Abstract
In 1982, Earl Richard brought to light the unique place that Amos holds in Acts by a pioneering Novum Testamentum article on the use of Amos in Acts. I seek to revisit the investigation of the use of Amos in Acts by giving greater attention to the place of the Lukan appropriation of these two quotations in the narrative of Acts, and why they matter to the overall narrative. I argue that Luke appropriates the two Amos quotations and their interplaying themes in Acts 7 and 15 in order to form a literary inclusio that encloses and emphasizes a portion of Acts that exclusively introduces and develops two principal themes in Acts; the Gentile mission and its missionary, Paul. I conclude that such a “creative” use of Scripture is evidence of a narrative rooted in the exegetical construct of an active reader of Scripture seeking a normative expression for a ministry to an emerging multi-national people under the lordship of Jesus.
The quotations of “the LXX” in Luke-Acts, and indeed the entire New Testament in its various text forms and sources, has been and remains an important area of study in biblical research. It is a fascinating focus, one that tells us a lot about Luke, what Luke read, how he understood what he read, and the effect of his reading upon a narrative that seeks to give explanation of God's movement in the world around him.
Earl Richard is right to conclude that the way Luke weaves Scripture into the very fabric of his narrative suggests an “intimate and prolonged exposure to the Greek Bible and its interpretation.” (Richard 1982: 41) Scripture is the backdrop, the story-line, and the foundation upon which Luke himself builds his narrative. In light of this, I would like to devote closer attention to one area of the Lukan use of the Greek Scriptures, specifically the Lukan use of LXX-Amos in Acts.
The study of the Lukan use of Scripture has primarily remained in the realm of the apologetic, i.e. proof, fulfillment, continuity and discontinuity. In this essay, I cast the net more broadly in order to observe how Luke draws upon Scripture with particular literary and rhetorical genius as much as he does for the sake of logical argument. Specifically, I want to propose that Luke was using the two LXX-Amos quotations with creative literary intentions.
“The Creative Use of Scripture by ‘the Author of Acts’”
Of course, I am not the first to suggest that Luke is creatively using Amos in Acts. It was actually Earl Richard in his 1982 Novum Testamentum article, aptly called “The Creative Use of Amos by the Author of Acts” who first devoted a study to these two quotations in one space, promising to reveal the Lukan “artistry and theological perspective” (Richard 1982: 41). His study brought attention to the unique place of Amos in Acts. Richard's essay was a three-fold study of the quotations:
a text-critical study of LXX text-type and variants, including the differences between the LXX and the Lukan use;
an analysis of the Lukan appropriation of the quotations; and
the influences that the quotations of Amos have upon their respective contexts in Acts.
He importantly observed how “the author of Acts,” as Richard calls him, makes more use of Amos than any other NT book when he cites two extensive quotations of Amos in Acts 7 (Amos 5:25–27) and Acts 15 (Amos 9:11–12). Specifically, he says, “While the book of Amos has not exerted noticeable influence upon NT writers, clearly the situation for Acts is different” (Richard 1982: 37). In fact, even if one looks to the broader landscape of the Early Jewish use of Amos, Luke is still exceptional in his use. The only place where Amos is used with similar frequency is in CD-A 7:14–16, where, with striking similarity to Luke, CD appeals to Amos 5:26–27a and Amos 9:11. In one other notable place, 4QFlor 1:12–13 quotes Amos 9:11. But Luke remains distinguished concerning the length of his quotations of Amos (Utzschneider: 279).
In his study, the conclusions Richard made in reference to the Amos quotations were broad in nature, regarding the Lukan use of Scripture in toto. (These conclusions cannot be observed in full here, but to reference these conclusions see Richard 1982: 52–53.) While these conclusions have been quite helpful for the understanding of the Lukan use of Scripture, they have largely left unanswered the questions concerning the role of the two LXX-Amos quotations. Three other studies have observed, with Richard, the interplay that the Amos quotations in Acts have with each other. Neither study, however, has progressed the conversation further than Richard's initial observations (Sandt 2009: 74; Sandt 1992: 77; Glenny 2012). In this essay, I would like to reexamine these quotations and their appropriation into the narrative context of Acts with the hope of finding greater clarity regarding Luke's creative literary use of LXX-Amos in Acts and why the interacting themes of these quotations may have motivated this creative use. In other words, I would suggest that in addition to Richard's observation that Amos exerts noticeable influence in Acts, unlike other NT writings, even more importantly it is the location of each respective quotation that holds significance for the development of the Lukan narrative.
A Contrasting Inclusio and the Proposed Purpose of its Existence
I propose that Luke is using these two quotations of LXX-Amos to construct, specifically, a contrasting inclusio. This is done in order to bracket and emphasize a portion of his narrative that explicitly develops the Gentile mission and its missionary, Paul. The literary device of inclusio that I propose Luke is using here in Acts is commonly observed in scriptural and Early Jewish writings, and though each example cannot be covered in this space, many works including the following witness to their presence in the Hebrew Scriptures, Early Jewish writings, and the New Testament corpus: Lundbom; Rendsburg; Exum; Grossberg; Schreiner; Wal; Anderson; Fidler; Robinson; and Angel.
I suggest specifically that by the appropriation of these quotations Luke introduces motifs that are intended to form a literary inclusio around those themes and events occurring between the two LXX-Amos quotations. According to the normal operation of an inclusio, I propose that the motifs appropriated from these quotations function to enclose and emphasize the material that they bracket. In this case, I propose that Luke introduces themes of exile, judgment, and idolatry from LXX-Amos 5:25–27 into Acts 7:42–43 that are resolved with explicit verbal and thematic echoes in his appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11–12 in Acts 15:16–18 that pictures rebuilding and return. This contrasting inclusio encloses and emphasizes the introduction of Saul, the first reported conversion of Gentiles, and the legitimizing of the Apostle Paul as the missionary to the Gentiles and the Gentile inclusion into the people of God, qua Gentiles.
As a point of definition, the portion of Acts that I propose that Luke is enclosing is, in fact, quite large. Indeed, when picturing an inclusio, many likely imagine a few sentences or verses bracketed with an echoing motif or verbal pattern. However, many inclusios cover great space, some reaching for chapters or larger pericopes (Soulen & Soulen: 85; Luz: 290–93; Tuttle). Further, often when one speaks of an inclusio, one means a construction that is built upon a near exacting echoing or mimicking of themes or verbiage. But the type of inclusio I propose here is a “contrasting inclusio.” This type of inclusio works upon the same principles as a regularly observed inclusio besides the fact that the motifs that enclose the included material echo in a contrasting way, and is a commonly used literary device (Beentjes: 34; Leithart: 58, n5; Ben Zvi: 46).
This study will occur in two steps. First, I will survey the passage in Acts ostensibly bracketed in order to highlight the themes which I find the LXX-Amos quotations to trade upon. This is an important step, since the existence of an inclusio hinges largely upon the enclosed material that it emphasizes, and thus reveals or further solidifies a theme that is of importance to the author. This after all is the real “payoff” of detecting an inclusio. In the second step, I will briefly cover each verbal motif that the LXX-Amos quotation introduces into the Lukan narrative in order for an inclusio to exist. Here we will become more explicitly acquainted with how Luke, by the use of these two LXX-Amos quotations, introduces and resolves motifs exclusively by these quotations. Finally, we bring this study to a close with a summary of what this tells us about Luke and his use of the Greek Scriptures.
The Narrative Location of Each LXX-Amos Quotation
The narrative location of each LXX-Amos quotation is important. Each comes at a pivotal moment in the narrative of Acts. The first, LXX-Amos 5:25–27, comes in the Lukan Stephen's speech that closes, for Luke, the Jerusalem mission (Jervell 1996: 75). Importantly, and what will gain more definition in our brief discussion below, two other important things happen in this area of Acts: the introduction of Saul and the introduction of the first Gentile convert, the Ethiopian Eunuch, who is converted who is converted strategically, yet probably with some irony at an insignificant and unlocatable roadside stop on his way back from the Temple in Jerusalem.
The second moment is where LXX-Amos 9:11–12 is quoted. It occurs at the Jerusalem Council. This quotation is the last quotation of Scripture in Acts until the conclusion in Acts 28, and it is a quotation that marks the legitimation of Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles, the inclusion of Gentiles qua Gentiles, and the beginning of the mission to the “ends of the earth,” though not necessarily marking the end of the mission to “Judea,” per se (which would be basically defined as a mission to those synagogues outside of Jerusalem). These two important narrative locations begin to reveal two important emphases; the Gentile mission and Paul's role in this mission; both emphases that have rightly gained much attention by NT scholars. Additionally, the emphasis of an inclusio would further highlight the importance of these plot developments to Luke. I will briefly give some color to these interrelated yet respective emphases.
Luke emphasizes between the two LXX-Amos quotations the appointment of the Apostle Paul and his unique calling as minister to the Gentiles.
At the conclusion of Acts 7, the mission to Jerusalem is completed, according to Luke. The stoning of Stephen marks the end of this mission and is the persecution which precipitates the sending of the young church throughout the Jewish diaspora. The one to disperse them, according to Acts, is Saul, later to be known as Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles. Beginning at the stoning of Stephen, Luke traces with particular detail the development of the character of the Apostle Paul, from his persecution of the church, to his conversion, his early Christian life, his first missionary trip, and finally the authenticating and sending out of his ministry to the Gentiles by the council of apostles and elders in Jerusalem.
Luke's introduction of Saul to the sending of Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles is completely contained between the two respective uses of LXX-Amos, and with special relationship to each quotation. Regarding the relationship to the LXX-Amos quotations, Luke is possibly using Paul as a representative example of Israel that is in exile (i.e. LXX-Amos 5:25–27 in Acts 7:42–43) that in the end Israel seeks God according to God's plan (i.e. LXX-Amos 9:11–12 in Acts 15:16–18; cf. Acts 15:14) (Jervell 1984: 61; Jervell 1972: 55, 65). The council in Jerusalem sends him on his mission, but Luke highlights, between the Amos quotations exclusively, the aspects of God's divine appointment of Paul to his role within the church.
Luke emphasizes between the two LXX-Amos quotations the growing consciousness of the Gentile mission.
The introduction of the nations in Acts happens immediately following the LXX-Amos 5:25–27 quotation. In Acts 7:45, the nations are first introduced into the vocabulary of the narrative as they relate to “the tent of witness” (hē skēnē tou martyriou, Acts 7:44). The tabernacle is said to be used in the process of “dispos[ing] the nations,” a conquering that is fulfilled in Acts 15 by inclusion, not domination. Additionally, at the dispersion of Christians following the stoning of Stephen, a certain deacon of the early church, Philip, witnesses the first Gentile to express faith in Jesus as L
Starting at these instances, Luke documents the developing consciousness of the church concerning the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God. And these experiences play a key role in the Jerusalem Council, which is where the second LXX-Amos quotation is located.
Before the quotation of LXX-Amos 9:11–12, this “enclosed” material that documents the events and “experiences” of Acts 8–14 is reiterated in brief. First, Peter gives an account of his vision, from Acts 10, and his subsequent visitation to Cornelius' Household where the Holy Spirit was poured out (cf. 15:7–9; also accounted in Acts 11). And second, Paul and Barnabas' account of the Gentiles receiving salvation by God's appointment (15:12; cf. Acts 13:44–14:23). The LXX-Amos 9 quotation gives normative confirmation to the experience of the apostles, and is the full development of what was only an allusion in Acts 7:45 (Jervell 1998: 396).
In sum, the aspect to note about the place of these important plot lines is that their introduction up through their full development in the Lukan narrative happens exclusively within the placement of the LXX-Amos quotations with integral connection to the pericope in which they are set.
A Problem and Its Resolution by Fulfillment: How Luke Constructed an Inclusio
In two parts, I want to lay out how I see Luke creatively using verbiage from the LXX-Amos quotations to create brackets around the material that the quotations enclose. First, I want to explore strephō–stemmed words (that is, “turning-words”) that Luke uses in Acts exclusively to create a bracketing metaphor for God's presence with his people. Secondly, I want to explore three motifs that are interconnected by their relationship to how God's people view the place where they congregate to meet God, and how Luke uses this motif in a contrasting echo between the quotation of LXX-Amos 5 in Acts 7 and LXX-Amos 9 in Acts 15. Importantly, as I will demonstrate below, Luke makes an intentional effort for these two broad motifs to be observed, finally, in his appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11 in Acts 15:16 by a clear moment of redaction in replacing anastēsō (“to raise up”) with anastepsō kai anoikodomēsō (“I will return and I will rebuild”) (Richard 1982: 49). The Lukan redaction essentially structures my case for his creative, intentional use of LXX-Amos in Acts.
Israel's Exile and God's Return: A Metaphor Created by strephō–stemmed Words.
First, with the use of anastrephō (“I will return”), Luke's creative use of the LXX-Amos quotations as a literary inclusio begins with his use of strephō–stemmed words (Richard 1982: 49). The author uses these words uniquely to create what I will call a “spatial-relational metaphor” that illustrates God's relationship with his people that effectively bookends a pericope between Acts 7 and 15 (i.e. where LXX-Amos is quoted) (Ellis & Douglas: 49).
In Acts, strephō occurs in only three places; 7:39, 42; 13:46. Outside of its occurrence in 15:16, anastrephō appears only in 5:22 in reference to the Jerusalem prison guards returning to find an empty cell. The exclusive use of this terminology in these important locations makes it plausible (as will be shown below) that Luke intended this word group for a particular purpose, and in light of their association to each respective LXX-Amos quotation the intended use of “turning” words become clearer.
To begin, in Acts 15:16, God's divine intervention is inaugurated by his return (meta tauta anastephō). In order to demonstrate God's initiative to return and intervention into history for the sake of saving his people, Luke both changes the LXX-Amos 9:11 text from a future focused prophecy to a presently fulfilled prophecy, as noted already, and replaces anastesō (“I will raise up”) in LXX-Amos 9:11 with anastepsō kai anoikpdomēsō, in Acts 15:16a (Richard 1982: 49). The focus for Luke is God's restorative return to rebuild the tent of David for his eschatological people, in contrast to his exiling removal of his presence in Acts 7 (Richard 1982: 49; Bauckham: 163–64; Glenny 2012: 12).
Principally, Bauckham, but others also, have suggested that the Lukan change is due to the influence of other texts beside LXX-Amos 9:11. The primary reason, it seems, Bauckham, et. al., have appealed to other source texts outside of the one quoted by Luke (i.e. LXX-Amos 9:11) is that, while the transitive anoikodomeō appears grammatically to take the place of anistēmi with the “tent of David” as its object, anastrephō as an intransitive verb seems to have no cause or origin in LXX-Amos 9:11.
According to Bauckham, et. al., Luke's adjustment of LXX-Amos 9:11a is “extracted from a larger context” from “other biblical prophecies” (Bauckham: 163). Bauckham, in fact, appeals to three texts to make his case. To locate the source for meta tauta he turns to LXX-Hosea. 3:5 where the L
However, as I see it, Bauckham's proposed allusions run into a couple of problems when attempting to draw a strict connection to Luke's appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11. First, in both LXX-Jeremiah. 12:15 and LXX-Zechariah 8:3 the verb used for the L
Instead, I suggest one should look within the Lukan narrative of Acts to find the context for these changes. That is, while I do not deny that such texts are possible explanations for what may have been in the mind of Luke, aphoristically maybe, Bauckham's explanation moves away from answering the question of Lukan appropriation and how his narrative in Acts may better furnish clues to such an alteration of his text. Specifically, the suggested allusion to LXX-Jeremiah, etc., correctly looks for a clearer reason for the Lukan change, but privileges the wrong text and context. In fact, I suggest it misses an essential redemptive-historical motif that Luke has been weaving through Acts for this important turning point in Acts 15, and misses the fact that it is an integral ending bracket that resolves a problem introduced by LXX-Amos 5 in Acts 7.
Rather, I propose that the broader Lukan narrative of Acts has in two other significant places set up Luke for this specific textual appropriation that highlights God's return in Acts 15:16, which James' exegesis is meant to highlight. In view of this, I suggest that his exegesis is predicated upon previously used stephō-stemmed words in significant turning points in Acts 7 and 13.
The first of these significant places is in Acts 7. Here in the Lukan Stephen's speech God directly turns (estrepsen) (7:42) away from Israel after they reject (estraphēsan) his appointed leader (7:39) (Pervo: 179, 189; Richard 1982: 49). The second place is where God indirectly turns from the Jews in Antioch to the Gentiles via his emissaries, Paul and Barnabas (strephometha eis ta ethnē), which for our case reinforces the problem introduced by Luke in Acts 7:39–42 and carries the inclusio, since the sustained repetition of key terminology by the author is a key characteristic to the construction of an inclusio, as Wyckoff notes (479–480, 485). In these two places, there is a use of strephō that collectively can be seen as creating a metaphoric motif for God's activity in his redemptive-historical plan. The concept of a “spatial-relational metaphor” is one that I use in order to give an appropriate picture of how God's “turning” and “returning” affects his relationship by use of a metaphor of presence or space. I am not completely original in noticing this. Richard relates strephō-stemmed words in Acts (7:39, 42; 15:16; cf. also 13:46; 14:15; 15:19) to “spatial imagery” (1980: 272).
First, the metaphor begins in the Lukan Stephen's speech in Acts 7. In Acts 7:42, Stephen shows that Israel rejects God by rejecting His prophet, Moses (Richard 1982: 49). Israel is said to “turn” (estráphēsan). As a result, 7:42 says, “God turned (estrepsen) and gave them over.” For the Lukan Stephen, God turned from Israel corporately, as the integrally connected LXX-Amos 5:25–27 quotation further elucidates. In analogy to the golden calf idolatry, Luke's use of the quotation says that when God turns from Israel, he gives them over completely to their pattern of habitual idolatry, to gods known to Israel in the exile (7:43). The removal of God's presence by his “turning” from his people means exile; the punishment for idolatry is being “sent beyond Damascus” (cf. Deut. 4:25–28). Importantly for Acts, this fate is for those who commit Israel's enduring error of turning from God's plan (7:35–37, 51–53), which is most recently, and ultimately manifested in rejecting God's messiah (tou dikaiou, “the Righteous One”) for a perverted Temple system.
Luke introduces this problem of God's removal of his presence (exile) by his appropriation of LXX-Amos 5:25–27, but he reinforces the gravity of the problem in Acts 13:46. In this place, God turns to the Gentiles, as prophecy confirms both from the prophet LXX-Habakkuk 1:5 and LXX-Isaiah 49:6 (strephometha eis ta ethnē).
In Acts 13, the Jews of Antioch fulfill the “self-fulfilling prophecy” (Johnson: 236) of LXX-Habakkuk 1:5 by their astonished rejection of a foreign nation being used by God for his redemptive purposes. The Gentiles receive salvation freely with no prior commitment to the Law or association to the synagogue (Acts 13:44, 46–48), which is what infuriates the Jews who witness their reception of salvation (13:45). In response to the jealous rejection of God's plan to receive the Gentiles as Gentiles, Paul reminds them that prophecy has foretold that the gospel would be preached to them first, as it was preached to them the previous week, but that it was also in God's plan all along that the Gentiles receive salvation. Regrettably, the precursor of the reception by the Gentiles would be a corporate turn from the gospel according to its universal implication by the Jews. Paul says, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles” (13:46).
Luke reiterates that it is God who turns to the Gentiles through his emissaries, not according to any human or human agenda, but according to his foretold plan according to the Lukan Paul's use of Isaiah 49:6 (tetheika se eis phōs ethnōn).
In both 7:42 and 13:46, God's “turning” moves his plan forward in significant ways. It is affirmed as God's action by a consistent metaphor and verified by buttressing prophecy. Both of these occurrences of turning, and Luke's choice of strephō-stemmed words to illustrate the metaphor, ultimately clarify the Lukan appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11 in Acts 15:16a. The Lukan appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11–12 closes the inclusio with the return of God. Luke says that God “return[s]” to a people whom he has called by his name.
As previously noted, in Acts 15:16, Luke amends LXX-Amos 9:11a. Part of the Lukan redaction is the change of anistēmi (“I will raise up”) in LXX-Amos 9:11 to anastephō (“I will return”). By this clear instance of Lukan redaction, Luke recalls the two previously covered “turning” moments in Acts 7 and 13. The previous “turning” moments metaphorically create a gulf between God and his people. The Lukan appropriation that makes anastephō the centerpiece of God's action also makes a vital redemptive-theological point in Acts by restoring God's relationship with his people by closing the metaphorical gap that existed between them.
The exegesis of the Lukan James at the council reveals that God returns to rebuild a multi-ethnic people that he calls to seek himself, in contrast to his rebellious people in Acts 7. And in reference to the second instance of stephō in 13:46 where the Gentiles were first received, in Acts 15 God's return means that they are legitimately recognized by the church as part of the people that seek God.
In the end, instead of viewing Luke's textual change of LXX-Amos 9:11a in Acts 15:16 as influenced by a web of scriptural allusion outside of the explicitly indicated text of LXX-Amos 9:11–12, I believe that it is best recognized as an allusion back to Luke's own narrative (pace Bauckham: 163–64). It is a creative use of LXX-Amos that serves to illustrate the activity of God and how that relates specifically to the redemptive-historical events in Acts 7–15.
In sum, the metaphor created by strephō-stemmed words between the LXX-Amos quotations, and supported by the occasion in Acts 13, originates in the creative appropriation of these LXX-Amos quotations by Luke. Importantly, Luke's ingenuity is most explicitly seen in his appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11 where he replaces anistēmi with anastrephē. This use of anastréphō serves to close the inclusio created by the first two and only other uses of strephō in Acts (7:39, 42). In the end, according to the Lukan appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11, God returns in a spatial-relational way to Israel after turning from them, according to Luke's use of LXX-Amos 5:25–27, and according to the exclusive use of strephō-stemmed words to illustrate this reality.
Aside: My suggestion that Luke uses strephō-stemmed in contrast with an intended purpose of word-play that creates an emphasis is not unique to these specific verbal instances of strephō-stemmed words in Acts. In fact, in Acts 7, 12, 23 and 26 Luke plays anaipeō against exaireō to contrast execution with rescuing. First, in Acts 7 the voice of corporate Israel against Moses as the one who “killed” the Egyptian (aneilen, 2x, 7:28) contrasts the Lukan Stephen's portrayal of Moses as the “rescuer” of Israel (exelesthai, 7:34). Second, Luke contrasts Herod's execution of James the brother of John in 12:2 (aneilen) with the L
The Rebuilding of God
The second and final part of my proposal for how Luke uses LXX-Amos to construct a literary inclusio involves interrelated terminology concerning where God calls his people to congregate and their conception of this place. Specifically, this motif includes contrasting themes. First, is contrasting “tents;” two in Acts 7 and one in Acts 15, both relating to oik-stemmed words, and a theme of how things are made. Importantly, as noted earlier, this is the second part of the Lukan appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11 from anastēsō in LXX-Amos 9:11 with anastepsō kai anoikodomēsō, in Acts 15:16a. The role of anastrephō in the inclusio was just covered, and now we will turning our focus to the transitive verb anoikodomeō and the motif it commands in the inclusio between Acts 7 and 15 (Richard, 1982, pp. 49–50).
For Luke, James' use of LXX-Amos 9:11–12, turns the focus almost exclusively to God's return to his people, as already covered above. But if the centerpiece of the Lukan use of LXX-Amos 9:11–12 is God's return (cf. anastepsō), as I have claimed above, then equally important for Luke is the second verb that replaces anastēsō from LXX-Amos 9:11; namely, anoikodomēsō that points to God's sole action of rebuilding of the fallen tent of David upon God's return.
According to what James says of Peter's testimony in 15:14, and the connection that these testimonies have to LXX-Amos 9:11–12 (cf. meta tauta), it seems that the Lukan appropriation of the LXX-Amos 9 text is an explanation of a reality emerging in the young church's consciousness. In fact, it is meta tauta, for Richard, that points back to the theme of exile in chapter 7, and points to the emerging reality of the “return” of God (anastepsō) associated with the rebuilding of the tent of David (Richard 1982: 49). This is seen in how Luke believes that God is currently finishing the reconstruction of the tent of David, since the Gentiles are seeking him as Peter, Paul and Barnabas have testified (Jervell 1998: 396; Glenny 2012b: 15). But an important aspect of this rebuilding is that it resolves a plot line created at the use of Amos 5:25–27 in Acts 7:42–43, as suggested by Richard.
In 15:16–18, Luke is again alluding to previous themes established in Acts 7 by the Lukan use of LXX-Amos 5 for the basis of the reality of Acts 15. Initially, it can be observed that Luke's understanding of the eschatological people of God is by the imagery of a tent that is divinely constructed.
The Greek word for “tent,” hē skēnē, seen in 15:16 occurs only three times in Acts. The first two occur in Acts 7. The third use, found in the Lukan appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11, will be covered below. Luke relates the tent of Acts 15 in a contrasting relationship with tents introduced in his appropriation of Amos 5:25–27 in Acts 7:42–43. For Acts 7, specifically, in analogy to the Golden Calf idolatry, two tents come into play for Stephen; one that is representative of the idolatry to which the L
The first of these is in reference to the “tent of Moloch” in the Lukan quotation of LXX-Amos 5:25–27. Much ink has been spilt on who Moloch (and Rephan) may have been, but some have probably correctly suggested that this god was either an invention of the prophet Amos in parody of a known idol (Prato), or is simply not the point of the text, as Dines has suggested in her study on LXX-Amos (165–69). In the end, what is to be observed is that the introduction of hē skēnē into Acts is not a positive one. Simply put, it is meant to be illustrative of the idolatry to which the L
The occurrence of hē skēnē for the first time in Acts in 7:43 is quickly followed by its second occurrence in 7:44. This second use is unlike the first, however, in that it is not so clearly representative of idolatry. Instead, it stands for the tabernacle that moved with Israel during the conquest. But there is still a problem associated with this instance of hē skēnē. This tent is ultimately forsaken by Israel for the Temple. The Temple itself is not bad. It is actually sanctioned and commissioned by God (7:46). However, leaving the tabernacle behind for a fixed temple leads to many idolatrous notions about God for Israel, according to Stephen (Jervell 1996: 20–21). There is certainly for Israel a notion that God is theirs to be protected, defended, possessed, and maintained. Instead of the place where God meets his people, moving about the world with his people, among the nations as 7:44 says, it is fixed and gains a nationalized identity by those who hold it.
However, the problematic themes introduced in the plot by Luke's use of LXX-Amos 5 in Acts 7 do not simply start and end with the tabernacle or tent. In addition, the appropriation of LXX-Amos 5:25–27 introduces other themes that contrast with those in his use of LXX-Amos 9:11–12 in Acts 15. Primarily, these further themes concern how Israel perceives the place where they congregate to meet God. Certain words like metoikizō that picture Israel “housed” in a place devoid of God will ultimately contrast with the twice-occurring verb anoikodomeō, in Acts 15:16, that is illustrative of God's restored presence where his people will dwell. Finally, the verbs such as the twice-occurring poieō (“I make”; 7:40, 49), moschopoieō (“I make a calf”; 7:41), and cheiropoeiō (“I make by hands”; 7:48) illustrate ‘human-hand-madeness’ in the Lukan appropriation of LXX-Amos 5:25–27 that fundamentally contrasts the assumed theme of God-constructed and “createdness” in the use of LXX-Amos 9:11 (cf. anoikodomēsō 2x; anorthōsō).
An essential part of the problem Luke introduces in Acts 7 is revealed by the analogy of the “hand-made-ness” of both the Golden Calf (cf. 7:40, “make [poiēson] for us Gods”;7:41, “and they made a calf [moschopoiēsan]” and “and [they] were rejoicing in the works [ergois] of their hands [cheirōn]”) and the Temple (cf. 7:48, “the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands [cheiropoiētois]”; cf. also 7:49). The paradigmatic Calf Idolatry is meant to be seen in direct analogy to the idolatry to which the L
According to Stephen, if Israel means what they say about the Temple, God has become an impotent idol confined to a shrine (Jervell 1996: 21; Chance: 41). But for Luke, God most explicitly objects to this via the Lukan Stephen's quotations of Isaiah 68 that comes on the heels of his use of LXX-Amos 5. Stephen says that the L
For Stephen, Israel's idolatrous attitude has shifted to the L
These integrally related themes introduced by Luke in his use of LXX-Amos 5:25–27 in Acts 7 are resolved in the use of LXX-Amos 9:11–12. Essentially, this is seen in relationship to the third use of hē skēnē in Acts by the Lukan use of LXX-Amos 9:11 in Acts 15:16. This instance of “tent” is not idolatrous, forsaken, forcibly vacated, nor is it treated as a stationary, national shrine built by human hands. Rather, this tent is one that is built by God alone, sought by God's people, and moves among the nations, calling all to congregate and dwell in the L
In contrast to Acts 7, Luke brings to the surface in Acts 15:16–18 the emphasis on a tent that is of a God-made-nature promised to David and anticipated by Israel. The rebuilding of this tent means that God has, according to the metaphor of “turning,” closed the gap he once created between him and his people by “restoring” what once was (Glenny 2012b: 19–20). The ruins are now completely “rebuilt” and restored by God (cf. 15:16), and the “relocated” are brought near.
With the clear emphasis on “rebuilding” of the “tent of David” in the Lukan appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11–12, some have expressed difficulty understanding why Luke would have replaced an instance of anoikodomeō (“to rebuild”) with anorthōsō (“to restore”). In connection with the Lukan redaction of LXX-9:11 “to raise up” (anistēmi) earlier in 15:16, the reasons have been connected with complex scriptural allusions and the contexts of the supposed scriptures to which Luke alludes (Glenny 2012b: 19–20; Bauckham: 157–60). However, the reason for the replacement here in 15:16 seems intended to simplify the cumbersome LXX-Amos 9:11 source text in his appropriation (Richard 1982: 49; Barrett: 725).
Luke omits two phrases from LXX-Amos 9:11–12. The first is after the description of the ‘fallen-ness’ of the tent of David. The phrase “and I will rebuild what is fallen” (kai anoikodomēsō ta peptōkota autēs) from LXX-Amos is left out. The second phrase edited out from LXX-Amos follows God's promise to restore the “tent”—to “rebuild [the tent] as it as in the days of old” (kai anoikidomēsō autēn kathōs ai ēmerai tou aiōnos). Luke seems to be concerned to keep the quotation of LXX-Amos 9:11–12 to its integral parts, while keeping “rebuilding” in the spotlight (Marshall: 592). In light of this, the transitive anoikodomēsō that has the object of the “tent” is recouped from Luke's first edit (i.e. kai anoikodomēsō ta peptōkota autēs), and this edit could be the source of the transitive anoikodomēsō (“I will rebuild”) that partially replaces anastēsō (“I will raise up”) earlier in 15:16. Further, anoikodomēsō also plausibly replaces anastēsō in 15:16 to avoid confusing the rebuilding of the tent and the resurrection. In Acts anistēmi is used to illustrate the resurrection (cf. 2:24, 32; 3:22 [7:37] in analogy to 3:26; 10:41; 13:33, 34; 17:3, 31), or is otherwise more innocuously used for many instances when referencing the action of standing up, addressing a crowd, sitting up, or beginning an action or a journey.
As for the second phrase edited out by Luke (i.e. kai anoikidomēsō autēn…), Luke inserts the verb anorthóō. The first, and most obvious, reason for this redaction appears to be that if Luke retained the instance of anoikodomeō where in 15:16 anorthōsō (“I will restore”) now stands (cf. 15:16, kai anorthōsō autēn; LXX-Amos 9:11, kai anoikidomēsō autēn) his language would become redundant. If Luke retained the third anoikodomeō the verse would read (with added emphasis), “… I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen, I will rebuild its ruins, and I will rebuild it.” That is, the term anoikodomeō, after these Lukan redactions to LXX-Amos 9:11, would then appear three times, and in the end become superfluous. Instead, Luke says when God rebuilds (2x) the tent, it is then defined as “restored” (anorthoō) in the final phrase of the quotation of LXX-Amos 9:11 (much like the result of an equation).
The word anorthoō (“to rebuild”) only occurs three times in the NT, and two are in Luke-Acts. In Luke 13:13, it is used to illustrate the restored body of a crippled woman; translated as “immediately she was made straight,” but literally: “immediately her health was restored” (parachrēma anōpthōthē). It is hard to get complete precision on this word, according to the Lukan use or to know precisely why Luke would have chosen it as the word that would break up redundancy due to its limited occurrence. The probable solution is that it is a verb that makes for fitting conclusion to 15:16, and indeed the problem introduced by Acts 7, in that God restores what was exiled, fallen and in ruins. This is the best solution in light of how the verb anorthoō is used often in reference to the establishment of the reign of David and Luke's reference to the restoring of David's tent (cf. LXX-2 Samuel. 7:13; LXX-1 Chronicles 17:8; 22:5; LXX-Psalm 17:36) (Glenny 2012b: 19–20).
One broad observation can be made about this part of the study concerning the themes introduced by the Lukan appropriation of LXX-Amos 5:25–27 and LXX-Amos 9:11–12; the way that God's people perceive the place where they congregate to meet God is integrally tied to their view of God and, in fact, God's presence with his people. These contrasting attitudes found in the places in Acts where these respective quotations are cited create a narrative inclusio for an emerging reality within the young church. The reality is that God is returning to call a people to a rebuilt and restored tent that is located where God's people are moving. Luke's appropriation of LXX-Amos 9:11 makes an inaugurated reality that God's building is directly connected to his restored relationship with his people.
Scripture and Experience: Why Does Luke Creatively Use Scripture?
To this point of the study, we have observed four things about the Lukan use of the LXX-Amos quotations in Acts 7 and 15, respectively. First, the narrative location of each quotation comes at important and recognized turning points in Acts. Second, the introduction and maturation of two important themes: the Gentile mission and its missionary, Paul, are integrally connected to and bracketed by the respective LXX-Amos quotations. Third, the Lukan appropriation of the LXX-Amos quotations introduce a spatial-relational metaphor that utilizes strephō-stemmed words that appear exclusively in these locations in Acts—Acts 7 and 15—with a supporting location in Acts 13 in order to demonstrate the fractured then restored relationship God has with his people. Finally, the contrasting perception and attitude God's people have toward the place where they are to meet with God is featured with direct relation to the Lukan appropriation of LXX-Amos 5 in Acts 7 and Amos 9 in Acts 15. These four aspects, when taken together, suggest that Luke is intentionally using these quotations with literary purpose and as markers for his narrative, markers I suggest fit the characteristics of a contrasting inclusio. But as we conclude, one might ask what does this particular case of scriptural usage in Acts tell us about the Lukan use of Scripture?
In his recent commentary on Acts, Jacob Jervell furnishes an important observation about the proceedings at the Jerusalem Council, with specific reference to the Lukan use of LXX-Amos 9:11–12, that will help us frame our conclusions. He says,
Historical experience and scriptural proof flow together; the scripture confirms and legitimates the experience of Peter, and the experience of Peter confirms the scripture [Jervell 1998: 396].
Jervell's statement could have also included “the experience of Paul,” since by “historical experience” he means the testimonies that are given at the Jerusalem Council that inform and precede the LXX-Amos 9:11–12 quotation, and serve to represent the material in Acts 8–14. But what Jervell helps us to see is that Scripture, specifically the Greek Scriptures, is primarily normative for Luke, and the lens for which many came to certain conclusions in Luke-Acts (cf. Lk 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–5).
The reason that I suggest that Jervell's observation is helpful is because it enables us to observe more closely that the Lukan use of Scripture is according to a normative function, as per the two aspects Jervell observes; (1) the exegesis of Scripture as authoritative source (2) in light of current experience. That is, both current application and responsible reading play a part in the Lukan hermeneutic. In fact, as Francis Watson says explicitly in his study on Paul and Scripture, “It is the world rather than the text per se that is the object of interpretation” (Watson: 5) This also applies to Luke.
The importance, therefore, of observing this inclusio is that it shows that all of what Luke writes is a witness to Scripture (Jervell 1984: 136–37), even when Scripture is not explicit, and this inclusio makes clear this aspect of the Lukan hermeneutic. Specifically, the two integral aspects of an inclusio (i.e. its brackets and its emphasized material) reveal the two vital aspects to normative function of Scripture; the authoritative and explicit expression of God's will for the world or experience of a later generation (Childs: 47). That is, according to Luke's creative use of LXX-Amos in Acts, LXX-Amos 5:25–27 and LXX-Amos 9:11–12 are the normative anchors for this inclusio. The role of these quotations as anchors for the inclusio is to emphasize the contemporary experience, and as a normative expression they validate the authority and witness of Scripture that continues among God's people. What this means is that Luke's creative emphasis of an important stage of the church's development by the use of an inclusio is the evidence of a narrative rooted in the exegetical construct of an active reader of Scripture. It is the explicit citations of Scripture that reveal a latent intertextual dimension that was active in the Lukan mind when he wrote Acts.
We began our study noting the importance of Earl Richard's study on the Amos quotations in Acts as the genesis and starting point of this study. The Amos quotations in Acts are for Luke the text of choice that introduces, brackets, and resolves two major themes in Acts. In his study, Richard highlights numerous ways Luke appropriates LXX-Amos uniquely and creatively. In this study, I have taken Richard's study, and those studies that have followed on either or both of the LXX-Amos quotations in Acts, and have asked specifically, What is the role of LXX-Amos in Acts? In the end, I suggest that Luke used LXX-Amos creatively to inform the developing consciousness of the early church concerning the Gentile mission and its missionary, Paul—arguably the two most controversial issues for Luke in Acts. My proposal for the Lukan use of these two LXX-Amos quotations to emphasize the portion of Acts develops the two themes builds upon Richard's earlier work by giving greater definition to the creative literary and rhetorical use of Amos in Acts, and offers greater insight into dimensions of written rhetoric in the Lukan corpus, the New Testament, and possibly more broadly, biblical writings and the first century.