by D. Collier Brown
The Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15:1-21, provides us with an excellent example of the New Testament’s use of the Christological interpretive principle (see Interpreting the Bible Biblically). In this passage, Paul and Barnabas travel to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders regarding Jews who were teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses in order to be saved. After much debate, Peter stood and stated that Gentiles were saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way that Jews were saved. James followed by declaring that the Old Testament prophets agreed with Peter. To prove his point, he quoted Amos 9:11-12:
“After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the Tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.”
Now, the issues before us are: Why did James quote Amos? What was his understanding of what Amos prophesied? And how did he apply Amos’ words to the current situation being discussed?
In order to answer these questions, we begin by considering the differences between the quote of Amos in Acts 15 and the Old Testament version of the same text. Here are the key variances:
|
Amos 9 |
Acts 15 |
|
“in that day” |
“after these things” |
|
“the booth of David” |
“the tabernacle of David” |
|
“that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name” |
“in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord and all the Gentiles who are called by my name” |
How do we explain these dissimilarities?
To begin with, James seems to be following the common New Testament practice of quoting from the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX) rather than the Hebrew. In two of the three differences mentioned above, the New Testament quote agrees precisely with the LXX. In addition, the New Testament writers were more concerned with the meaning of the Old Testament text than the exact words used. (The emphasis in our day seems to be the reverse.) Furthermore, the terms used in the Hebrew text could all be interpreted in a way that would harmonize with the New Testament and the Greek translation of Amos 9. In any event, we can be sure that the New Testament writers, inspired by God, and taught by our Lord and the Holy Spirit, got the meaning right. They communicated what the primary author of the Old Testament—the Holy Spirit—meant, even if the human author did not fully understand the meaning of the words which he wrote. He often did not.
So, James interpreted Amos 9:11-12 correctly. But we must go even further and determine the interpretive principle employed by James in understanding the verses which he quoted. I will argue, of course, that he used the New Covenant approach, that is, the Christological interpretation.
James considers the Old Testament verses from Amos 9—which seem to refer to national Israel in a future age of blessing—to apply directly to what was taking place in his day. He applies the Old Testament prophecy to Gentiles being saved and added to the Church. He interprets Amos typologically and Christologically.
Here’s my support for this conclusion: James agrees with Peter that God has taken from the Gentiles a people for His name just as He had done with Jews in former times. Why does he agree? Because the Prophets agree: “just as it is written....” In other words, according to James, the Old Covenant prophet Amos spoke of the salvation of Gentiles who were putting their faith in Christ during the ministry of Peter, Paul, etc. This point is very clear in the text. Furthermore, “after these things” in Acts 15:16 follows the predicted destruction in Amos 9:8-10.
This ultimately finds fulfillment in the coming of Christ to defeat sin and death. The rebuilding of the tabernacle of David is fulfilled by the exaltation and enthronement of Christ upon the heavenly throne of David, and the establishment of his Church as the true spiritual people of God, the true tabernacle. This is exactly what led to the time when the Gentiles would seek the Lord, which Amos wrote about. Thus, Amos used the language of a physical kingdom and a physical people to refer to the spiritual kingdom and the spiritual people of God, the gathering of God’s elect, both Jews and Gentiles, in one body. It ultimately refers to the restoration and rebuilding of the spiritual tabernacle purchased by David’s son (Ephesians 2:19-22).
This interpretation stands in stark contrast to the Dispensational or “literal” approach that insists that we must begin with the Old Testament and interpret it literally in order to get the proper meaning and application. They argue that we must interpret the text exactly as the Old Testament author would have understood it. They conclude, therefore, that Amos was speaking of the future millennial kingdom over which Christ would reign from the throne of David in Jerusalem over all the nations of the world. This understanding presents a problem, however, as they recognize that James was not using these verses to indicate that the millennial kingdom had already arrived. Their solution is to claim that James was only applying a truth regarding the millennial kingdom to the Gentiles in the church age.
To support their reasoning (and challenge others), they adduce things like:
1. James did not say Amos 9 was fulfilled in the Church, he was simply asserting that what was happening agreed with what the Old Testament prophets wrote about the future kingdom.
2. The Church could not have been in view in Amos 9 since it was not fully revealed in the Old Testament.
3. When James says, “After these things I will return,” he was referring to the second coming of Christ which was still future to James’ day.
4. Christ’s present ministry in heaven is not to be associated with his sitting or ruling on the throne of David.
However, the rationale of the Dispensationalist does not hold up when examined carefully:
1. In regards to James not mentioning that Amos 9 was fulfilled in the Church, he doesn’t mention that it was to be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom either.
2. While we may agree that the Church was not fully revealed in the Old Testament, we would argue that information about the Church and the New Covenant was present, if vague, in the Old Testament. Indeed, that is the very thing we are trying to establish. James understands an Old Testament prophecy to have been speaking of the Church age.
3. “Return” in verse 16 does not mandate a bodily appearance at all. Even if it did, it may have referred to the first coming of the Lord to earth to die for the sins of Jews and Gentiles alike. The context of verses 16-18 seems to support this interpretation.
4. The assertion that our Lord’s reign at the Father’s right hand in heaven has nothing to do with his ruling on the throne of David is easily contradicted by Acts 2:29-36.
In Acts 15, the New Testament interprets the Old Testament prophecies Christologically, typologically, and figuratively, that is, as fulfilled in Christ and his Church. This should not come as a surprise because the primary author of the Scriptures is the Holy Spirit and we must regard His intentions for a prophecy to be what truly matters. Thus, it is not important or necessary to see an Old Testament passage as the human author may have understood it, particularly in a prophetic context. He wrote in the words and language of his day, and may not have understood the spiritual realities to which they ultimately referred (1 Peter 1:10-12). New Testament authors, however, were inspired by the Spirit of God to bring the meaning of the Old Testament passage forward to the New Covenant era. And they never missed in their effort to achieve that goal.