The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutic, and Purpose

LI BRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUD IES

385 formaly thr joam.JIIi1r the Scudy ofthe Nt-h' Tcsrumcnt Supplrrncnt Srrirl·

Editor Mark Goodacre Editorial Board john M.G. Barclay. C raig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, Jamcs 0 . G. D unn. Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Rdx-rt Fowl(·r, Simo n J. Gathcrcolc. john S. Kloppcnborg, Michad Lahahn, Robcn Wall. Stc\'c Walton. Robert L Webb. Catrin 1-1. Wil1iams

This page intentional(¥ left blank

THE GENTILE MISS I ON IN OLD TESTAMENT CITATIONS I N ACTS Text, Hermeneutic and Purpose

James A. Meek

.\\ t&.t

dark

Copyright Cl hme-s A. Meek. 2008 Published by T&T Cl ur~ International A Cmuimmm imprim The: Tower Building. I I York Road. l ondonSEI 7NX 80 Maiden lane. Suite 704. l'ew York. NY 10038 www.c.ontinuumbooks.conl All rights resef'ted. No p:lli of this public.lltion mny be rcproduce.d or tnnsmitted in any fonnor by an)' mc.uns. ekctronic or mechanical. including photocopying. rcoordingor any inform:ltion storage or retric\'al system. wilhout pem1ission in writing from the publishers. J am~ A. Meek has assencd his right unde-r the Copyright. [)resigns und Patents Act. 1988. to be identified as the Audwr of this work

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartcnsiu. edited by Karl Ellig_er und Wilhelm Rudolph. Fifth Rc\'ised Edition. edited by Adri.an Schenker. •0 1971 and 1997 Ikutschc BibdgC$CIIS('haft S!uttgan. Used by permission. Scphaoginta. cdite.d by Alfred Rahlfs. '!:> 1935 and 1979 l>cutsc.hc B i bcfgesdl ~haft. Stut1garl. Used by permission. Ke.sdc-Aiaod. Novum Te-stomentum Gmcce. 27th Re\'iscd Edition. edited by Barbara Alnnd. Kun Alond. lohunncs Kamvidopoulos. Curio M. Manini. und Bruce M . Meb:ger in coopemtion wilh the Institute for New Testumcnt Textual Rcscurch. MiinstcrJWcstphafin. C 1993 ~utschc BibdgcsellschufL Stuttgan. Usc:d by pem1ission. Re\'ised Standard Version of the Bible. •0 1952 [lnd edition. 19711 by the Oi\·ision of Chri.s1ian Educ-ation of the Kational Council of the.Chun:hes of Christ in the Unitc.d States of Amcrico. Used by perm~ion. All rights reserved. British Library Catalog_ing·in-Publication Data

A colaloguc record for this book is availabk from the British Libmry.

ISBN-10: ISBK· I3:

HB: 0-567-03380·5 HB: 978-0·567·03380-2

Trpcsct by 1SB T)·pescuing. Sheflidd Printed on ac.id·frce paper in Great Britnin by the MPG Books Group

CONTENTS

Preface The Old Testament in Luke-Acts 1.1 The Old Testament and Gentile Mission 1.2 The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts 1.3 The Rhetorical Use of Old Testament Quotations 1.4 Goals, Methodology and Assumptions

vii

4 7 9

2 Listening to luke 2. I Scripture Summaries 2.2 Old Testament Citations 2.3 Analysis 2.4 Conclusion

14 14 17 20 23

3 The Servant and the Nations (Isaiah 49.6 in Acts 13.47) 3. I Text 3.2 Isaiah 49.6 3.3 The Expected Se1·vant 3.4 Acts 13.47 3.5 Summary

24 25 27 39 43 53

4 The Kingdom and the Gentile-< (Amos 9. 11-I 2 in Acts 15. I6-I 8) 4. I Text 4.2 Amos9_ll -1 2 4.3 The Expected Kingdom 4.4 Acts 15. 16-18 4.5 Summary

56 56

5 The Spirit and All Flesh (loel3. 1-5 MT in Acts 2. 17-21) 5. I Text 5.2 Joel3.1-5 m 5.3 The Expected Spirit 5.4 Acts2.17-21 5.5 Summa I)'

64

73 77 93 95 96 97 104 106 I 12

vi

Contents

6 Abraham's OftSpring and tJ1e Families of the Eanh (Genesis 22. 18 in Acts 3.25) 6.1 Text 6.2 The Blessing in Genesis 6.3 The Expected Blessing 6.4 Acts 3.25 6.5 Summary

114 116 116 120 122 127

7 Conclusion 7.1 Text 7.2 Hermeneutic 7.3 Purvose 7.4 Excursus: Jews, Gentiles and the People o f God

130

Appendix I Scripture Summaries in Luke--Acts Appendix 2 Explicit Old Testament Citations in Luke- Acts

137 139

Bibliography Index of Referenc.es Index of Authors

145 165 177

131

132 133

135

PR£FACE

Questions about the relationship between the OT and the NT are as old as the

ministry of Jesus. My own preoccupation with these issues has lasted well over thirty years. I recall one morning in college calling my pastor to ask how the t-.'T writers fou nd Christ in theOT. He referred me to Hengstenberg's classic study of the Christology ofthe Old Testament, and so my first serious exploration of the topic began with a lutheran. reconunended by a dispcnsationalist. Subsequently I was exposed to a biblical and covenantal theology thnt emphasized the organic and progressively untb lding c-haracter of biblical redemption and revelation. I continue to wrestle with a related groupofquest'ions: How does the OT speak about Jesus'? How do th e OT and NT fit together? How does the OT function as canon for the church of the new covenant'? Is the t-.1 interpretation o f the OT l'esponsible? Should the church seek to reproduce it in our own exegesis, i.e. does the NT function as canon (nonn) not only in conte-nt. but also in its inte1pretntion o f the oT? These questions led to a Th.M. thesis on typology as one way to explore the relationship between the te.stame-nts. The present srudy. initially undenaken as a doctoral dissertation. is another. Many have helped me along the way. I am grateful to the faculty of Concordia Seminary in St Louis. for their wann welcome o f a Presbyterian into their community. [ am indebted to Drs Jack Preus and James Voelz, who allowed me to develop fucets ofthis study in work for their courses, as well as to Drs Paul Raabe and Leo Sanchez. who. as readers, offered valuable.counsel. I am espec.iaJI)r grateful to m y Dokforl'flter and fellow Rice Owl. Dr Jeff Gibbs, who provided needed focus. guidance and lots of encourage.ment. I am also gmtefhl to Covenant Theologic-al Seminary. where it was my pleasure to serve for thirteen ye.ars, to President B1·yan Chapell, who encouraged me to undertake. doctoml studies and extended financial suppo1t, and to fonne1·colleagues on the fhculty for periodic counse.l and frequent e.ncouragement. And I remain indebted to Dr Ed Blum, my college pastor, fo1· indulging my questions about the relationship between the testaments (and many other things) so very long ago. I benefited greatly from the resources ofthe Buswell Library at Covenant Theological Seminary (especially the inestimable. Director Jim Pakala and the patient Associate Librarian Denise Pakala), Concordia Seminary libraJ)'. Duke Divinity School library, the. Barbour Library at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, the library ofTrinity Episcopal School tbr Ministry (especially its gracious Director, John Doncevic). and the Stevenson library at lock Haven University. Most of all, I am indebted to Esther, Starr. Stacey and Stephanie~ who so often suffered from my distraction and preoccupation with this project I appreciate

viii

Prefoce

your sacrifice more than (can say. I hope that seeing the work in this fonn is some reward. As the Preacher says, :of making many books there. is no end' . Severn! important works appeared or came to my atlention too late to receive.the conside-ration here that they deserved: Max Tumer's Pou.•crfrom on High: The Spirit in /srael ~'i Restoration and Witness in Luke-Act:>, Chris Wright's T1ut A-fission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrath-e and Terence Donaldson's Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns ofUniversalism (to /35 CE). UnJess otherv.dse noted, citations of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament are from BHS. of the Septuagint from Rahlfs' edition. of the Greek New Testament from NA :n. of the Vulgate from Biblia Sacra Juxta Vu/galam Versionem 1 and of the English Bible-from the RSV. Chaptet· and verse references are from the English; the occasionally divergent numbering of the ).tT and the LXX are.noted when relevant. Citations from1he apocrypha and pseudepig:rapha are from Charlesworth, OTP. Abbreviations of standard scholarly works follow the SBL Handbook.'

I. Bonifatio Fischer s: Emryson ille Acts ofrile A{X)stles(lrans. John R. Keating: New York: PnulisL 1979). IS6.

16. Jncques Dupon1. Jhc Sah·ation ofthe Gcmiksand the Theological Significance of the Book of A~":ls' . in Tlu! Salmtio11 oftheGentiles: E.n·ay.
8

Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts

differs from much of the scholarly discussion of the or in the NT.J7 because it focuse.s on "how quotations "work'' within the surfuce stniCI\II'e of [Paul's] letters. not how Paul himself read and unde-rstood the biblical text ... on the way the quotations advance. (or f.'lil to advance) Paul's rhetorical aims in a given passage· ..cs Although Stanley fOcuses on biblical quotations in Paul. he raises important issues for the. study of quotations throughout the NT. First. Stanley argues that we must distinguish the way in which the OT shapes the author's thought from the way in which the author uses the OTto instmct and persuade his audience. A rhetorical analysis calls attention to the way in which the OTis actually used, and particularly to quotations that the author's intended aud ience would have recognized (most ot1en because these areclemly marked as quotations in the text).~ Second, quotations are a rhetorical strategy by which an author seeks to pet·suade the audience.5° A quotation is usually an ·argument from authority ... used to anticipate and/or close.offdebate'; its effectiveness 'will depend in large paJ1 on the audience's perception of the authority and/or credibility of the original .source' .51 For the early Christian community. an appeal to scripture.would be.the highest appe.al possible.sl Surpl'isingly~ even though an appeal to scripture would seem sufficient to clinch Paul's argument, Stanley notes that Paul seldon'l relies on quotations alone.n In f.1ct, "the use-o f multiple lines of argumentation is a standard recommendation of rhetoricians as far back as Aristotle· .s.~ The use of quotations, with other rhetorical strategies, provides insight into the author's rhetorical purposes.ss Third. Stanley warns that limited access to biblical scro1Js56 and low rates o f literacy 57 mean that few in the audience would have been able l'O identify and 4 7. ·while there is much to be gained from studying curly Jewish and Christian hemteneutie-uJ techniques. this should not be-confused with an in\·esti~tion of how the. Bibk wus actuully used in early kwish and Chri~iun literuturc.' Stanky. "Rhe-toric·. 58. 48. Stanley. 'Quotutions'. 701-03. 49. Stanley. 'PeurJs•. 131- 32. Ofcourse. some texts would haw been r«ognizablewitboutexplicit textual markers. just as ·tct thc.re be.lighr . 'God is lo,·c· und 'do not judge• 1ruy be recognized as bib1fc:altoda)'. even by thof.C with limited biblicul koowkdge. Many others would have needed to be marked in order to be recognized. 50. Stanky. ·Quotations·, 707. 51. Stank y. ·Quotations". 703. 52. 'From Paul's quolation wecun see.tbnt he. like olhc-r kws. believed thutquoting lhe words of Sc.riptutc s.hould close.off all debate on a subject.' Stanky. 'Quotations'. 714. 53. Sltlnley. ·Quotations". 714- 15. 54. Stunfey. ·rcnrls'. 140. n. 35. 55. Stanky. 'Quotations'. 724. 56. Sltlnk y argues that privute.ownerdlip of biblical scrolls would have been rnre nnd diaLonce ten~i on:s de-veloped with official Judaism. Christians would huvc had limited access to synagogue scrolls. St:mlc-)·. ·Quotutions'. 711- 19: 'PCilrls·. 127. 57. Stank ycitcs data indtcating lit«uc.y rates of perhaps 10- 20 per cent. Stanley. 'Qu(l(ations'. 719: ·Pe.arls'. 129. OCD. s.v. •fiterncy'. ('5till13tcs rates of 111most20-30 percent but notes that this varied overtimc:. locatioo. b'ist the: members in defending their faith before a hosrik world'. 'But this is :t far cry from the kind of biblical knowledge that would be required to grasp the signific-ance of the many quotations th3t Paul offers. for c.xa1nple. in Romans9-ll . c:sp«ially when the letter was being read aloud before 11 gathered con· .b'Tc:gation! Stanley. ·Quotations' . 721. 60. Stank y. 'Pe-arls'. 139. 61. Sltlnky. 'Qooutions·. 720. Soc 11Jso Stanley. ·Rhetoric'. 53. 62. Charles H. Oodd.Accordi11g in th~ Scnjnur~.f(l.ondon: Fonltlna Books, 1952}. 110. See 11lso Bock. Proclamation. 214. 63. Steyn.•'te-plllagint Quotations. 2. Lari:in divides the latter catc:gor)' into allusions and usc of o r ideas. William J. l ar\:in. ·r oward a Holistic Descriptionof luke's Usc of the:-Old Tc:stament: A Method O('.!OtCribcd and lllusltll!cd from Lui:(' 23:33-38. 4--.1--49'. in £range/ira/ T1reological Sorie1y Papas (PonJand. On:-.: TheologicaJ Re~:uc:h Exchange Nct,VOfl:. 1987). I. 64. Richard B. Hays. Echoes nfScriptltrt! i111he L~ll~n of Pmtl (New H:wcn: Yale Uni\·crs.it)' Press. 1989). For Lu.ke- AC1s. sec Rebecca Dtoo,·a. T11e T11ing:s AccompliJ!IedAmong Us: Prophetic Traditinll and lh~ Smtctural Pollem nfLltkf'-Act:; (JSt-.'TSup 141 : Sheffi('.ld: Sheffield Ac:tckmic Press. 1997}: l itwllk. Echocs: Dav)d P. Moessner. Lord~?!'the &mquet: T11e Literwy u1lti T1JEYJ!ogicul

10

Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts

legitimately provide insight into the ways scripture may have-shaped theauthor·s thought and presentation, but questions of identification and resulting disagreements will ahvays leave a degJee of uncertainty. As Stanley has observed, only clearly identifiable quotations (and allusions) are likely to be part o f the author's intentional rhetoric>ill strategy. Howeve1·. by tbcusing on explicit quotations. we may develop a framework by which to e.valuate more objectively other proposed allusions Ol' intenextual references. Recent contributions to the study ofthe OT in Luke-Acts have foc used on the role oft he OT in the development of Luke's Christology. As a 1'esult. the.y address ' the pi'Oblem [ofthe.OT in Luke--Acts] from the perspective ofonly one aspect o f the l uk:ln theology' .11$ To understand the role of appeal to the-OT in Luke--Acts. other or cita1ions must be brought into the discus..'\ ion. Because of the central place occupied by the Gentile mission in the ecclesiology of luke--Acts. an examination of related OT citations will constitute a major step toward meeting this need. This study will examine four explicit OT citations in the. book of Acts that are related to the Ge.ntile. mission. Tilese will identified by an analysis offered in chapter 2_iJ> T D<widit: /lle.(siah in Luke-,fcu: 71w Promise ond Its Fuljilfn}e/ll in IJ.tkun F.sclrmologr (JSNTSup 110: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1995). 192.

I. The Old Testament in Luke-Acis

II

Taiah 49.6 1saianlc !:Crvant Amos9.JJ. J2 D.w idic kingdom

S{N:tlkl?f

Ri!ftmu:e to Gemiles

Peter

All Acsh . .. everyone who calls Alithe familic.s of the c-ortfl A light to the nations All the Gentiles called by m)' name

Pe~er

Poul James

Tannehill has argued that two of these (Acts 2.17-21; 13.47) occur in texts with broad significance for the.rest of the narrative.68 The c.entrality of the themes and speakers underscore." the importance of the is.~ues.G9 Once these OT citations have been identified, e-ach text will be studied in detaiL

•

Examination of text-critical is-s-ues related to the citation in the MT. the LXX, and the NT. E.xamination of the OT text. with particular atte-ntion to its meaJling in its original context. E.xamination of the NT citation, including its context. interpre.tation in this context. and appare.nt purpose. i.e. the way in which it contributes to its NT context.

Two texts. Ac,ts 13.47 and Acts 15.16- 18, will be examined in greater detail because of their role in explicitly legitimating the Gentile mission>beco.mse of complex issues involved in their interpretation. and beco.mse they have received le."s attention in recent studies of the OT in Luke- Acts.70 The citations in Acts 2. 16-21 and 3.25 will be. examined more briefly. with a focus on the way in which they legitimate the-Gentile-mission. A numbe-r of assumptions and limitations are necessary. This study focuses on the extant book of Acts and the way in whic-h selected OT citations function within it The complexities posed for an ·extant text' of Acts by distinctive readings of the Western text\\~11 not be a significant factor in studying these four texts.11 We 68. Tannehill finds imponant parallels in l.hc way thai the missions of John. Jesus. Peter and Paul are introduced in l uke 3.4·6 (ls.1. 40.3-5): 4.18-19 (lsa. 61.1-2): Acts 2.1 7-21 (Joc!J.J-5): 13.47 (lsa. 49.6}. ·There is 3 scm1on by each of these figures near lhc beginning of the story segment that wiiJ concc-nll:ue on his woli:. and the sermon either includes or is accompanied by a scriptural quototion which rcveols the divine pulpOSe behind the mission thai is be-ginning. These: scriptural quotations h3\'e.a ~igni ficance- beyond tbc scenes in which they appear.· Robcn C. Tannehill. Tlrt' NarraJiw: Unity ofLuke-Acts: A Literary lntei]JIY!Ialitm t2 vok: Philade-lphia: Fonre.ss. 1986-90). 1.52. 69. All four of these themes are introduced early in the: third gospel: the: Spirit ( 1.15. 35. 41 . 67: 2.25-26). the-promise to Abraham ( 1.54-55. 72·73). the lord's scr\'a.nt ( 1.69) ond the Oavidic. king· dom (1 .32-33. 69: 2.4. II}. Thrtt appe-ar in the-song ofZccharioh (S
O.:,)pto;· l':~'\ 6a Kal d >t£\' IJ.OI ... , • ..:. ':!A .. - ......._ ..,,· ~... (V.''/~ ··r..,

-·•v •o'·

b 'IV~ I"'« -o, · ,·""' / u

,. v

.-l.q&t)\'a.i oc on. J'arktti(}ns. 13~3 1.

141.

30

Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts .~~1'

6 3

2

Anon)'lnOUS

Jacob (as individual) lsrod The lsaianic.Sf> Verses I-6 are distinguished by the voice o f the servant speaking in the firs-t person. in contrast with the ve,·ses that precede. or follow:n Although in vv. S-6 Yahweh speaks. this speech is reported by the servant. Vet it appears th.at Yahweh continues to speak through v. 9a to ·you' (masculine singular). the servam whom he has chosen {7). answered, helped. kept>and g iven a unique role (8-9a). 11te tbllowing verses (9b- l3) then appear to describe those who are bl'ought out o f prison :.lJld their return to the land. Even then it is not clear that we. have reached the end o f the. text: the following vc'l'Ses (even into the opening versesof lsaiah SO) continue the assurance that Yahweh will restore his people as he promised in 49.9 (continuing the thought, if not the so n g).~>S Neverthe.le.ss. the focus of 49.1-13 is on the servant, while the focus after 49.14 is on Zion and its restoration~ and so we can re.gard 49.1 -13 as the pl"im:uy context for lsa. 49.6. Following the. pi'Ociamation of Yahweh's victory over Babylon (chs 46-48). Isaiah 49 issues its call to the ·coastlands' and ' peoples from afar' to listen to the servant's words. The servant has been 'called' and ' named' by Yahweh from before birth ( I ).~ The servant is described as a \Veapon carefully prepared for use - a sharp sword. a polished arrow (2). The reason for concealing the. weapons is

62. See the careful argument of Orlinsk)'. 'Servant•. 76-79. I~ is llFb,'U instamem i11 tilt: JVell' (trans. Donnld H. Madvig: Grnnd Rapids: E«dmans. 1982), 39, n. 99. 95. lsmd will be galhcrcd again. from the-ends of the earth: Jerusalem will be. rtbuilt: Yahweh. the creator ofall things. will be with his people and will agnin be their shepherd: Yahweh wlll mnke3 ncw cow·.nant with his people~ Hooker. Je.ms a11d the Sen·a11t. 30-40. 96. Isaiah's inAucnoc on Lukc-Ac.ts is not limited to the servant songs. ·Luke did not merely mifize- Isaiah as 3 source for prooftcxts to suppon his own poi.nl of view. Ruther luke had inwsti gated Isaiah extrns.i\•e-lyand had 11 dttpappl't'Ciation for lsaianicthcme.s . His mind was saturated with lsnianic te-~IS andconccpls. which Mapc:d his \'ic:'vs.· Thomas S. Moore. ' .. To d1e-End of the E:uth": The Gcogrnphjc-al and Ethnic Uniwnalism ofActs 1.8 in light of lsaianic.lnAuence-on Lukc'.JETS 40 (1997): 392. Sec aJso Pno. Act:.': Sanders. ·rsaiah in Luk.tvid P. M ocs~ncr. ·The Ironic-Fulfillment of israel's Glory'. in Luke- Arrs o11d llteJewislt Pt·opfe (ed. Joseph B. Tyson: .\ finneapolis: Augsburg. 1988). 46-47. Sec: also Strauss. Da\•idic Mes.fiak. 325 (cf. 235- 5-0. 288-92. 324-33). 100. Fitzmycr. Luke. 1.486: Walther Zimmcrti nnd Joachim Jeremias.. ·nat~ 8EoU'. TDNT. 5.701-02. Sec the e-xtended argument in Jeffrc-)' A. Gibbs. · fund Standing with brad: The Baptism of Jesus in ~tatthc-w's Gospel (Matt. 3. 13-17)'. CBQ64 (2002): 511- 26. 10 1. The servant song;; are. reAocted in many NT te.xts. including Matt 8.17: 12.18-21 (citing lsa. 42.1-4}: John 11.3&-41: Rom. 15.21: 2 Cor. 6.2 (ci1ing l~a. 49.8): along with other, k ss oe11ain. allusions. Vincent Taylor. T1re Names ofJe.u u (london: Macmillan. 1953). 36. 102. The LXX uses na.i; to trunslatc -;;;;t 14 time:; in Isaiah 40- 55. including -41.8-9: 42. 1. 19a: 43.10: 44. 1-2. 21 (2 ). 26: 45.4: 49.6: 50.10: 52. 13. The six renu ining instance~ of •;t in these chllp(ers arc translated by 6o U/.o ~ (48.20: 49.3. 5: 42.19b: 49.7)or 6ou/.t\Jo\•·w (53. 11 ). Luke also applies aai~ to ls.ntd (Luke 1.54} and David (l uke 1 .69~ Acts 4.25). The only o1her thcologicaJiy significant use of the te-nn in lhc NT is the c.itation of Isa. 42.1·4 in Matt 12. 18.-21. It is difficult to sustain the argument of 0. L Jones that the usc: of sro:i~ in Ace:; has ·no particular reference to Dcm«o-lsaiah'. Donald L. Jones. 'The Titlt-"SliY. ~iAAE< K<Xtci'(Ytllitvt{(l t t A<X{(l K<Xl t otAoyoi.wt« \:.IJ-ii~ ). 126. Following Je~us· instructions to the twelve (Luke 9.51 ~btL 10. 14: Mark 6.11) and the sevcnt)'(luke-10.11 ). The twd \•e were e.xplie:id)' forbidden to go to the Gentiles ore\'en the Sam:uitans (Matt 10.5-6). olthough this prohibition doe~ not appear in luke. 127. So~ have contended that 0 l.'Upto; here is Jesus.. no1 Yahweh. who spoke through lhc prophet and it is therefore Jesus wOO has commanded this turning to tbe Ge-ntile.s . Pao. Ac-ts. 101: Martin Rcsc.•·Die-Funktion deralttcstamentlichen Zi1ateund Anspidungcn in den R«kn dcr Apostd· gcschiohte·.in L1!s Act~s de.1· Ap8tres: Traditions, ridacrion. tMologie (cd.ltu:ob Krcrocr. BETL 48: Leu\'en; le-uvcn Univcrsit)' P~. 1979). 18-79: Steyn.Sptuaginr Quo:atimu. 201. II isunJikelythot Jewish opponc.niS would have recognized this association or found it persuasive. Appealing to a command from Yahweh would make much more srnsc in the circumstonccs. 12&. Sundt 'Quotations'. 54. 12CJ. Barrett charncterizesthe articular infiniti\·e toUdvo:l o t as epc.xe-getical. The ·light' and · sal vation· represent the ~!lmc blessing. Barre-ll. ACIS. 1.657. Rusam note$ thallheccho of AciS 1.8. io~ Ea x&·t ou 'tfl ~ yi};. serves to pla« Paul's ministry here as p:~n of the mission of the eleven give-n therr. Rusam. Das Alit- Testament bei LukQs. 414. 4

46

Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts

the coming of Christ as the. divine servant (Acts 3.13, 26; 4.27, 30). 1 ~ The citation justifies only ·turning to' Gentiles; it does not require 'turning from· Jews, as the subsequent narrative will make plain.•-U From this point the.Gentile mission becomes the primary focus of Luke's narrath•e. Paul and Barnabas go next to lconitun . where they again preach first in the synagogue. Many Jews and Gentiles believe, but Jewish opposition forces them to leave tJ1e city ( 14. 1-7). In lystra. they speak to a pagan audic.nce. from which they win ·a large numbe-r of disciples' ( 14.8-21 ). They then return to Antioch in Syria~ "where they had been c.ommended to the grace of God for the work which they had fulfilled' ( 14.26) and report 'all that God had done with them. and how he had opened a door oftbith to the Gentiles· ( 14.27). This characterization clearly indic-ates that the previously unspecified work to which God had called them ( 13.2) was to bring Gentiles to fajth in Jesus. This pattem ('to the Jew first. but also to the G1eek'. Rom. 1.16) will be repeated in each city as Paul speaks first to Jews. experiences substantial (though not complete) rejection, and then focuses his ministry on Gentiles (e.g. 18.5-6; 19.8-9). Finally, arrested in Jerusalem on false charges (related to his association with Gentiles. 21.27-36). Paul will preac.lt to govemors and kings (24-26). as God had said to Ananias (9. 15). The narrative closes witl1Paul in Rome, where. again. many Jews reject the message and Paul again declares (concluding the last speech in the book), ' this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; a nd tl1ey will listen· (28.28)."' In Pisidian Antioch. d1e result ofPaul"s announcement was that ' the Gentiles ... were glad and glorified the word of God' ( 13.48). As a result of the subseqnent proclamation to Gentiles. ·as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. ll1e word of the lord spread throughout all the region' ( 13.48-49). Many Gentiles ' saw the light' :.lJld, as a result of these events, salvation indeed came to those. in distant parts of the earth. It is difficult to overstate. how remarkable this turn of events is. Rackham describes it as ·apostasy - for so the Jews would regard it' .1n In Acts 22. a crowd in JeJUsalem liste.ned patiently as Paul preached about Jesus: the riot began only when Paul claimed that God sent him to pre.ach to Gentiles (2 1.21 -22). Such a dramatic change in perspective. must be based on clear direction from God. The que.~tion is how Paul found that direc.tion in lsa. 49.6. Isaiah 49.6 spoke ofan individual 'servant' who would be the light and bringer o f salvation to the nations. The singular 'you· of Isa. 49.6 (~rr "l~~rq1, NT and 130. Jewish refusal i$ ·a contributory.thou,gfl not the primar)'(c.f. dlS 10-11). cause: of the.Gcnlile mission'. 'The fac1 that the Geontik mission c.ould be ju.stifiod from the OJd Tcsumcnt does not cxcJude either the prior prodamalion of the gos.pcl to the.Jews or the possibility that kwidt obdurncy could b«ome an immediate cause of the Gentile mission.' Wilson. Gentile MiSJion. 112. 131. 'In the: very next city on his mi ~sionary itincr!lry. he would again begin his witness in lhC' .synagogue: (J4.t).' Paul c.onlinued pre-aching in synagogues (Acts 17.1 . 10. 17: 18.4. 19: 19.8: cf. 16.13 (nol as Polhill has it. 16. 121). Polhill. Acts, 308. So also Bamtl Acts. 1.656. 132. The rcjoc(ion oftbe. me;wge by Jc.ws and the.subse.quc:nt lutning toGc:n!ilcs in I3.45-49and 2&.25-31 thus form 11 kind of inrbuio for this major section of Ad s. 133. Richard B. Rackham. T1re .4cts oflh(! t1po.rtles (WC: Grand Rapids: Baker. t978), 221.

3. The Serwmt and th~ Nations

47

LXX't£6eu:ci oe), which is applied to Jesus in Luke 2.29-32; Acts 26.23, is here applied to ·us' (~J,ltV) and the-promise is understood as a command addressed to Paul and Barnabas. How docs the. prophecy come to be applied in this way'? First, some hold that the prophecy is applied to Christ and not to Paul and Barnabas. Grelot states that ·En depit des apparenccs, ce texte n'est pas transfere du Christ, Serviteur du Seigneur. ases deux cnvoyes. Paul et Barnabe ·, u.a because the grammar o f Acts 13.47 and the singular addres.." {a e) in the.citation cannot be understood as applying to (plural) Paul and Barnabas. for the same rea,son, fitzmycr also ascribes the citation to Jesus: Paul !le'cms to be upp1ying the Scl'\'!lllfs words to himself (_und Bamubas). The difficulty. however. is that the words cited are uddrcsscd 10 ·you' (2nd person sin,b'lllat). wblch makes thcm difficuh to apply to Puul und Bsmabus. So the quoted p:ttl of the Sen·ant Song muy in rc-ulity rercrto Christ. who through Bumaba.s :md Puul is nu king known to the Jews or Pisidian Antioch this ·tiglu of the Gentiles. and ·mc.ans or salvation to theends or the eunh: i.< .. a light that will shine on Gentiles and bring sah·ution eve-rywhC1c~us

Grelot al.so argues that the application of the same text from Isaiah to Christ in Acts 26.23 prohibits its applic--ation in Acts 13.47 to Paul and Barnabas. Instead. we are to understand that Paul and Bamabas have.been called by God to preach the Wo1'd - as they proclaim Christ as the light to the. nations, they bring salvation to the- end of the eanh. Pete1· Bolt argues that the prophecy is a conunission that Paul and Barnabas share ·indirectly' . l.'l6 This reading does not, however. reflect what Acts 13.47 acntally says. and it is uncle-ar on what basis we may privilege the singular oe and constrain the plural ~JitV to fit it. Eric. Franklin argues that the citation is not about the servant, but about the .salvation Jesus brings. 'The fact that [Luke] can apply this passage to Paul as well as to Jesus sugges ts that he sees its e-mphasis as pointing in the first place, not so much to the person of Jesus, as to the saving \VOrk: of God whic.h is accomplished through him. It is the salvation of God which is his first concem '.m Such a subordination of Christ to God's salvation seems unlikely. howeve1'. given the centrality of Chri.stology in most readings of Luke-Acts. It is unclear on this reading how the prophecy become.'! a personal obligation for Paul and Bamabas. James D UJl ll believes that the language of (sa. 49.6 is applied to Israel: · (srae.l itself had been give-n the. task of being and bringing light and salvation to the Gentiles (lsa. 49.6). So all Paul and Barnabas were doing was fulfilling Israel"s mission. ·m Witherington writes that Paul and Barnabas ·are assuming the role and 134. PieJTC Grclo1. 'Note sur Aetcs.. XIJI. 4T. RB SS (1981): 370. Also Jacques Dupont. ·Je f ai Ctabli lwni(re des nutiorcs (Ac 13. 14. 43- 52)'. in Nouwlles Etudes sur Ir-s Acres Jes Ap6rr;;r (Pilris: Cerf. 1984). 343-49. 135. Fitzmycr. .4crs. 52 1. 136. Phguration (l uke 9.35: 116). e-tc. Since his focus is on the role of the OT in the rete.d the text for Diaspora readers who might be more interested in a believing ·remnant'

26 . Kaiser. 'Oavidic. Promise'. 103. 27. Richard Bauckhmn. 'James and the Gentiles (Acts 15-.13-21)'.in HistoJJ', Litemtu1~. a11d Soci· ety iJI the Book ofACis ted. Ben Witherington Ill: Cambridge: Cambridge Univer::ity Press. 1996). 160-61: Bauc.kham. ·James and the Jerusalem Churc.h•. 455- 56. S« also Jostcin Adn:t. 'Die Heiligc Sc.htift als Zcuge for avaatp£'1fc.>.» The alternative readings for KtXt£0KlXIt~£va ( 16. which differs in person and number), and E1tt~l)t~ooootv (not the more common tite~tlt~C!01lC!tV).In

Hosea. it is the people who return. not Yahweh. Jeremiah 12.15-16 is concerned with the eschatological incorporation of the nations in the people of God; it includes ~£tel (but not tttiita), intatpeiJiro (not c'tvaotpeiJI~l), and (42 words

later) oiKo50J..1tl&~oovtcu (not the active and le.ss common ttvotKOOOJ.li(l)).J<J Holtz has suggested there may be a reflection ofZech. I. J6,.co which speaks of the t'estoration of the temple. but again £1tt.Ot pi'Vro is not miah 1.10 shores a. .ot.:o6opio and t>«:ta i~ayaydv at :rOv Aa6v JlOU Et; Ai'{U:n ou fro m Exod. 3.11 . 44. ·rhe two temporal c-lements sc.:m to hrwt-b«'n interchanged according to the author's nt.:ds.' Richard. ·creati\·t Usc·. 47. n. 23. 45. Richard. ·crc.atiw Usc:'. 48. n. 27. 46. Rcub.:n Swnnson, td.. T11e Acu (}fthe Apostles. in New Tt·sramem G1W!k Mamtscriprs: l'ariant RrodingJ Anrmgetfin Hori.:.onral Li11es Agaiml Cotfe·x ralicanus(Shcffield: Sheffield Ac-ackmic Pres!>. 1998).162. 47. ·rhc: rc-11d.ing ... is so dlipti~al an c:tpl'r$.Sion that copyisiSmade variousauc-lllp(s to recast lhc phtose. rounding: it out as an independent stat<mc:nt' ).f'-'1zgcr. Te.rtual C.ommemory. 379. 48.. ·s ince the.quotation from Am 9. 12 ends witfl ·taUt«. the concluding words nrc James's comment' Mecz.gcr. Te.~rual Commelllt.IIJ'. 379. 49. Huub ''an de Sandt. ·An Expl-anation of Acts 15.6·1 1 in the: Lig}u of Dc:utaonomy 4.20-JS (LXX)'.JS.VT46 (t992): 8t- 84.

;o. ·Thc:re is liulecontnct bclweenour quo1ation and Is 45.21 in the LXX.· George:-0. Kilpatrid .• ·somc:-Quo!ations in Acts'. in l.es ..fetes des .4p61N's: Trodiri(}IU. ridoC'fion, t/re(}logie(ed. J. Kremer. BETL 48: lett\' Dtwids. 88-89. 51. Toy. Q11ottdiolls. 122. · In free. scripru~ quotation (and that ' 't -r.>c: of Amos has b«"n frody quoted inn. 16) lukt and presumably othcn; often tmnsfcra phrase: from one part ofa quotalion to another. The: He-brew paraJklism knt i1sdf to such transfe-r of phrn.ses.' Fookes Jackson and l ake:. cds.• Beginnings. 4.1 76- 77. Sec. also Jacques Dupont. ...Je rcb:i1irai Ia cabone de Da,·Ki qui est 1ombCe" (Ac-15.16 - Am 9. 11 )'. in Glaube und Esdratol(}gii' (cd. Erich Gr'.issc:r and Otto Me:ric Tiibingcn: J. C. B. Mohr. 1985). 25: Niig:clc. Umblttittt' Da~ids. 85. 52. Waard. Compamtiw Siudy. 25. cf. 78. Set also George J. Brool:e. Exegesis at Qumra11:

64

Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts

the differences are less than are claimed.5) The introductol)' formulas difter in the two Qumran fexts5" and are employed commonly enough in l uke-Acts in any case. The adaptation of~ttiiYp-ii(whw plus perfect) in place.ofthe impe-rfec-t O'lf.'~ would only be evident in the ~cxi in Acts 15.16c, which is requil\."tt'Wiic Gerhard F. 1-l!lsd. UnJersra11ding the Book q(Amos: &tsic b·sues in Cunl'tlt ftttf!I]Jil'IOiicms (Gmnd: Rnpids: Bnker, 1991). 105- 20. 65. Nogalski. ·suffixes·, 416--1 7. 66. 1-lamme-rshaimb argues that the same issues arise in the prophe>ci<s of 1·1ollt'a. Isaiah. ~ficah and Jeremiah. ·weeannot therefore conclude from this e-xpression thut the prophet lives in orafter d~ c:\ile.' Erfing l·lmnmcrshaimb. The Book ofAmes: .4 Commemory (trnns. John Sturdy~ Oxford: Basil Blnckwdl. 1970). 137- 38. 67. Paul. Amos. 289. 68. Benson. ···.. . From the Mouth of the lion"·. 2 10. 69. Ckmcntsnrgucs forane:ulydate for the book onjust this basis. Clements. Prophecy. 111- 12. Sec also the argument of Ma). E. Polley, Amos <md rlre Dal·idic Kingdom: A Sodo·J/islorirof Approach (New York: Oxford University Pre-ss. 1989). 10. Roberts ·ts not con,·inc«< the gcll(«tl skC1)tic.ism (re-garding an e-ighth-century dnte.J is wnrronted.' Jimmy J. ~( . Robcns. 'ThcOidTcstnment's Contribution to Messianic Expectation'. in The 11/eui 's CollllfU!IIIOI)'Oiflh~ Bib!~(cd. Matthew Black:Sunbury-on·Thamc-s: Thomns Nelson. 1962). 501: Ronald E. Ckmrnts. /r(tia/1 1- J9(NCB: Grand Rapids: Etorcd kingdomjust like the remnant or lsnd : Smith. Amos, 380. 126. Routtcnberg. Amm.l17. 127. ·notanc.brd nVJt y/n.·/t • A1llkrsc-n and Fr«dm11n. Amos. 9 18. 128. Vi\.'!lor P. Hamilton. T11e BooliofGelli!Sis(2 \X>Is.: Grand Rapids: Ecn:lmans. 1990-95). 1.65862: Gerhard von Rad. G~llf!Jis (Lrans. John H. ~fllrks: OTl: Philadelphia: Westminster. 196 1). 425.

74

Gentile Mission and Old Testamen/ Citations in Acts

Tl1e Mosaic law explicitl}' provided regulations for the kingship (Deut. 17.1420). Yet. for many years. there was no king and ·eve-l'y man did what was right in his own eyes' (Judg. 17.6: 21.25). When Israel aske.d for ·a king to govern us like all the nations' (I Sam. 8.5). it be.trayed a rejection of God as king ( I Sam. 8.7). Nevenheless. God directe-d Samuel to anoint Saul as Israel's first king ( I Sam. 9) and. after Saul's failure. David. the ·man after [God's] own heart' (I Sam. 13.14; 16). who became the foref.·lther o f and model tbr the kings of the d}rnasty to come.m God's covenaJlt with David (2 Sam. 7.9- 16 11 2 Chr. I 7.8-14; cf. 2 Sam. 23. I -7: Ps. 89.3-4, I9-37: 132.11 -12. 17-1 8) bec.ame the basis for late-r kingdom expectation. WaJter Kaiser has noted the. significant pamllels between God's covenant with David and the earl ier one with Abraham - a name (2 Sam. 7.9: Gen. 12.2). a secure home (2 Sam. 7. I 0: Gen. 12.1: I 5.7. I 8-21), descendants (particularly a son, 2 Sam. 7. 12; Gen. I 5.4; 17.4-2 1), and 'everlasting ' dumtion (2 Sam. 7. I 3, 16; Gen. 17.7)and has argued that the Davidic covenant is simply a development of the foundational covenant wit11 Abraham and the means to its realization.l.l0 Language describing the ideal king o f Psalm 72 ('all nations will be blessed through him. and the.y will call him blessed' . 17b NIV) echoe~'i the. promise. to .A. braham and makes him the means to its fulfilment. The prophets promised a restoration o f the Davidic kingdom following the judgement they announced.DI A new king will n1le on David 's throne (I sa. 9 . 7~ cf. Jer. 17.25; 22.4; 33.17, 21) in righteousness and mercy (cf. lsa. 16.5: Je,·. 23.5: 33.15; Ps. 72.2. 4, I2-14), mling in conceit with Yahweh himself (Jcr. 30.9: Hos. 3.5). He will be from the line of David and his reign will never end (lsa. 22.15: Jer. 33. 17: cf. Ps. II 0.4): several texts even call him 'David' (Jer. 30.9; Ezek. 34.23-24: 37.24-25; Hos. 3.5). Even the natural world will be transformed in t•esponse to his reign (lsa. 11.6-9: Ps. 72.3, 7, 16). While he will rule over Israel (a reunited twelve tribes. Ezekiel 37), his reign is universal: ·from sea to sea. to the ends of the earih' (Ps. 72.8; cf. Ps. 2.8), over 'all kings and all nations' (Ps. 72. 1I; Isa. I 1.10: 55.3-5). and ·as long asthe sun· (Ps. 72 .S. 17; Isa. 9.7). All tl1is fits in with the more.general expectation, not only ofjudgement. but ofblessing

129. For David as Lhc mock) king. see Jcr. 30.9: Ezek. 34.23-24: 37.24-25: Hos. 3.5. For Da\'idic descent sec !sa. II. I: 55.3: k r. 23.5: 33.15. 17. 21-22.26: Zoeh. 12.7-8. 10, 12: 13.1: Ps. 89.28. 3637: 132. 11 . 17. For David's nmne applied to the drn.ast)'. see-!sa. 9.7: 165: kr. 17.25: 22.4: Amos 9.11.

130. Walter C. Kaiser. Jr.. ·ne Blessing of D.wid: The Charter for l~ umanity'. in Tlw /.a wand t/1~ Proplum (ed. John H. Skillon: Nutky. NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed. 1914}. 309. S<ealso M. Weinfeld. ·covenant 0..\'idlc'. !DBSup. \'OI.: 188-92: Po lie~·. Amos. 46. 48. By(onltnsLCkmtnlS bdiC' also. e.g. Fitzmycr.Acrs. 205: Johnson. 4

Acrs. 29.

141. John A. Mcle-an. ·oid Jesus Correct the- Disciples' View of the King-domT.BSuc 151 ( 1994): 2 t 5- 27. 142. Jacques Dupont ' La portCc- christolog~uc: de l's ElUdes .u1r /es Actt•s des Ap61re.f (Paris: Cerf. 1984). 49.

4. Tlte Kingdom and the Gentiles

77

28.23, 31). David's words anticipated Judas' betrayal ( 1.16-20, citing Ps. 69.25: 109.8). the opposition ofGentiles (4.24-28, citing Ps. 2. 1-2), and (especially) the resurrection (2.25-32: 13.35-37, citing Ps. 16.8- 11 ; 132.11) and ascension of Christ (2.34-36, citing Ps. II 0.1). David was the model king ' afler God's heart' and the ancestor of Jesus ( 13.22-23). Both are identified as God's servant (4.25. 27. 30; 3.13, 36). 'God had sworn with an oath to [David] that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne' (2.30). By rnisingJesus from the dead. ·what God promised to the fathers. this he has fulfilled to us their children'. to ·give you the holy and sure blessings of David' (13.34-36, citing lsa. 55.3). David Ravens has argued that kingdom expectation is central to Luke's purpose. With his pastornl purpose-in mind (i.e. com•incing kwish bdie\'CfS th:u they have not forsake-n the pcopk of God and asruring Gcntik bdie\·erslhatthe)' do in fact belong to the people of God~ lukion is dlctefort lsrad's mission and the route to the fulfillment of fsrad 's dcstin)'. 1d 4

Similarly, lvfax Turner has argued that ·Jsrnel's restoration or salvation is a cardinal theme of l uke. Acts' and that Luke understands this to be ' largely complete by Acts 15 ·. w 4

4.4 Acts 15.16- 18 Acts 15 marks a critic-al point in both the book and the. lite of the.e-arly church.tJ> It has been called 'ihe stntctural and theological centre of Acts'. 1 ~6 The gospel had spre.ad from Jerusalem and Judaea. through Samaria, and on toward "the e.nd of the eanh•. (n doing so. it penetrnted communities ofDiaspora Jews. a nd even overflowed these communities so that many Gentiles on the fringes of the synagogue had come to believe. But when many Diaspom Jews rejected their message, Paul and Barnabas be.gan pre.aching mot•e widely to Gentiles. supporting this radical step by appe.aling to (sa. 49.6 as a command addressed to them (Acts 13.47). The resulting success of this Gentile mission ( 14.27: I 5.3-4) Jed to sharp disagreements regarding the way in \\>'hich Gentile belie.vers were to be admitted to the church, and pat·ticularly on circumcision. the Mosaic law. and table

143. D.wid Ra\•cns. f.uke and lire RcJtorolion of lmrel (JSNTSup 119: Shefticld: Sheffield

Academic Press. 1995). 250. 144. Tumcr. PokV!r,4 19.

145. II is not neoc:ssaryto review thecomple.x discussion of the.re-lationship between ActsandGalalia.ns on the maucr of Paul's visits to Jcru~km . On this. see e.g. Bruce, Acu {rcY. and wondcu' validate the gospel and its mcssengers(cxcept in Acts 7.36: stt Acts2. 19. 22. 43: ~.30: 5.12:6.8: 14.3: 15.12: Rom. 15. 19: 2 Cot. 2.11; HC"b. 2.4: cf. John 4.-JS and counterfe its in Matt. 24.24: ~fntk 13.12: 2 Thess. 2.9}. 153. Exod us 7.4. 9: 11.9-10: Dcut. 4.34: 6.22: 7.19: 11.3: 26.8: 29.3: 34.11: Ps. 7&.43: 105.27:

135.9: Jcr. 32.20-2 1. 'When in the LXX the phrase ..signs and wonders" is used. lhc re-ference is us~ ally to the emancipation of b:rnd from Eg)'pt .. . From the allusion to Ex:od. 7.3 in Ac.ts 7.36 (and maybe from 2.19 as \VCII) it is obviou.-.l.hat l uke was acquainted with its r; yeypwttat." ' The expression oi Myot t&v 7tpoql~·t6lv does not indic-ate that the citation is a c.omposite~ not· is the reference indefinite (see the discussion on p. 62, above). t6l Commentators have noted that .A.c,ts also contains the only other explicit citation from Amos in the NT. the citation o f5.25-27 in Acts 7.42b-43. Portions o f both Amos 9. 11 band 5.26-27a are also cited (somewhat freely) in CD Vll. 1417, although the interpre-tation there is quite different. Earl Richard has argued that the citations in Acts are related by the common themes o f exile and

160. 11le accoun1is ccrtainJy abridg-ed. The-re had already bee-n ·much discussion' before the lirst of luke's reootded comments ( 15.7}. Any llT!,'Uments 1hat may ha\'Cbeen offen:d b)· lheothcrside arc omitted entirely. 16 1. In Luke- Acts. rirpa:nat introduces a quotation in 12ofl4 occurrcnccs(the-exccptions arc Luke 10.26: 24.46) ond in only one ofthosc 12 is the-source not mentioned (23.35).Six ore uni-que to Luke- Acts (luke 2.23; 4. 17: Acts 1.20: 7..12: 13.33: 15. 15). one is distinc-tive (on!)· Luke-continues the ci1:uion in 3.4-6 to include Isa. 40.4·5}; and five 11re shared with the other gospds (luke 4.4. 8. 10: 7.27: 19.46). 162. As Calvin proposes. Acts J.l-18. 46. Again. sec 7A2: 13.41. Mauro incom:ctlydc.duccs from the ~ubsti tuti on of pnCt '!a {Ita for iv t fi fu,tipq. Et>tl\'1l that ·Ja•ne~ did not purport to give lhc exact l:mgtUgc of Amo~. or of any prophet'. but ·to declare the substance of ..thc voices of lhc prophets" (not of Amos only) touc-hing IlK: matt« under consideration·. Mouro. ·Tabc-mack ·. 401.

4. Tlte Kingdom and the Gentiles

81

tabernacle, t6J but the contexts are dissimilar. the ' tent' in Amos 9 is not the tabernacle.(see sec.tions 4.2. 1. 4.4.3 ). and il l'eference to the-exile is not enough to claim a connection. These citations. togcthe1·with those from Joel 3.1-5 MT (Acts 2 . 1621) and Hab. 1.5 (Acts 13.40-41 ). show that tlle Book ofd1e Twelve was t1uniliar to Luke. J. W. Bowker has analysed the. speech in light of recognized Jewish homily forms and concluded that James's a rgument is ·a genuine yelanunedenu response 'lw that ·derives from a request f(>l' inst111c.tion. yelammedenu rabbenu. let our teacher instruct us' . 165 Tlte matter befo re the council is an halakic question (note ln• Proplrds: Hebrt<w Te~;t, £11gliJ!I Transla1im•and Comt~II'IIW(I' (ed. Abraham Cohen: Soncino Books of the.Bibk:

82

Gentile Mission and Old Testamen/ Citations in Acts

1. 16, Yahweh promises that ·J will return (iJt tatpi'tfOO, 'i;q~) to Jerusalem with compassion and my house will be built in it' (0.voucoSopt}6~Ge'tcu. :t~;:). The active E1tt.Ot p£'VCt> with the passive &votKOOO~'l}6~ouat prevents reading this as the idiomatic constn~ctio n fo r ' again·. God's ' return · is relational, reflecting a change of heart, in this case re~"toring his compassion fo r Jerusalem.' 1' Rebuilding the-temple. is a subsequent event that is dependent on this prior restoration o f God's favour. In Acts I 5. 16b. civao~ptljlro merely highlights the restoration of God's favour that is already implicit in Amos's prophecy and will result in the rebuilding of ' David 's fallen tent' . 4.4.3 The Tent ojD m•id (16c) As with the i""!1 rQO in Amos 9.11 . there is considerable. diversity of opinion regarding 1i1v OICllVIlv dttu iS in Acts 15.1 6. Haenchen argued that the reston.~ ' booth of David' is a reference to the resurrection o f Christ. but few have followed him. 111 Many have understood the ' tent ofDavid' as the d}'flasty and kingdom of David. Rece-ntly, Richa1·d Bauckham a nd others have argued that the expression refers to the e1·e ction of the eschatological temple. m Bauckham argues that · "the dwelling of David" ... [is) the plac.e of God's dwelling in the messianic age when Davidic rule is restored to Israel. He will build this new temple so that all the. Gentile nations may seek his presence there. ' " 4 He claims support for this identification in Tobit 13.11; lam. 2.6~ Ps. 42.5.115 He believes Amos 9. 11-12 has been conflated with Hos. 3.5; Je-r. 12.1516: Isa. 45.21 and that these toget11er 'put the main quotation from Amos .. . in a context ofprophecies which associate the eschatological conversion ofthe Gentile nations \\~th the restorntion o f the Temple in the. messianic age· .nt. Finally, he notes that this reading fits with the early chmch·s understanding of itself as the Boumcmouth: Soncino. 1948). 338: Douglas L Stuart. ·Malnchi'. in The-Minor Propllet.f (cd. Thomns Edwnrd ~fc.Comi s.kc)': 3 \'OI!:.: Grund Rapids: & ke-t. 1998). 1287- 89. I i I . Of l.hc texts cited by BOll for this sense of the tc-tm. the following :ue most relevant: lsn. 63.17: Jer. 12.15: Joel 1. 14: Z