In
Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council plays a strategic role in the missio Dei in the Book of Acts. Acts 1:8
describes the progression of the mission of the early church from a Jewish
territory to a Gentile one, and the scope of mission is “the end of the earth.”
The early church moves progressively from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to
the end of the earth. Besides its geographical progression, as indicated in
Acts 1:8, the mission of the early church should also be interpreted ethnically
and theologically. In moving from the Jewish world (Jerusalem) to the ends of
the earth” (the Gentile world), the early church engages with cross-culturally
ministry and preaches the unchanging gospel in changing contexts. The
progression is ethical. The missional progression of the early church is
theological as well because the Spirit is the one who empowers and directs the
mission of the early church. Apart from the Spirit, the early church can do
nothing. Andreas J. Kostenberger and Peter T. O’Brien write, “The stages of the
witness are to be interpreted ethnically and theologically, as well as
geographically.”[1] Acts 1:8 can
serve as the “table of contents” of Acts and show how the early church as a
missional community reaches out to all the nations from Jerusalem (Acts 1-7),
Judea and Samaria (Acts 8-12), and to the end of the earth (Acts 13-28)
geographically, ethically, and theologically.
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was held after Paul’s first missionary journey from Antioch to Antioch (Acts 13:1-14:28). When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch in Syria, they gave their missionary report. Luke said, “And when they arrived and gathered the church together, they declared all that God had done with them, and he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27). One of the challenges that the early church encountered is that a large number of Gentiles began to come to the church and be part of it. In order to advance the gospel of all nations to all nations, the church must stop and ponder upon the following questions: In what conditions were converting Gentiles considered as God’s people? Did they need to go through circumcision and observe the Mosaic Law like the Jews? Or, can converting Gentiles simply become part of God’s people like Israel without having become proselyte Jews?
These are the dominant questions that set the Jerusalem Council in motion. Acts 15 is not about racial conflict, but a theological one. It is about how Jews and Gentiles come to a theological resolution that Gentiles can remain as Gentiles to become God’s people. In other words, they do not need to become Jews in order to be part of God’s people. This is a decisive missiological moment for the early church to construct a theology of mission toward the inclusion of Gentiles. The confession and vision of Peter, initiated by the conversion of Cornelius, indicates that God shows no partiality towards either Jews or Gentiles (Acts 10-11). In Acts 15, the theological difference between Jews and Gentiles within the same household demands attention of the church in a concrete way.
The structure of Acts 15:1-35 is as follows:
I.
The
Setting and its Problem (15:1-5)
II.
Responses
(15:6-21)
a.
Peter’s
Response (15:6-11)
b.
Paul
and Barnabas’s Response (15:12)
c.
James’
Response (15:13-21)
III.
Resolution
(15:22-35)
a.
The
Letter to the Gentiles (15:22-29)
b.
The
Messengers (15:30-35)
A Theological Conflict in Acts 15
This study mainly focuses on James’ response to the missiological issue raised by the party of the Pharisees who said, “It is necessary to circumcise them [Gentiles] and to order them to keep the laws of Moses” (Acts 15:5).[2] Due to the difference between Jews and Gentiles, the party of the Pharisees raised this question in the Jerusalem Council regarding Gentile conversion. Anthony B. Robinson and Robert W. Wall comment on the story of conflict in Acts 15, saying:
The central
issue for deliberation…is whether the practice of circumcision and Torah
observance should remain public symbols of a repentant pagan’s solidarity with
biblical Israel in shared witness to the risen Christ in the world. The
question is no longer whether the
uncircumcised gentile is saved from sin; rather, the Pharisees ask for
clarification of the sociology of ‘table fellowship’ within a mixed
congregation of the kind found in Antioch (cf. 11:19-26)…whether the ritual
cleansing of non-proselyte gentiles should be a requirement of membership.[3]
Their analysis is not correct in the sense that the story of conflict in Acts is not merely a sociological one, but a theological one. The sociological issue is there, but it is only secondary. A “table fellowship” within a mixed church in Antioch is a concern. That is why the Gentiles are asked to abstain from several practices that are against the laws of Moses (Acts 15:20-21). The Gentiles need to show sensitivity to the Jewish practice as they are part of God’s people. Thus, the social processing is certainly there. Nevertheless, the primary issue is theological. Luke writes, “But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1). The party of Pharisees again reinforces their argument in 15:5, saying that “it is necessary to circumcise them [Gentiles] and to order them to keep the Law of Moses.” Luke uses the term dei/ (it is necessary) to point out the fact that what they are arguing is that “such compliance is a divine necessity.”[4] The party of Pharisees is mainly concerned about the way of being saved. As John Stott rightly notes:
They [the
Pharisees] were insisting, in Luke’s tell-tale summary, that without
circumcision converts could not be saved.
Of course circumcision was the God-given sign of the covenant, and doubtless
the Judaizers were stressing this; but they were going further and making it a
condition of salvation. They were telling Gentile converts that faith in Jesus
was not enough, not sufficient for salvation: they must add to faith
circumcision, and to circumcision observance of the law. In other words, they
must let Moses complete what Jesus had begun, and let the law supplement the
gospel.[5]
Peter responds with the message of justification by faith and concludes, saying that “But we believe that we [Jews] will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [Gentiles] will” (15:11; also 15:7-9). As I. Howard Marshall notes:
We again note
the significant fact that Jews are regarded as being as much in need of
salvation by grace through faith as are Gentiles. The way to salvation is the
same for both groups. The Messiah is regarded as a Savior with complete power
to save those who believe, and he alone has the power to save. Nobody else or
nothing else can save, and no supplementation or prior conditions are needed.
The verdict of the apostolic council is therefore that circumcision is not
required of Gentiles; they are not to be burdened with it.[6]
After Paul and Barnabas’s report (15:12), James continues Peter’s argument by supporting it with Amos’ prophetic words in Amos 9:11-12 (see Acts 15:15-17), insisting that “with this the words of the prophets agree” (15:15a). Jews and Gentiles are saved on exactly the same basis: Through the grace of the Lord Jesus they believe in order to be saved. Through faith, Gentile converts are admitted into the new fellowship of God as Gentiles.
James said, “‘Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name” (15:13b-14). The term lao,j[7] is normally used for Israel. Now, “by using the term lao,j, which was normally applied to Israel, James links the new people, the Gentiles, to Israel. Believing Gentiles now have a share in Israel’s hope.”[8] Through faith in Jesus Christ, converted Gentiles are considered as part of the true Israel, lao,j. James confirms it with Amos’ prophecy that the inclusion of Gentiles is part of God’s plan.
The Use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17
James’
quotation from Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17 has missiological implications
that Amos’ prophecy proves that Gentiles are part of God’s people in his saving
plan. Now, in the early church, the increasing number of Gentiles coming into
the church is the fulfillment of the old.
And with this
the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “After this I will
return, and I will build the tent [or booth] of David that has fallen; I will
rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant 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” (Acts 15:15-17; cf. Amos 9:11-12).
The “booth” (tK;îsu-ta ) can be understood as “the tabernacle of David.”[9] Or it denotes temporary dwelling such as hut (Lev. 23:43; 2 Sam. 11:11). It commonly refers to Feast of the Booths (Lev. 23:34, 42-43; Deut. 16:13). The “booth” normally signifies “the hastily constructed shelters made of branches for the ‘feast of tabernacles.’”[10] In the Old Testament, the term “booth” is often used metaphorically (see Job 36:29; Isa. 4:5; Lam. 2:4).[11] Here, in Amos 9:11-12, the usage of “David’s booth” metaphorically denotes David’s kingdom or dynasty. In the biblical context, God has made an everlasting covenant with David that his kingdom will be established forever (2 Sam. 7:11-12, 16). God has promised David an eternal kingdom, and God will raise it up what has been falling. James D. Nogalski rightly comments that “the large context indicates that the metaphor of the fallen booth of David connotes the Davidic kingdom as a whole.”[12] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. notes:
With a grand theological climax to the book in 9:11-15, God
promised to rebuild David’s house, which in its current dilapidated condition
could only be likened to a ‘fallen booth’ or ‘hut’. What was normally styled
‘the house of David’..., or dynasty of David, would shortly be in a collapsed
state with ‘breaches’ and ‘ruins’ in it…Thus, the dynasty of David would
suffer, but God would bring it back from
its ruined condition, for He had promised David that His was an eternal house.[13]
David G. Peterson also agrees with
the fact that “David’s booth” refers to “the restoration of the ‘house’ or
family of David and thus to the promised Davidic kingdom.”[14] In
Amos 9:11, God promises once again that He will restore David’s booth that has
fallen. David’s kingdom is falling apart. “In that day,” “the booth of David”
will be restored and rebuilt from an eschatological perspective, “the remnant
of mankind” and “all the Gentiles” may seek the Lord and call upon the name of
the Lord, respectively
God will build David’s kingdom once again by raising up David’s seed after him and giving him an everlasting dynasty.[15] Such Davidic dynasty would find the promised King in the person of Messiah. This promise plan of God points backward to what God promised David in 2 Sam. 7:11, 12, and 16.[16] In the distant future, God’s restoration of the Davidic kingdom points forward to the new coming David—the Messianic king. He will finally come to unite the divided kingdom of Israel. And this new united kingdom is more glorious than “the days of old,” for it is a kingdom that includes all the nations.
When
James’ quotation of Amos comes from the Septuagint (LXX) instead of the
Masoretic Text (MT), James follows the LXX interpretation in Acts 15:17. “The
remnant of Edom” in the MT is changed to “the remnant of men” in the LXX.
|
Amos 9:12 (MT)
|
Amos 9:12 (LXX)
|
Acts 15:17 (ESV)
|
|
That they may possess the remnant of Edom (אֱדֹום֙
אֶת־שְׁאֵרִ֤ית) and all the nations (וְכָל־הַגֹּויִ֔ם) who are called
by my name, declares the Lord who does this.
|
That the remnant of men (καταλοιποι των ανθρωπων),
and all the Gentiles (παντα τα
εθνη) upon whom my name is called, may
earnestly seek me, says the Lord who does all
these things.
|
That
the remnant of mankind (κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων) may seek the
Lord, and all the Gentiles (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) who are called
by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.
|
In the Septuagint LXX, the word “Edom” (אֱדֹום֙) is taken as “humanity” (~d'a' [ανθρωπων]) by the translator. “‘Edom’ here is probably a cipher or symbol for ‘men,’ or “all humanity,” including Gentiles.”[17] In other words, Adam/humankind replaces the role of Edom here. The reading of “the remnant of men/mankind” is in parallel with the phrase “all the Gentiles/nations.” It fits well into God’s eschatological vision of restoring all people through David’s restored kingdom.
The
eschatological restoration of the Davidic kingdom will lead to the inclusion of
all the Gentiles “who are called by my name,” meaning that the professed
Gentiles are possessed as God’s own. It expresses “gracious ownership.”[18] Those who are
called by God’s name will be owned by God. In other words, God has complete
control over them. Kostenberger and O’Brien also say that “the expression ‘all
the nations over whom my name has been invoked’ (which literally renders the
Hebrew of Amos 9:12) is equivalent to the covenant term in which the nation
Israel is called ‘my treasured possess.’” [19]
The
conversion of all nations predicted by Amos was being fulfilled in the early
church during the New Testament times. Gary Smith is right: “If they go by
God’s name, they are part of his possession and his people. Amos here foresees
the conversion of many Gentile people groups to God, an insight that helped the
New Testament church decide to include Gentile converts into their fellowship
in Acts 15.”[20] All [either
Jews or Gentiles] who call upon the name of the Lord will be possessed by the
Lord—God’s treasured possession. The use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17 indicates
that converting Gentiles do not need to be circumcised and observe the law in
order to be included as God’s people.
Through
faith, converting Gentiles are admitted into the new fellowship of God as Gentiles. In other words, as David K.
Strong rightly notes, “What must change first is not one’s culture but one’s
faith in Christ. This is not to say that the converts’ culture will not change
under the impact of the gospel, but it affirms that the first order of the day
is the convert’s allegiance.”[21] Thus, Amos’
prophecy and the early Christians would agree with the so-called “multicultural
solution.” What it means is that the early church accommodated the inclusion of
Gentiles without forcing them to become Jews by circumcision and full
observance of the Mosaic Law.[22] David G.
Peterson draws a missiological implication from the narrative of the Jerusalem
Council in Acts 15, saying:
Here [Acts 15]
we find an important manifestation of the church as an entity involving local
congregations in partnership, working together to maintain the truth of God’s
word and promote the work of the gospel. The Jerusalem Council makes the gospel
of salvation by faith alone the key to defining the true nature of this church,
which involves Jewish and Gentile believers together. At the same time, there
is further reflection on the role of the law in the new community created
through faith in Christ.[23]
In the words of John Stott, “Through the Davidic Christ Gentiles will be included in his new community…The inclusion of Gentiles was not a divine afterthought, but foretold by the prophets. Scripture itself confirmed the facts of the missionaries’ experience.”[24]
A
Theological Resolution in Acts 15
As
a result, James concludes, “my judgment is that we should not trouble those of
the Gentiles who turn to God” (Acts 15:19). The converted Gentiles do not need
to be circumcised and obey the laws of Moses to become God’s people. Rather,
the prophets foretold the plan of the inclusion of Gentiles as God’s people
through repentance and faith in the Davidic Messiah, Jesus Christ, who is the
true Israel. The verb parenocle,w means “cause unnecessary trouble or difficulty.”[25] In other words, to ask the Gentiles to be
circumcised and obey the laws of Moses is to cause unnecessary trouble to them
to turn to God and receive his forgiveness and salvation.
For
the sake of the conscience of the Jews, the Council wrote a letter to the
Gentiles as God’s people to abstain from four things: “from the things polluted
by idols,” “from sexual immorality,” “from what has been strangled,” and “from
blood” (15:20). The reason behind it is that Moses has been read to Jews in
public from the past to the present. The Jews whom has been educated with the
laws of Moses are sensitive to the concerns listed in 15:19 that “Gentiles
should show sensitivity to Jewish concerns” through which they show their
missionary concern.[26]
From
a communion perspective, “Scripture…apparently provides the basis for the
minimal requirements imposed on Gentile converts to ensure table fellowship
with Jewish believers with in a specific intercultural setting (Acts 15:20,
29).”[27] The Jerusalem
Council engages with contextual theology and comes up with a solution to
balance the never-changing gospel and the ever changing context. Such a
contextual work done by the council ensures that converted Gentiles do not need
to become Jews to become God’s people, and certain cultural practices of the
Jews are respected among the Gentiles. The unity of the people of God is
maintained without compromising the gospel and downplaying the culture of
others.
The
last section is about writing the actual letter (15:22-29) and sending the
letter through messengers (15:30-35). Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas are sent
down to Antioch with the letter. “And when they had read it, they rejoiced
because of its encouragement” (15:31). The Gentile Christians find
encouragement or comfort in this matter. The decision of the Jerusalem Council
allows them as God’s people to rejoice in God’s house. The conflict between
Jews and Gentiles is resolved; the unity of the church is preserved.
The
Jerusalem Council has served as a missionary paradigm for today’s church on how
to treat one another beyond racial and cultural surfaces in Jesus Christ. Faith
alone in Christ is the key to define who is in
the kingdom of God.
The
church should know that God has already raised up the fallen kingdom of David
through the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ. And the purpose of
this final restoration is not simply to bless a particular group of people
(Israel), but to all humanity (all nations). God’s plan to save all the nations
was embedded in Amos’ prophecy. But
now it was being fulfilled in Jesus.
The basis of entering into this restored kingdom is through faith in the second
David, the Messiah.
The fallen booth of David was raised
up by God through Christ’s resurrection. As G. K. Beale notes, “Christ’s
resurrection is most likely to be seen as the beginning fulfillment of the Amos
9:11-12 prophecy that God would ‘rebuild the tabernacle of David which has
fallen…in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.’”[28]
Jesus Christ the Messiah is the
long-range fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise and the David’s dynasty. He is
this King who will regain all its glory through his death and resurrection and
extend the glory of the kingdom of God to the end of the world. God has kept
his promise to Abraham that all the nations will be blessed through him (Gen.
12:2-3) and to David that his kingdom will be established forever (2 Sam. 7).
God has already raised up the fallen kingdom of David through the resurrection
and exaltation of Jesus Christ. Through faith in Jesus Christ, believing Israel
and Gentile converts are incorporated into this restored kingdom by grace. In
other words, “They
[Gentiles] constitute a new people of God and not simply a large addition to
the existing people known as Israel.”[29] Paul writes,
“For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith…There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave
nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus” (Gal. 3:26, 28).
Darrell L. Bock writes, “The goal of
this rebuilding work is to allow the rest of humanity, not just Jews, to seek
God. This fulfills not only the promise to David about his line but also a
commitment to Abraham that through his seed the world would experience blessing
(Gen. 12:3; Acts 3:25-26; Gal. 3).”[30] In Christ, believing national Israel and converted Gentiles
are one people of God. In Acts 15,
based on the fact that the Gentiles are gathered together in the name of Jesus
Christ, James’ use of Amos 9:11-15 shows that “the only conclusion that could
be drawn, therefore, was that in the resurrection of the Messiah, the promised
restoration of David’s kingdom and rebuilding of the temple had also taken
place.”[31]
The early Christians applied the message of Amos 9:11-12 missiologically. James’ missiological interpretation of Amos 9:11-12 fits well in the context that the large number of believing Gentiles in the church was fulfilling the prophecy of Amos. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the believing Jews and Gentiles are joined together and being formed as one people of God. The apostle Paul writes:
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been
brought near by the blood of Christ…For through him we both have access in one
Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you
are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built
on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the
cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a
holy temple in the Lord (Eph. 2:13, 18-21).
Missiological Implications of Acts 15
First of all, in Christ, believing
national Israel and converted Gentiles are one
people of God. As Dean Flemming notes, “The inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles
meant that the church was faced with the challenge of maintaining fellowship
within a culturally diverse community.”[32] After the conversion of Cornelius and the vision of Peter,
the actual cross-cultural mission is initiated by the sending of Paul and
Barnabas by the Spirit in the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3). The consequence
of the Gentile mission is that a large number of Gentiles will be converted and
start to come to the church to worship the God of Israel with Jews. In what
conditions do Gentiles become God’s people? Instead of requiring the Gentiles
to be circumcised and obey the Mosaic Law, the leaders, such as Peter, Paul,
Barnabas, and James reinterpret God’s unchanging truth in their changing
context.
In Encountering Theology of Mission, Craig Ott et. al. define the term contextualization as follows: “Contextualization means relating the never-changing truths of Scripture to ever-changing human contexts so that those truths are clear and compelling. It is the process of engaging culture in all its varied dimensions with biblical truth.”[33] Contextualization is a constant engagement between the never-changing truths of Scripture and the ever-changing human contexts. Sound theology must be able to translate the never-changing gospel truth and adapt it to a particular, ever-changing culture without compromising the essence and particularity of the gospel. Thus, all theology is contextual theology. It is not a matter of whether or not contextualization is necessary. Rather, it is a matter of how contextualization is understood and applied in particular time and space with scriptural integrity and missiological relevance.
The theological reflection in Acts 15 makes the unity of the church necessary. Inevitably, when two distinctive cultural groups of believers come together as one people of God, problems arise due to personals issues or cultural differences. The task of the church is to listen to the voices of two groups and try to come up with a theological resolution to lift up the essence of the gospel without forsaking one’s cultural distinctiveness. Dean Flemming rightly says that “the Jerusalem Council refuses to see the church as an exclusive sect, nor even as an enlarged Israel. Instead, Acts 15 describes a church on a journey to a deeper understanding of its identity as the one people of God comprised of two distinct cultural groups who believe in Jesus. Neither group must surrender its cultural identity…”[34]
Third, James uses Amos 9:11-12 to
contextualize God’s law in a new setting. The leaders of the early church
recognized the cultural difference between Jews and Gentiles. The early church
gave up the Judaizer’s solution or monocultural solution, meaning that the
Gentiles would only be able to become part of God’s people by accommodating
themselves to Jewish language, history, and culture. Rather, they adopted the “multicultural solution” that both
distinctive cultural groups can live in harmony in the same household without
requiring others become like them before they can come to Christ.[35] Through
faith, Gentile converts are admitted into the new fellowship of God as Gentiles.
Fourth, while the Jerusalem Council
gives up the Judaizer’s solution in
Acts 15, it does not mean that the Gentiles are not expected to live in certain
ways for the sake of the Jewish body.
Converted Gentiles need to show sensitivity and respect to the Jewish
culture in order to have communion with them in Christ. The decision of the
Jerusalem Council is that the Gentiles do not need to become Jews as God’s
people. But for the sake of the conscience of the Jews, the Gentiles need to
show sensitivity toward the Jews who have studied and obeyed the laws of Moses.
The Gentiles are required to abstain from four things as recoded in the letter.
As Dean Flemming rightly notes, “Believers of different backgrounds must
exercise their Christian freedom in a spirit of love and of sensitivity to the
traditions and scruples of others, for the greater good of full communion in
Christ.”[36]
Fifth, in the New Testament, the
early Christians understood that the message of Amos 9:11-12 was being
fulfilled in their time. The restoration of the fallen booth of David was
understood as the eschatological people of God that was composed of believing
Jews and Gentiles. In commenting on the nations being included within Israel,
Christopher J. H. Wright notes:
Most remarkable of all, Israel came to entertain the
eschatological vision that there would be those of the nations who would not
merely be joined to Israel, but would
come to be identified as Israel, with
the same names, privileges and responsibilities before God (Ps. 47:9; Isa.
19:19-25; 56:2-8; 66:19-21; Amos 9:11-12; Zech. 2:10-11; Acts 11:16-18; Eph.
2:11-3:6).[37]
This is God’s eschatological vision in Israel as a nation. Israel and Gentiles are treated as one people of God. The Gentile mission has been part of God’s universal plan in Israel. The New Testament treats Amos 9:11-12 in broader scope. The borders of God’s kingdom under Jesus Christ have been extended far and wide. In Acts 15:16-17, we see that the purpose of rebuilding the booth of David is that “the rest of humanity and all the nations” may seek God. The fallen kingdom of David is restored by raising up the second David, the Messiah. Under the universal reign of the crucified Messiah and the risen Lord, this unified, restored kingdom incorporates both believing Israel and Gentile converts from all the nations through faith by grace.
[1] Andreas J. Kostenberger and
Peter T. O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends
of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission, New Studies in Biblical
Theology (Nottingham: Apollos; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p.
130.
[2] All scriputural citations come
from the English Standard Version (ESV).
[3] Anthony B. Robinson and Robert
W. Wall, Called to be Church: The Book of
Acts for a New Day (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 171.
[4] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the
New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), p. 496.
[5] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church
and the World, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester: InterVarsity Press;
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), pp. 242-243.
[6] I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One
Gospel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 164.
[7] The term occurs forty-four times
in the New Testament, twenty-eight times in Luke’s Writings: twelve in Luke and
sixteen in Acts.
[8] Kostenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, p.
150.
[9] R. Reed
Lessing, Amos, Concordia Commentary:
A Theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 2009), pp. 575-577.
[10] Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Including
the Gentiles in the Plan of God—Amos 9:9-15,” in The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody Press,
1985), pp. 181-182.
[11] Donald E. Gowan, “The Book of
Amos: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. VII: Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, Daniel, the Twelve Prophets
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), p. 427.
[12] James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea-Jonah,
Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2011), p. 355.
[13] Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 195;
[14] David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New
Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), p.
431.
[15] Kaiser, “Including the Gentiles
in the Plan of God—Amos 9:9-15,” p. 183.
[16] Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament,
Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), p.
146.
[17]
Lessing, Amos, p. 578; Douglas
Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical
Commentary 31 (Waco: Word Books, 1987), p. 398.
[18] Lessing, Amos, p. 578.
[19] Kostenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, p.
150.
[20] Gary V. Smith, Hosea, Amos, Micah, The NIV Application
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), p. 413.
[21] David K. Strong, “The Jerusalem
Council: Some Implications for Contextualization—Acts 15:1-35,” in Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in
Contemporary Context, edited by Robert L. Gallagher and Paul Hertig
(Maryknoll: Orbis, 2004), p. 203.
[22] Timothy C. Tennent, Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian
Missiology for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010), p.
327.
[23] Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 443.
[24] Stott, The Message of Acts, pp. 247-248.
[25] Bock, Acts, p. 505.
[26] Ibid., p. 507.
[27] Dean Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament:
Patterns for Theology and Mission (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2005), p.
49.
[28] G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A
Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical
Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press; Leicester: Apollos, 2004), p. 233.
[29] Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 432.
[30] Bock, Acts, p. 504.
[31] Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s
Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 348.
[32] Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, p. 47.
[33] Craig Ott, Stephen J. Strauss
with Timothy C. Tennent, Encountering
Theology of Mission: Biblical Foundations, Historical Developments, and
Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), p. 266.
[34] Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, p. 52.
[35] Tennent, Invitation to World Missions, pp. 326-328.
[36] Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, p. 51.
[37] Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 250.
writing a book here?
ReplyDeleteMy final paper for a course entitled New Testament Paradigms for Mission.
ReplyDelete