this imply that Amos 9:11-12 must also await that futr:te kingdom period to be fi:lfilled? Also, why does James choose to quote ftom Amos 9:11-12 at the Jerusalem Council? Arnillenoialists qpically have taken the position drat James quoted Arnos 9:11-12 because he saw these vetses as firlfilled in the days of the early church-but a fi:lfillment that involved the church teplacing Israel io God's program. One problem with this view is that it simply does not do justice to Arnos 9:13-15 ard leads to spititualizing tl,e laod ptomises and Istael's testotation.2r In coufltering this suggestion, however, many premilleonialists have also taken an unteoable position, atguing that Amos 9:11-12 is only futfilled in the millenrrium.28 They suggest that James quotes this passage, oot because it had any preseot firlfillmeflt, but orily to make t}Ie point that if Gentiles are in the millennium as Gentiles and not Jews, then tlns nlost in J (ry aralogy) that they can be God's people in the present age without becomingJeurs (and thus do oot need to follow the Mosaic Law). Yet this position is also rrot without problems. If the fulfillment is only in the millennium, would James's quotatiofl of Amos 9:11 12 have catied decisive weight with the Judaizers in the church who wete insisting upon Gentile adherence to the Law at the present time?2e Furthermore, ifJames only \n/anted to dtaw ao analoglr, why not simply begin d.re citation vrith Amos 9:12 (&ereby excluding a reference to the fallen booth of David) ot make some o*ret tefetence to Gentile salvatioo such as those used by

:'J. A. Motyer understmds Aoos 9:13 15 as the remol'al ofthe cuse ofGcnesis 3 up on the eadh in the messianic age and a restoratioo of the eotire r-orld to an Ededc state (Tle DE aI lhe b lDowners Grove: lntervarsit), 197,t] 205-8). I concut that the mcssianic kingdom will bdng worldwidc restontion, but care must be taken not to glos ovc the special promises for Israelt egathaing and rstomtroo to the land. 13 See, for exmplq Brian K. Nlou1too, "The Use of the Davidlc Coven2nt in Acts 15" (?h.D. diss., Dallas 'rheological Semmary, 1999). A helptu1 summa4,of the v2rious \1ews regarding the interpretation ofAmos 9:11 12 m Acts 15 aod a defense of the uadirional dispensational iflterpretauon rs provided in Stanley Toussaiff, 'Acts," ro Tr? Bibh Knaakdge Annentdy, NevTiltMest (ed. John F. \Ualsoord 2nd Roy B. ZucE vhe.ton: SP Publca- tlotrs,1983) 394 95. Nloulton sununarizes tus understmding ofJmeJs use of Amos 9 vheo he wites, "The quotatioD vas not rntroduced as a prediction of God's isit to the Gentiles, but r^thcr to rclate truth ir ,rrnrrrr vith such a visit" G. 223). Elsewhere, he elaborates: "Lt issue benveen clasic aod progressive dispensationalists is the content upon rvhrch the prophets agreed as indicated by d1e quotation ffomAmos. Classic dispensationalists general ly agtee thatJmes used the quotalion from Amos NOT to suggest the iJElmcnt (or begio ning of the ftnflkncnt) of the Davidic covenant, but to suggest an analogr between the present ingatheriry of Geotiles ard the tutue habitation by Gentlles in the Mi11enma1 king- don" @p.221-22). ,, Kaiser raises this issue in an uticle he has wtitten fiXralte! C. KziserJr., "Includhg the centiles ln the Plan of cod," ir The U$ oJ lhe OA Testament in th. Neu [Ctucago: Moody, 19851 177-94). JAMES',S QUOTATTON OF AMOS 9 79

Paul in Rom 15:9-12?30 Fioally, as we have already poirlted out, James is not metely basing his argurnent upofl this one passage alone in Amos, for vhat he has in mind is in keepiag with "the wotds of the Prophes." The OT cleatly anticipated God's salvatlon going out to the Gentiles-to "the ends of the eath" as Isaiah erpressed ir Thus what t}le eatly chutch had seen happening from Acts 10 onward should have come as no gteat suq)dse, The issue $,as not blessing ot eveo salvation upon Geotiles, but how they telated to God's theoctatic ptogram. 2, fu/ation aith the kirgdan ?tulrliret to Ddrid'r serl. In seeking a better soludon, then, we do well to think furdret of what t}le refefence to tle "fallen tabemacle/booth of David" refes, and how this might tie in widr Gentile inclusioo as God's people.3l Eadiet, I suggested that *ris booth (ot temporary shelter) was a figurative way of referring to the khgly line from David that is, the house of David. In 2 Sam 7:11b the prophet Nathan infotmed David, "The LORD also declates to you that the LORD will rnake a ha re fot you." This refered metaphoiically to a dynasty of kings that vould come forth in the line of David, and which eventually would result in the firlftllrnent of Gods promise to "establish the t}rone of his kingdom fotevel' (2 Sam 7:13). Hence the tide "Son of David" became a way of rcfedng to Messiah (cf. Matt 22:4245; Joln 7:4'142).32 That Jesus of Nazareth is the "Son of David" is, ftom a Cbdstian petspective, beyond dispute. The ctucia.I question, however, is: !(tren does God "aise up the fallen booth of David"? Related to this is the question about when Jesus sits on the tllrone of David. Unfortuoately, this question has in recent years cfeated some heated debate among premillennialists. Personally, I feel that far too much has been made of this issue, arrd this has clouded the discussion of how OT coveoants 6nd fiifillment. $0e have been vefy accepting of the notion t}at the

a Robert L. Saucy makes this verl poiff io "The Rebuildmg of the Tabemacb of Da- e!1," in The Care for Ptugnili,e Diqe$ahanalitn (GandRapids; Zond€rvm, 1993) 79. r1 For a helpful drscussion end ev,luation of various views of rhe "falen booth of Da, vid," see v/. Edward Glemy, "centiles and the People of God: A Studl of Apostolic Hcr meneutics 2nd Theology io Acts 15" (paper presented at the Dispens2tional Srudy Goup, National ETS Meetiag, November 2006) 24 21 (avail.able online at http://nresources.com/documents/ADos9irdctslsb.pd!. Sttaux concludes, "The resto- ration of the Davidic reign predicted in Amos 9:11 12 and accomplished n the resutection ascension ofJesus is presented by Jaoes as Sc.iptual justification for the cent e mission and as the meaos by wlxch'the rcst of mnlind'may seek ihe Irrd" o,Iark L. Strauss, 7r, Ddridi. Mernah h L-rke'Arh; The l,nniie ad ih F"lfln t h L"kdn Ch*/o/ag [Sheffreld: Shef- field Academic Press, 19951 192). Meek lce ile Mbia, 83) also uddersraods the "falen booth of David" similarly wheo he states, ". . . 'the ten! ofDavid'must be understood as the (restored, eschatological) Davidic kingdom." He goes on to say, "Fo( LuLe, the kirydom rs ftstored i! the 2scension of Ctu1st (Acts 2.34)." , The tide "Son of Daud" wes used in the Secood Temple period as 2 messimic refer eflce. ID 2 Esdr 12:32, ve read of"the Messiah vhom the Most High has kept until the end ofdays, \vho wil atise frcm the posterity ofDavid." Ct Sir 45:25; 1 Nlacc 2,51 1E21^ 12132, 31: Ptr. Sa/.1/:21 .1.4. ^nd 80 JOURNAT OF THE EVANGELIC,TI THEOLOGICAT SOCIETY

Abtahamic arrd new coveoants ate progtessively fullilled in Sctipture, but have not given enough atteritiofl to the ootion that the Davidic covenant is also ptogtessively firlfilled.33 The phrase "thrcoe of David" only occurs nine times in Sctiptute, and of these nine, all ate found in the OT.3a Most tefer to some historic king of &e past in the line of Dawid, such as Solomon or the kings at the time of the Babylonian exile. Only Isa 9:6-7 refers direcdy to Messial: "For a child will be bom to us, a son will be giveo to us; . . . There will be no end to the inctease of His govemment or of peace o the tb/obe 0-f Darid and over his kingdom." Although dris passage indicates to us vhat he wlll do when he tales up the tluone of David, it does not cleady delineate aher this happets. The only NT verse that uses similat tetminology of Davids throne is Lu&e 1:32, when the angel announces to tlle vitgin Mary that "the Lord God will grve Him the thtone of His father David." The promise of sitting on Davids tfuooe is thus cleady ptomised to Jesus (in keeping with 2 Sam 7:13 and Isa 9:7), but the time of firlfilknent is still uocteat @ardy owing to the fact that the phrase is tarely mentioned in Scripture). 3. Nera Tettamefi drx regatditg Daaidic rah- With no cleady stated verses in the NT to undenand z,baa Jesus takes the tfuooe of David, s,e must firfo out atteritiofl to televant passages to see what we cal deduce ftom them.3s Ooe such clue is found in Rev 3:7, a vetse inuoduciog Chtist's message to the chwch of Philadelphia. Jesus is introduced as "He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens arrd no one will shut, and who shuts and oo one opens." Each of the seven messages to the seven chutches begias with a statement describing Chrisg ard irr every case it is a present reality (not a prcphecT of something that will come true in the futute). Hence, Jesus has "the key of David' now. This verse is an allusion a Isa 22:22, where (in that context) a servant under Hezekiah named Elia.kim $/as eflttusted by God with "authoriq/' (I{eb ;tftfpp, tule, domjnion) to act oo behalf of the people. This EJiakim was then a type of the LotdJesus who is eottusted with mliag authotity.36 As $/e tum to the book ofActs, we can begin to undestaad that the promise to Jesus of ruling on David's drone is conoected $/idi his

3 For those who obiect that the Davidic covenant is being progressively hnfled, I call their attefltion to the promise in 2 Sam 7:13, 'He shal build a house for My name." This had m idrial FolElrnent vith Solomon, but it has a $eatei ftrlfilrnent in Chrisr. He i ?ft$ b building a spiritul "house" made up of "liring stones," hrmself berng the chief comer stone (see 1 Pet 2:4 5). lf this aspect of the Davidic covenant is being tulEled now, we should be willilg to ent€Jtair the Dotron that other aspects might be operative now as ve[ r+ 2 Sm 3:10;1Kgs 2:12,24,45tIs gt]tJet 11:25t 22t3ot 29:16t 36130. It For a he$6n suney ofthe Davidic coveomt promises a then frnflLDot in Christ, see Sarcy, Cae fr Pngettu Dipesrdtihdhn 66 a0. 16 Fotd obswes, "'I'he T^tgn to Is 22122 toders the key of tle house of David as a 'key to the smctuaty and dooinion of the house of David"' (. Ilassyngberde Fod, k*knoa IAB 38; Gardo Ciq', NY: Doubleday, 19751 416). JAMES'S QUOTATION OF AMOS 9 81 iesuffection and ascensiofl. In Peter's sermon ofl the Day ofPentecosg he highlighted the fact drat God the Fathet taised Jesus from the dead aod then defended this on the basis of Psalm 16. Yet Petei went oo to point out the coiflection ofJesus' resuttection to David's thtone by appealilrg to Ps 132:11 (see Acts 2:30-31). He stated, "Atrd so, because he pavid] was a prophet and knew that God had swom to him with an oadr to seat one of his descendants on his throne. he looked ahead aod spoke of the reswrecrion of the Chrisr . . . ." Perer goes on ro clarifo t}ar t}e ascmsion of Jesus to the Fathet's right hand in fu1fillment of Ps 110:1 ('Sit at My right hand') fulfills this throne promise.3T Io doing so, Petet uses a Jewish techoique of linting passages by key words, irr this case "siC' from Ps 1-32:L1 ar,d. Ps 110:1. Thus in concluding his message, Petet stated the bottom line: "Iherefote let all the house of Israel know fot certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-this Jesus whom you crucfied." He is Lotd in that he r,ow rulet as the ptomised Davidic king and just as the OT anticipated of the "Chtist." 4. Cblirt'r pere t duthori! pmdained. It simply will flot do to suggest that Christ is sitting today, not on David's *rone, but only at the Fat.hels tight hand. This misses the point. When we look at Eph 7:20-23, we see that the F*her "raied Hin ftor::, the dead atd seated Hin atHts tight hand in the heavenly places." In this role, Chtist is far above all tule and authority, and all thiogs have been put 'tn subjection uader His feet." Futthetrnote, Chdst himself (i, girg the Great Commission to the church) declared, ' All authority has been given to Me in heaveo and on eath" (N{att 28:18). It is rathet obvious ftom Eph 1:20 that this authority of Christ is connected with his tesuttection and ascension to the Fathefs right haod, and Acts 2 does make a link to his being seated on David's *tone in its quotation of Ps 1.32:LL. To suggest that Ch-fist's prcsent authority is not associated with the Davidic tlrone promise flies in the face of the evidence. Why else would Jesus claim that he has the "key of David"? 5. Pmnivfulfllnert declared ir Ac* 13. Yet even suonger case can ^n be made that the Davidic covenant promise finds fulfillment in the tesuttection and ascension of Christ when we tuo to the aposde Paul's sermon in Acts 13 ar Pisidian Andoch. In verse 22. Paul poinri our rhat in the past God raised up David to be Iuael's king. Theo he liflks Jesus to the Davidic covenant ptomise in verse 23: "Ftom the descendants of this

ri The aposde Paul's statement in 1 Cor 15:25, "For He must reign unbt He has put all His enemies mder His feet," clearly has Ps 110:1 in miod xnd ifnplies that his reign as Da- vid's greater son has al-ready cornmeoced vhlle he is seated at the Father's dght haod-the posinon of messianic authodtl. That is, to reig. from the Father s rtht hadd is to rule from the Davidic Lbrone. Saucy adds, 'As we hrve seen, the dght hand of God was not spatially thoqht of is being in heaven. In fact, it was not pimdly a spatial concept at a[ but a metaphor for the supreme position of authority oext to thc k1ag" (C6eJr Pngedre Di$eN* 82 JOURN,\I OF'IHE E\'ANGELICAI, THEOLOGIC,\I SOCIETY ril n, tu:ordi g to ?lomire, God has brought to Israel a Savior,Jesus." Yet we must not fail to see tle tepetition of the word "promise" later in the sermon when Paul pteaches dre tesurectioo. Aftet proclaiming the fact of Jesus' resutrection (Acts 13:30-31), Paul makes a rathet remarkable staternent haying direct beating on the firlfillmeat of the Davidic covenaat ptomise: "And we preach to you the good news of the ptomise made to the fathets, that Gal har fulflled. th* pnane to our chil&en in that he taised up Jesus, as it is also .rritten in the second Psalm, You are My Son; today I have begotten You"' (Acts 13:32-33). From these verses, it is clear that Paul saw tlre resurection/ascension ofJesus as the tine offulfllnext of the Davidic covenait promise. This is flot the same as estabJishing the fact that Jesus is the ptomised desceodant. The firifillment is achieved specrficalJy with tlre resurection/ascension er enr. Having said this, I would go on to qualif! this by saying that "fulflllment" does not have to fiLean com?lete f'oltlllrr,erlt. In othet wotds, the Davidic covenant ptom.ise of the etemal thlone to one of David's descendaats begiw to ftnd its fulfillment in Jesus.38 But that is not to say that he has exhausted the expectations ofvhat David's tfuone signiEed. If we could understand this principle, I thiok we could get over any reluctaflce (and debate) as to whether or notJesus is presendy ruling oa the throne of David. Much of what is prophesied of his nrle irr the OT has not yet been 6r161led (e.g. Isa 2:1-4 arrd Psalm 72), b.:rthe is right nou the Davidic mlet and using that authority. Primatily in this age he uses this authority for causing the gospel to go forwatd and build his church. 'S(/e will see a greater use of dris authotity in connection with his second coming and the establishment of his millemial rule. Hence, what I am atguing fot here is a ptogtessive fulfillmert of the Davidic covenant promises, just as the Abrahamic and new coveoarits are beirrg progressively fi:lfilled @oth these lattet covenants await the Second Coming arrd the milleonium for d.reir complete fulfillment).3e Jesus was tecognized as the "Son of Dawid" in his earthly ministty, arrd with his tesuttection/ascension the promise of art etemal tlrone aod rule have commenced.

33IIerc I am in essential acreement vith Kenneth L. Barker vhen he discu$eslugs$r" Is$lnert ("Thc Scope and Ccflte! of Old and New Testament Theology and l-Iope," ia Dife"latiadbn, Iirael a"d lhe Chttth Led. Ct^tg A. Blaising and Dmell L. Boc[ Gnnd Rap ids: ZondeN^n, 19921 321. } Darre[ Bock visery concludes h]s stud), of the kingdom presentation ir thc book of Acts with thcse e-ords: "\,hat Lukc rc1'eals is a kingdom that has come and vifl come in stages: 'zJready'/'not i,et.'The 'alrudy'ktngdom shovs that God rs leburldrng dt house of Dzid through a mised and rcigningJsus Cbrist (Acts 2). Gendes also share h blessing, as Godt prooise and activig show (Lule 2a:a7; Acts l0 11, 15). The Abnhamic Covenant (Acis 3:22-2q, Davidic Covenmt (Acts 2:30 36), ifld Nev Covenant (acts 2:16-39) have all received an inirial hnflrnent. Eschatologkal o'ents have begrul but ther move oo into a tutue, more glorious finfllirnr" (C&Jhr PftnilhMidbo 197 98). JANfES'S QUOTATION OF ,\I{OS 9 83

6. The Dayidit couenant pmaite atd Chritt't rewmxiol fulflling Iviah 5 5 . Before leaving this subjecq I would like to take it a step futther by looking at Acts 73:34. The aposde Paul went ori to say, "As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no looget to retum to decay, He has spoken in this way: 'I will give you the holy aod sure blessings of David."' Hete we see Paul associating the tesurrectioo with a promise drawn from Isa 55:3. In Isa 55:1-5, "everyone who thitsts" is invited to come to t}le wateis to be satisfied. Then i, ve$e 3 we read, "Listea, that you fplutal] may live; and I will make arr evedastirg covenart widr you (plural), accotding to the faithful mercies shown to David." When we tead of the "holy and sure blessings of David' in Acts 13:34, these wotds (in Gree$ are exacdy the same as the words traoslated "the faithftrl metcies shown to David" ftom the LXX. The specific mention of "evetlasting coveoant" in the verse confitms that we are talking about t}le Davidic covenant. But who are the "you" (plural) who ate being iflvited to come into the bond of this covenant? The next line gives us the answet 'Behold, I have made him (sg) a wimess to the peoples (o'px), a leader arrd commaader for the peoples." The "him" in this vetse is not David (Isaiah writes Iong after the time of Dawid), but the promised Davidic descendait, i.e. the Messiah. He will be a "leader and commandet" for tIe peoples.ao The word "peoples" (note the plural) refets to the Gentile peoples. Isaiah 55:5 speaks about them as a "oation": 'tsehold, you (sg.: the Messiah) will call a nation you do not know, and a nation which knoqls you not 'will mn to you, because of the LORD yout God, even the Holy One of Istael; fot He has glorified you."al The Gendles are a "nation which knows you not" (God did flot make them a special people to Himself, as he had wit.h lsrael ar Mt. Sinai). Nevertheless, they will "rr.rrr" to David's descendaot, and he will be their ruler. This is a beautiirl picture ofwhat God is doing io this chwch age as Gentiles tum to Israel's Messiah in faitl! Fioalty, in Isa 55:6, the invitation is extended, "Seek the LORD (ntnl tull) while He may be fouod call upon Him while He is neat." In light of t}le pteceding corrrext, it is teasonable to cooclude that Gentiles are ptimadly in mjnd. Intetestingln the word for seek (Ieb tl1) is the same word understood by the L)O( taoslatot in Amos 9:72, "that all marfr,trd mtght teek [{im]." Thus we see in Isa 55:1-6 aoothet portrait from the OT anticipating God's salvific wotk among the Gentiles. The invitation is for those who are "thirsty" to "seek the Lotd," and to '1isten" that they might live. Those who so respond will be brought into the bond of the Davidic covenant in rhe

{ The word translated "leader" h this vene is Heb TU The sme word is used in Dad 9:25 for "hressiah the Prince" (.1,+ rul]). The word mcans a "lcadcr, 1er, prince" (BDB 617). Ahhough the term has a varicty of us,ge, ir is often used of a king-ruler (e.g. 1 Salrl 9t16:73:14)- +' 1'he use of the singdd "nation" to speak of d1e centiles is nor unusual D biblical iar- gon. \\'e see the same thrig in X{att 21:43 and 1 Per 2:9. Thc Gentiles that tum to Chdst become a "nauon," as thcy inherit the promises ofbeing'codt people." 84 JOURNAL OF THE E\TANGE]-ICAL THEOLOGIC,\I SOCIETY sense that tiey $/ill come uflder t}le n e of Messiah, the promised Davidic descendant.

\TI. CONCLUSIONS

Eady in the church's history beginning wit}l Acts 10, Gentiles began to tum to Chtist and receive the Holy Spitit. As each yeat passed, mote and more Gentiles became a part of the church. This accelerated all the mole uporl Paul's ftst missionary joumey to the tegions of Galatia. The otiginal recipients of the gospel had been those in Judea, aod (t}lan}fully) marry of them had become Christians. This included a great mrmbet whose backgtound was ftom tle sect of the Phatisees. Yet this was still a time of great ttansition in the church's history and confusion prevailed. The Jerusalem Council met to resolve the debate which culminated in the speech byJames. In his mind, the OT prophets cleady fotetold that God's salvation would be extended to Geotiles, ald now (in retrosPect) it was becoming more and mote obvious how this all tied togethet. The Amos quotation (Amos 9:11-12) was just one of these many OT passages that borc evidence to God's work among the Gentiles. God's promise to raise up the "fallen booth of David" in Amos 9:11 anticipated that God would one day testote the Dawidic kingship originally promised to David in 2 Samuel 7. In this "tebui1ding," there would be Gentiles upon whom God's name was called. The phrase "upon whom My oame is called" indicated they had the status of covenaot relationship, V4ren we examine the complete ending to Amos, s,e see t-hat Amos 9:11-15 constitutes a salvatioo otacle fot a dme followiag God's judgment upon the natioo. In this salvation oracle, the restotative wotk of God begins widr him taising up the "fallen booth of David," contioues witl a wotk of grace among Gentiles, and Enally concludes $rith the full tegathering and rcstoration of Israel in the land of promise. Yet t.hete is oo need to think that all tlis must a$/ait the Second Coming of Chdst. A closer investigation of the book of Acts (especially Acts 2:29-36 and Acts 73,22-34) rc,re s t\at the raising up of t}re "fallen booth of Davicli' began with the resurection and asceosion of Christ. In this grand eveflt, tle. Father seated Jesus at his dght hand, that is, he gave Jesus the place of highest honor. In this act, tlle promise to David that one of his descendaats would tule from an etema.l tluone had commenced. James quoted ftom Amos 9:77-72, r,ot because it spoke of conditions in the millennium, but because he rccognized in what the chutch was wimessing of the Geotile hawest in that day what the OT anticipated of Davids ptomised seed. In fact, this is the logical ex?ectation of the purpose clause in Acts 15:12, as signaled by the JA.MES'S QUOTATION OF AMOS 9 85 conjunctiofl 5mo6 dv; God raises up the Davidic kjngship h order that dte Gentiles might seek llim.a2 Even Isa 55:1-6 anticipated drat dre Davidic covenant would be extended ovef Gentiles, and he would become their ruler, too. The issue of how the LXX translated Amos 9:12a (whether it should be "possessing Edom" or "all mankind seeking the Lord) actually had Iitde beariog on the point James had to make. That Amos 9:12b mentiooed Gentiles who had God's name called on them (which all thtee-the MT, lX)L and NT-specifted) was teally his main concem. Thus the complete fi:lfillment of the promises in Amos 9:11-15 extend over a lengthy time, beginning witl tlle tesusection/ascension of Christ ard extending into the millennium. If we see the passage in light of the larger bibucal theology as I hawe sugested in this article, we rmdesand thatJames's quotation ofAmos 9:11-12 was very forceful for it was beiag firUilled in the very days in which he spoke. Gentiles, as Gentiles, were becomiog'tris people." They did oot have to become Jewish prose\tes to pafticipate in the nrle of David's gteater Soo, and therefore were not bound to the Mosaic Law. Finally, let us not overlook how the theme of "gtace" is firndameotal to all that has been said. At the Jetusalem Cound Peter ended his speech by proclaiming, "But we believe that we [ews] are saved tfuough the gtace of the Lord Jesus, ia the same way as they [t]re Gentiles] also ate" (Acts 15:11). The Isaiah 55 passage anticipated tlat Gentiles would be saved by grace, not la$/-keeping, when it said to those who were thirsty, "Come, buy wioe and mi[ without money and without cost." Gods gift of etemal life is not for sale; rather it is 'l*.ithout cost." Isaiah, as did Amos, envisioned Gentiles comiag to dtink freely! Circumcision would be of no avail for obtaining fotgiveness and etemal life, the greatest of aJl gfts. God would glorfy Himself by btinging multitudes of Gentiles to Himself "by gtace through faith," and they would become "his people." May God strengthen us to ever uphold the precious truth that salvation is by gace and ooly by gtacel This invitatioo for the "tlirsty'' to come and &ink of God's saving grace is the message God has for the wodd today, and those who so tespond are brought into the boad of the Davidic covenant in whichJesus Christ sewes as their king.

€ Meek makes this vert, poini in his rvork 'Jaoes's argument tutos on 6noq dv in 15.17ar the pupose for vhich God has restored thc kingdom 1s to claim the oations as his ovn. The hclusion of Gentiles is a oecesary consequence of dre rebuildhg of David\ falen tert. Since the kingdom has been restored, the timc for Gentite inclusiofl rs now lt does not belong still to the distant tutue or depend on the prior completion ofJewish evmgel.ism" (Ce"tile Minior i" O ld T*tdme"l Citdtio"! in Ah A9).