In support of the interpretation of “the booth/tabernacle [sukkâ] of David” points to both the temple and Jerusalem, Abernethy and Goswell wrote that:
A possible parallel is found in
Isa. 4:6, where the word “booth” is used of the cloud, smoke, and fire that
will cover future Zion: “It will be for a pavilion” [sukkâ], a shade by
day from the heart, and for a refuge and a shelter from the storm and rain”
(RSV alt.; following MT verification). The mention if cloud, smoke, and fire
recalls the wilderness wanderings of the exodus period, denoting God’s presence
and protection (e.g., ps. 105:39). As well, cloud and fire are connected to
God’s presence in the tabernacle (Exod. 40:38), and the theophanic cloud filled
the newly dedicated temple (1 Kings 8:10-11). As has often been noted, Isa.
4:2-6 is a companion passage to 2:1-4 about “the mountain of the house of the
LORD” (E.g., Christopher Seitz, Isaiah 1-39, IBC [Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1993], 41), and this suggests that the temple is also in
view in Isa. 4 (though not explicitly mentioned). This supposition is supported
by the reference to “her [Zion’s] assemblies” (4:5)—namely, festal gatherings
(cf. 1:13), and Joseph Blenkinsopp says that this alludes to “ceremonies
carried out in the temple” (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39: A New
Translation with Commentary, AB 19 [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 204). Here,
then, is a passage in the prophets that depicts the eschatological state of
salvation and relates the term “booth” to God’s protection of Zion as a cultic
center.
David brought the ark to Jerusalem
and put it in a tent (‘ōhel; 2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2), which 2 Sam. 11:11
speaks of as a “booth” (sukkâ). According to Francis I. Andersen and
David Noel Freedman, “[The booth of David] could stand for one or more of the
buildings of the capital city that had symbolic significance,” and they opt for
the tent housing the ark “because that is the one structure presumably erected
by David for which we do not have a name” (Andersen and Freedman, Amos,
914). As noted by H. G. M. Williamson, God’s sanctuary is regularly referred to
as a tent (‘ōhel), and, by extension, this is applied to the later
temple, “especially in connection with the idea of asylum (Ps. 27:5 [also uses sukkâ];
61:4 [61:5 MT]; cf. 15:1; 78:60)” (H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a
Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah, Didsbury Lectures
1997 [Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1998], 61, citing Klaus Koch, “’ohel,” TDOT
1:127). Such usage is explained by a knowledge of the tent erected by David
for the ark (2 Sam. 6:17), the same “tent of the LORD” to which Joab fled for
asylum (because it housed the altar with horns; see 1 Kings 2:28-34). In the
book of Isaiah, when the focus is upon the security of Zion-Jerusalem, “the
city of our appointed feats” is called “an immovable tent [‘ōhel]”
(33:20), and this is another probable allusion to YHWH’s tent (According to
Willem A. M. Beuken, Isaiah, part II, Volume 2: Isaiah Chapters 28-39,
HCOT [Leuven: Peeters, 2000], 273). These references in the Psalter and Isaiah
show that the “tent/booth” that was used by David to house the ark and that was
later transferred to the temple (1 Kings 8:4) because a metaphor applied to
Jerusalem as the site of the temple.
A parallel to Amos 9:11 is found
in Isa. 16:5 that speaks of “the tent [‘ōhel] of David.” This is another
text that may preserve a reminiscence of the Davidic tent that (pre-temple) was
the cultic center of the nation (F. M. Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle in the
Light of Recent Research,” in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times,
ed. A. Brian [Jerusalem: Keter, 1981], 177n31). In line with the idea of the
temple as a place of asylum (see above), Isa. 16:1-4 describes Moabite
emissaries seeking asylum under the protection of the Davidic ruler who sits
enthroned (yāšab) “in the tent of David” (16:5). The same blend of
associations is at play in Amos 9:11, and in both passages David’s “tent/booth”
is best understood as a reference to Jerusalem as a cultic center. David is
referred to because he is depicted in 2 Sam. 6 as the one responsible for
brining the ark (= God’s throne or footstool, 6:2) to Jerusalem and housing it
in a tent (6:17). In the next chapter, we are told that David “tarried [yāšab]
before YHWH” to pray (2 Sam. 7:18) (The translation is provided by A. A.
Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC 11 [Dallas: Word, 1989], 126), presumably in the
tent-shrine he had erected for the ark. It was through David’s initiative that
the captured city of Jerusalem became not simply his own capital (2 Sam. 5:9:
“the city of David”) but YHWH’s capital as well. The focus in Amos 9 is on
Zion’s cultic restoration, yet this may imply that the restoration ill include
a pious Davidic king (see below).
In line with this understanding,
Zion is called “my [God’s] holy mountain (3:17 [4:17 MT]). According to Terence
Collins, “The preoccupation with the status of Zion and its temple is a major
feature of Joel . . . [and] serves to ensure that the same preoccupation is a
key note for the whole of The Twelve (Terence Collins, The Mantle of
Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books, Biblical Seminar
20 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 68).
The Zion/temple theme is found in
verses such as Joel 1:13-16; 2:1, 15-17, 23, 32 (3:5 MT); 3:16-21 (4:16-21 MT),
and Zion is viewed as God’s capital, the fructifying center of the land/earth,
and the place of refuge of God’s people. Consequently, according to Rolf
Rendtorff, “those who are at ease in Zion” (Amos 6:1) may be those who draw the
wrong conclusion from the picture of Zion as a place of escape and refute in
Joel (Rolf Rendtorff, “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological
Unity,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D.
Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBL Symposium Series 15 [Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2000], 82). If the context provided for Amos in the Twelve
is deemed significant, the presentation in Joel shapes the interpretation of
Amos in a certain direction. In Obadiah, the “vision” that follows straight
after the visions of Amos (chaps. 7-9), Zion is “my [= God’s] holy mountain” (Obad.
16), and the capital of a kingdom that the LORD rules (Obad. 21).
As well, Amos 9:11 is the thematic
inverse of the earlier announced judgment on Bethel, the “king’s sanctuary . .
. the house [ESV: “a temple”] of the kingdom,” which, therefore, might be
nicknamed “the booth [ESV: house”] of Jeroboam” (7:9, 13 ESV alt.). In Amos’s
third vision, the prophet sees YHWH standing on or by (‘al) a wall (v.
7), and the succeeding verses imply that it is the wall of the Bethel sanctuary
(vv. 9, 10, 13), In a further development of the same theme, in the fifth
vision (9:1-4), Amos sees YHWH standing on or by (‘al) “the altar.” If
the collapse of the temple structure (capitals/thresholds) refers to the
destruction of the Bethel sanctuary, as is most likely (E.G., Gary V. Smith, Amos,
Mentor [Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 1998], 359; Joyce Rilett Wood, Amos
in Song and Book Culture, JSOTSup 337 [London: Sheffield Academic, 2002],
82-85), “maybe Amos could envisage a future hope for Israel under the Jerusalem
cult” (43), which, we argue, is what is contemplated in v. 11. James R.
Linville has noted the allusive but persistent references to architectural
structures in 7:7-17 and chapter 9, including a description of the created
order as a cosmic temple built by God (9:6; cf. Ps. 78:69) (James R. Linville,
“Visions and Voices: Amos 709,” Bib 80 [1999]: 38). Therefore, the
destruction of the false sanctuary at Bethel finds in positive counterpart in
the restoration of the Jerusalem sanctuary. (Andrew T. Abernethy and Gregory
Goswell, God’s Messiah in the Old Testament: Expectations of a Coming King [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 145-47)
This is yet another nail in the coffin of Robert M. Bowman’s bogus
“Temple of Solomon” argument against the Book of Mormon.
Further Reading
