The following comes from:
Robert Lee Williams, Bishop Lists:
Formation of Apostolic Succession of Bishops in Ecclesiastical Crises (Gorgias
Studies in Early Christianity and Patristics 16; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias
Press, 2005), 60-63
THE
AMOS PROPHECY
The
citing of the Amos prophecy by James in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 gives
reason to consider possible a succession from Jesus to James. In support of
Peter at the council James is quoted as saying,
And
with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,
“After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David,
which has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will set it up,
that the rest of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my
name,
says the Lord, who has made these things known from
of old.” (vv. 15-18)
Whom
to credit with choosing Amos is disputed. Haenchen, who attributes much of
Acts, specially the speeches, to Luke’s literary composition rather than to his sources, thinks that Luke chose the Amos text simply to “adumbrate” Jesus’
ministry. [46] However, the prophecy fits more particularly the interests of
James in leading Jewish Christianity in Jerusalem. Telfer has correctly pointed
out that the quotation holds prospects for the Jerusalem “mother-church” to be
the center of a “restored Davidic kingdom.” [47] It is the σκηνη of King David (15.16) which will turn Gentiles to the
Lord. That Gentiles are turning to the Lord indicates that the Jewish institution
involved, the Jerusalem εκκλησια, is indeed the received Davidic government.
We find support for attributing
this speech to James in the appearance of Septuagint wording in the mouth of
James. The much debated use of the Septuagint text to assuage an uncompromisingly
Jewish consistency (15.5) can be reasonably attributed to James on the context.
[48] The Hebrew text of Amos 9.11-12 makes no link between Davidic restoration and
Gentile conversion. Its point is Davidic conquest of Gentiles. “I will restore
David’s fallen tent . . . so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all
the nations that bear my name” (9.11-12 MT). The contemporary phenomenon James
addresses before the council is not recent reconquest by Gentiles by Jews but
recent seeking of the Lord by Gentiles. [49]
THE IMPLICATION?
Upon closer examination we find
that the Davidic character of the government suggest a royal succession in the
leadership. Other Old testament references to Gentile conversion under Jewish
influence could have been cited. [50] James’s use of the altered text from Amos
is designed, it would seem, to demonstrate to the Pharisees that the influx of
Gentiles, which is causing them such concern, is the very indication that in them
God has restored the promised Davidic rule. James turns their attention from a
difficulty they have with the Gentile movement to a benefit they derive form
it. The benefit is that they have a basis on which to claim to replace the
temple cult and the high priesthood as the government of the Jewish nation.
David’s kingdom was “of this world.” Telfer reasons that the restored Davidic
rule was over a “kingdom not of this world” form the later testimony of “the grandsons
of Judas . . . of the family of David” when they were brought before Domitian
(Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.20.1, 4), late in the first century. However,
we can hardly be certain that such testimony is reflective of the beliefs of the
Jerusalem church in A.D. 48. First century jews, which included some
Christians, were not without their hopes of deliverance from Rome by God and of
subsequent rule by him. Telfer acknowledges that the Maccabees had brought
together the offices of kings and high priest, [51] a fact we noted in the
previous chapter’s discussion of Josephus’s high priests.
Did James, then, choose the Amos quotation
because he considered himself in a royal and high priestly line from Jesus
restoring Davidic rule and fulfilling the ancient promise of an eternal rule
for David in 2 Samuel 7.13, restored in Jesus and maintained by him in the Davidic
line until Jesus’s return? Let us not dismiss it because of its great variance
with Christian history. Maurice Goguel has flatly stated ,”We can justifiably
say that a dynastic Christianity supplanted apostolic Christianity at Jerusalem
in 44.” [52] Short of direct evidence, we find considerable indirect evidence
for such a royal family succession. In a variety of texts New Testament writers preserve
statements about dynastic leadership. This polemic suggests the currency of
dynastic thought in the churches of the writers’ times. In the same Gospel that
underlines Jesus’ royal lineage from David (Matt 1.17; 13.55) [53] the Church
is built around Peter (Matt 16.18). Foakes-Jackson and Lake interpret this as
an attempt in Antioch to diminish James’s power in Jerusalem. All the Gospel
writers disparage Jesus’ kin and characterize them as unworthy, in comparison
to the Twelve, of leading Jesus’ followers. His family misunderstands him (Mark
3.21; John 7.25). His intimates becomes those outside his family who follow his
understanding of God (Mark 3.31-35; Matt 12.46-50; Luke 8.19-21). Future
authority will go to the closest followers, the Twelve (Matt 19.38; Luke
22.28-30).
We conclude that a royal family succession
with James probably was an actuality to some in the Jerusalem church, perhaps
to James. If there was such a succession, it was not “apostolic” in the later
ecclesiastical sense. Of course, Paul records that James saw the risen Lord (1 Cor
15.7) and perhaps that he was thereby considered an “apostle” (Gal 1.19).
However, even if he led the Jerusalem church on the basis of an “apostolic fall”
by his brother, which is never stated in the New Testament, James’s position in
a succession depended on kinship. Only members of the Davidic family would qualify.
Those knowing of the succession attributed it to Davidic lineage. They did not
attribute it to “apostleship,” whether the sense of the term be the apostleship
of the Twelve as the earliest and closest followers or, more similar to James’s
case, the sense be the apostleship of Paul as a person with a special call from
an appearance of the risen Lord.
Notes for the Above:
[46] Haenchen, Acts, 448.
[47] Telfer, Office, 10.
[48] Luke’s preference for the LXX is
certainly well known (Jacob Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles
[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], 5.) We shall show, however,
that James is evidently speaking at this point of a revived Davidic rule to which
the church in Jerusalem has legitimate claim. Luke, by contrast, seems to view
that Davidic rule as related to Jesus’ present activity as Lord, seated at the
right hand of God in “the heavens” (Acts 2.30-36; Jervell, Theology,
111-13).
[49] Other differences between the
Greek text of Acts and the Hebrew text of Amos were less consequential, “mankind”
(LXX) for “Edom” (MT) and “who makes these things known” (LXX) for “who will do
these things” (MT). Keil has made a strong case for the similarity of thought
in the Hebrew and the Greek texts (Carl Friedrich Keil, The Twelve Minor
Prophets [Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament; by Carl
Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch; tr. J. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1949], 1:334 n. 1).
[50] e.g., Isa 49.6, cited in Acts
13.46-47.
[51] Telfer, Office, 11.
[52] Maurice Goguel, The Birth of
Christianity (tr. H. C. Snape; New York: Macmillan, 1954), 113; cf. 110-18.
[53] cf. Robert Horton Gundry, Matthew:
A Commentary of his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1982), 19, 283.
[54] F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake
ed., The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles (repr.,
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 1:330.
As
an aside, Acts 15/Amos 9:11-12 is the death blow to Rob Bowman's bogus
"Temple of Solomon" 'argument,' a 'criticism' he refuses to retract
(he lacks any intellectual honesty and integrity and is the personification of the
Dunning Kruger effect, so not surprising). On this, see:
