David’s Tent As Temple In Amos 9:11-15: Understanding The Epilogue Of Amos And Considering Implications For The Unity Of The Book

By John Anthony Dunne

[John Anthony Dunne is a Ph.D. student in New Testament at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.]

I. Introduction

In the history of research on Amos 9:11-12 the dominant interpretation has viewed “David’s tent” as a reference to the kingdom, which will one day be restored. However, there have been a few dissenting voices from this large choir. Some noteworthy scholars have suggested that the phrase should be understood as a reference to the Jerusalem temple. Interestingly, however, a survey of the proponents of this view will show that the vast majority within this group are NT scholars working with the use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18. Unfortunately, the bulk of these scholars either do not try sufficiently to demonstrate that this is what the text in Amos meant,[1] or actually deny that this was the original meaning.[2] The purpose of the present study is to attempt to demonstrate that the original intention of Amos 9:11-12 was to point to the future messianic era in which the worship of Yhwh’s people would be restored through the rebuilding of the eschatological temple. Also, we will consider how our arguments contribute to the discussion regarding the originality of the epilogue.

II. The Nature Of David’s Tent

In Sabine Nägele’s fascinating study on Amos 9:11-15, to which the strength of my arguments is greatly indebted, she makes several arguments in favor of understanding סכה as a reference to the Jerusalem temple. Initially, she points out that the etymological roots of סכה lead to sukku, a Sumerian loan-word (Lehnwort) from the Akkadian language, which means “sanctuary” (Heiligtum).[3] Of course, we do not want to be found guilty of an etymological fallacy at this point, transporting the original meaning of the word into the present context without consideration for how it is actually being used in this particular setting.[4] Yet the etymological roots of סכה are worth considering due to the instances in the OT, particularly in liturgical texts, where these etymological parallels can be found.[5] This etymological connection, although certainly not determinative, provides helpful background to further corroborate the temple reading being espoused in this study.

The use of סכה, which refers to make-shift dwellings or tents, likely stems from a prominent Jewish festival, the Feast of Tabernacles.[6] The festival served as a commemoration of the wilderness wanderings of Israel subsequent to the exodus from Egypt. During this period the Israelites dwelt in temporary mobile structures as they traveled through the wilderness.[7] As this festival was celebrated through the years, the Hebrew people would construct similar booths to live in throughout the course of the eight-day festival.[8] Over time, the festival also began to take on significance as a celebration of the annual harvest.[9]

In fact, we see evidence of these connections to the harvest in the entirety of Amos’s oracle of restoration. The rebuilding of “David’s tent” leads to an abundance of fertility in the land (Amos 9:13-15). The harvest imagery certainly makes a strong connection with the festival, but the association of the imagery with the temple should not be lost, especially since the festival came to be revered as the Tempelfest par excellence following Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 8:2).[10] The association of fecundity with the temple was widespread in the ancient Near Eastern world,[11] and is prominent in OT prophetic literature. When the temple was thriving there was abundance (Isa 51:3; Ezek 47:1-12; Hos 2:21-23; 6:11; 14:4-8; Joel 2:18-27; 3:17-18; Zech 8:9, 11-12), and a negative corollary also existed when the temple cult was not functioning properly (Hos 1:6, 10-11; Joel 1:9-13, 16; Hag 2:15-19; Zech 14:17). The connection between fertility and the temple, in the festival as well as the broader confines of ANE thought, further warrants the identification of סכה in Amos’s vision of restoration as the temple since the result of its rebuilding is great fertility.[12]

Some object that “David’s tent” cannot be a reference to the temple because David did not build it.[13] Thus, the reference must be to the “house” or dynasty that Yhwh promised to make for David (2 Sam 7:11). However, the terms of the Davidic Covenant were not just concerned with Yhwh building a “house” for one of David’s sons. The covenant also stated that a future son of David (i.e., the Messiah) would build a “house” for Yhwh (2 Sam 7:13).[14] The connection between the future temple and the Messiah is also made by Zechariah, who prophesied, “Behold the man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord” (Zech 6:12; cf. 6:13-14).[15]

At this juncture a point of clarification is in order. It is not the contention of the present author that the kingdom is to be excluded from our understanding of David’s tent (it is David’s after all!). Certainly, the establishment of the new temple would necessarily have implications for the kingdom, hence the “two houses” of 2 Sam 7. Motyer makes an interesting comment about the blending of these motifs in Amos 9:11, stating, “The raising up of the booth of David signifies the bringing in of the perfect royal Mediator, the king who will be everything that was ever wished for in a royal priest” (emphasis original).[16] Thus, the establishment of the temple in the messianic era presupposes the presence of the kingdom. However, the positive argument being advanced in this study is that the referent for “David’s tent” is the temple and not the kingdom. The prophecy is focusing on one major aspect of the future blessing, namely, the climatic establishment of the divine dwelling place and the implications that this will have.

A key question for determining the referent for “David’s tent” is understanding what constitutes the tent’s instability. The scholarly consensus understands “David’s tent” to be a pejorative reference to the kingdom’s decrepit state,[17] as indicated through the fact that it is “falling.”[18] This issue is accentuated by the complex use of pronouns in Amos 9:11 MT. The oracle declares that “their breaches” (3rd feminine plural), “his ruins” (3rd masculine singular), and “it” (3rd feminine singular) will be rebuilt.[19] Two of the pronouns are simple enough to understand; the masculine pronoun refers to David and the feminine pronoun refers back to the סכה. However, the use of the plural pronoun (“their breaches”) has caused most of the problems. Many scholars understand the referents to be the divided kingdoms of the north and the south.[20] However, Nogalski claims that the plural referents are not the two kingdoms, but rather the multiple cities of the Davidic Empire understood collectively as “the booth” in light of the reference to ruined cities in v. 14.[21] For Nogalski, the epilogue provides the solution for destruction, not division. Thus, the epilogue is deemed an exilic or post-exilic addition.

The use of the third person plural pronoun certainly indicates that the referent for סכה has a level of plurality to it. The “tent” could refer to a collective entity, as Nogalski suggests, or, as we will argue, the presence of the plural pronoun in v. 11 is likely a reference to the inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem. This suggestion is strengthened by occurrences in Isaiah where the city of Jerusalem is referred to as a “tent.”[22] This suggestion also connects with v. 12 which has a third person plural subject for the verb “possess” (יירשו), which likely has the people of the city in view. If indeed Jerusalem is in view through the use of the term סכה, then we have another connection to David since the city was strongly linked with him.[23] Thus, the “tent of David” should be understood as a reference to the city and the temple. As Nägele argues, “Die Hütte steht nicht mehr nur für den Tempel, sondern dieser steht pars pro toto für ganz Jerusalem” (emphasis mine).[24] Thus, the temple is functioning as a synecdoche for all of Jerusalem.

In light of our arguments in favor of reading “David’s tent” as the temple, we must consider some of the possible objections to this claim from the vantage point of the epilogue’s originality. Further, it would be beneficial to see how this reading might in fact strengthen the argument for the unity of the book.

III. Considerations For The Unity Of Amos

The promise of restoration given at the end of Amos has been considered by many to be a later addition to the text. It is argued that the consistent message of Amos concerns judgment, and thus the promise of restoration in 9:11-15 is viewed as uncharacteristic of the prophet. Noting the uncharacteristic nature of the epilogue, Wellhausen is well known for stating that it contains “Rosen und Lavendel statt Blut und Eisen.”[25] However, to omit entirely a promise of restoration would have made the message of Amos totally unique among eighth-century prophets.[26] Furthermore, Hasel notes that Amos does not exclusively contain oracles of judgment, but does contain a message of hope for the “remnant of Joseph” (Amos 5:4-6, 14-15), mitigating the argument that the epilogue fits unnaturally with the rest of the material.[27] In fact, Amos 9:8 contains the promise that the house of Jacob will not be utterly destroyed, which anticipates the oracle of restoration in 9:11-15. It is important to recognize that the recipients of blessing are a repentant remnant and not the whole nation, so the allegation of inconsistency is unwarranted.[28] Thus, the prevalence of judgment language in Amos does not exclude the possibility of salvation, for such a suggestion fails to recognize one of the major functions of judgment oracles, which is to bring about genuine repentance.[29]

There are also specific historical arguments given against the originality of the epilogue. Some have understood the reference to “possessing Edom” in 9:12 as a reference to a later period of hostility between Edom and Israel.[30] However, rivalry between the two nations has very early roots.[31] Yet, the main problem with this argument is that it wrongly views “possession” as military subjugation. Syntactically, Edom functions as a synecdoche for “all the nations who are called by my name.”[32] In light of the overwhelmingly positive nature of the expression, “called by my name,”[33] the “possession” in 9:12 should be understood as a soteriological blessing.[34] The fact that blessing was originally meant here can be seen by the fact that the Targum shifts the text so that the phrase “who are called by my name” modifies “the House of Israel” instead of the nations (Tg. Am). As Hasel rightly concludes, “The positive nature of this statement makes an exilic or post-exilic date of vs. 12 virtually impossible.”[35] In coherence with our arguments that “David’s tent” refers to the temple, we have here an image of the nations participating in the worship of Israel, which was highly anticipated in OT prophetic literature.[36] This further fits the traditio-historical background of the Feast of Tabernacles as the vision anticipates the nations participating in this festival (cf. Zech 14:16-19). The soteriological interpretation of “possession” also likely stands behind the convoluted textual issue with the LXX as well as the unique citation found in Acts 15:16-18.[37]

In regards to the specific argument that “David’s tent” refers to the temple, some have argued that such a suggestion would automatically make the epilogue exilic or post-exilic. Harrelson, for instance, suggests that the referent for “David’s tent” is most likely the temple, although he concludes this because he understands the epilogue to be a later addition to Amos following the destruction of the temple in 586 b.c.e.[38] However, the reason why the tent is “falling” is due to the nature of the prophetic oracle itself, which speaks frequently of the cultic problems within Israel. The same can be said for the visions concerning the rebuilding of cities, which likewise presuppose the prophetic oracle of destruction and do not necessarily imply that historical destruction has already transpired. Thus, although the “tent” is falling this does not mean that the use of סכה is pejorative as many scholars suggest with the regal interpretation. As Nägele rightly notes, the term סכה should be understood as an “Honorary Title” (Ehrentitel) since “durch die Restauration nicht plötzlich zu einem Haus wird.”[39] In other words, it remains a סכה. If in fact סכה was intended as a reference to the temple then this provides another positive argument in favor of the unity of Amos, as we will now seek to demonstrate.

As is often noted in studies on Amos, one of the most noteworthy motifs is social justice. The critique from Amos is directed primarily at the northerners whose ineptitude is particularly due to problems associated with the cultic system of the north. As Jeremias rightly notes, “For Amos, God judges Israel’s cult because it deludes Israel into feeling secure, thus preventing the recognition of guilt. A true cult would awaken the desire for justice.”[40]

In fact, this aspect of Amos is prominent, although frequently unexplored. These two motifs of cult and justice tie in very closely because the cultic worshippers are the ones who perpetuate injustice, as the initial judgment oracle against Israel states (Amos 2:6-8). Major oppression was taking place by participants in the cultic sites on the mountains of Samaria (Amos 3:9-10; 6:1-7), including those of the “bull cult” (Amos 4:1).[41] Some of the people would even plot their evil schemes according to the festival cycles (Amos 8:4-6). As a consequence of Israel’s acts of injustice, their cultic worship, including sacrifices and festivals, would not be accepted (Amos 4:4-5; 5:21-24), and the cultic sites would be destroyed along with the worshippers (Amos 3:14; 5:4-5; 5:25-27; 7:9; 9:1). There will be wailings in the temple (Amos 8:3) and Israel’s feasts will turn to mourning (Amos 8:10). This concern with the cultic life of Israel is so central to the prophet’s message that an interaction between Amos and the northern priest Amaziah is spliced into the prophetic oracle (Amos 7:10-17). One of the reasons for this brief narrative is undoubtedly to address Amos’s credentials as a prophet, but it is also directly linked to Amos’s cultic concerns since Amaziah commands Amos to leave Bethel, which he calls “the king’s sanctuary” (מקדש) and “the kingdom’s temple” (בית) (Amos 7:13). Amaziah’s comments show how Amos’s message was perceived and fits with the emphasis sketched above.

The restoration of the cultic system of Israel, typified by “David’s tent,” provides the most natural connection to the preceding material in the book of Amos where cultic concerns are prevalent. Thus, the critique of De Vries that the epilogue is inauthentic because it “introduces themes for which there is no direct parallel in the authentic sections of the book,”[42] can be seen as invalid. If “David’s tent” is properly understood as a reference to the temple then the prevalent cultic concerns anticipate the restoration depicted in the epilogue. It also provides an interesting bookend to the opening of the prophetic oracle, which begins with a reference to the Lord roaring from Zion (Amos 1:2). Presumably this refers to the temple and shows Yhwh’s association with Jerusalem.

A final argument that connects the epilogue with the preceding material, specifically through the understanding that “David’s tent” is a reference to the temple, comes from the fifth and final oracle of judgment that begins in 9:1. This final vision is the culmination of God’s judgment that began in ch. 7 and is directed towards “the altar” (המזבח). Most scholars understand this to refer to the northern cultic site at Bethel, which typified the entire cultic system of the north.[43] Schart argues that the entire section of 9:1-15 has undergone multiple levels of redaction, which correspondingly changed the referent of “the altar” back and forth from Bethel to Jerusalem over the course of the redaction of the text.[44] Despite the efforts of Schart and other redaction critics, Duane Garret has shown the interconnectedness of 9:1-15 with 8:7-14 through multiple parallels, which strengthens the integrity of the passage.[45] With this in mind, we will attempt to interpret 9:1-15 in its final form.

Following the command to destroy “the altar” in 9:1 there is a vision of Yhwh building his “temple” in the heavens in 9:5-6,[46] which may suggest God’s abandonment and further rejection of the cultic center.[47] The hubris of the people, expressed by their belief in v. 10 that God would not overtake them, corresponds to other texts where judgment is not feared because of the presence of God among the people through the temple.[48] The final vision of judgment in 9:1-10 creates an even greater anticipation of the restoration of the cultic life of Israel, as the destruction of “the altar” and the retreat of Yhwh to heaven produces great calamity. There is an interesting corollary that exists between this final vision of judgment and the promise of restoration in the epilogue. The destruction of “the altar” in 9:1 leads to death, and the rebuilding of “David’s tent” leads to life.[49] The climax of God’s judgment concerns the northern cultic system, and thus the promise of cultic restoration provides the perfect corollary to the final vision of judgment. This in turn links the epilogue firmly to the preceding material in Amos, both in the immediate literary context as well as the broader confines of the book, which consistently engages the faulty cultic system.

IV. Conclusion

The contribution of this study is therefore twofold. On the side of OT studies, it is hoped that understanding “David’s tent” as a reference to the temple aids in our understanding of one of the main concerns of Amos and helps strengthen the arguments for the unity of the book of Amos. In regards to NT studies, it should be noted that the conclusions in this study cohere with the work of several NT scholars, such as G. K. Beale and Richard Bauckham, who have suggested that Acts 15:16-18 cites Amos 9:11-12 with the understanding that the inclusion of the Gentiles (the remnant of men[50]) constitutes the rebuilding of “David’s tent.”[51] The “spiritualization” of the temple motif can be seen throughout the book of Acts from the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost, and the subsequent statements throughout the book that God’s presence is not confined to a temple “made with hands.”[52] However, within NT studies there has not been a sufficient study that bridges the gap and attempts to make this sort of argument from both Amos and Acts. It is hoped that this study provides additional warrant for the conclusion that Amos 9:11-12 refers to the rebuilding of the eschatological temple in the messianic era.[53]

Notes

1. Beale’s outstanding biblical-theological study on the motif of the temple is one primary example of this. He does an excellent job demonstrating that “David’s tent” refers to the temple in Acts, but does not demonstrate that this coheres with the original intentions of Amos. See G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 232-44. Likewise, Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 288-92. See also Ben Witherington who cites Richard Bauckham approvingly in The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 459.
2. Regarding the interpretation of “David’s tent,” Ådna opines, “The broad scholarly consensus of relating this unique metaphor either to the Davidic dynasty or to the Davidic kingdom is a valid indication of its meaning in the original text” (emphasis mine). See Jostein Ådna, “James’ Position at the Summit Meeting of the Apostles and the Elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15),” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (ed. Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein; WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 152. However, he argues that the referent in Acts is the temple. He states, “Consequently, even though the unique combination of ‘David’ and ‘the booth’ was originally unlikely meant to be a reference to the temple, it might indeed, later on, have taken on such a reference because of the traditio-historical aspects attached to the term ‘booth.’” See ibid., 154. Cf. also Bauckham who argues that the MT likely originally had militaristic subjugation in mind, although he argues that the text in Acts should be understood as a reference to the temple (Richard Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting [ed. Richard Bauckham; vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 415-80).
3. Sabine Nägele, Laubhütte Davids und Wolkensohn: Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Studie zu Amos 9,11 in der jüdischen und christlichen Exegese (AGJU 24; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 193.
4. Note the discussion on “root fallacies” in D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 27-33.
5. In Ps 27:4-5 MT four different terms are used to refer to the temple in Jerusalem, including the verbal form of סכה (סכך), referring to “covering.” The use of this term alongside בית, היכל, and אהל demonstrates that it is being used as a reference to the temple by virtue of the parallelism. In Ps 76:3 MT there is another clear example of parallelism between Yhwh’s “booth” (סכו) in Salem and his “dwelling place” (מעונתו) in Zion. Cf. also Ps 31:21; 42:5; Lam 2:6 MT. See Nägele, Laubhütte Davids, 193.
6. J. A. Motyer, The Day of the Lion: The Message of Amos (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1974), 202.
7. Rubenstein has made the interesting argument that the symbolism regarding the סכה is further tied to the “clouds” that covered and protected Israel in the wilderness. He notes that the סכהbegan to be understood as a symbolic space to meet with God. See Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, “The Symbolism of the Sukkah: Part 1,” Judaism 43 (1994): 371-76.
8. There is some debate as to whether the festival lasted seven or eight days. The evidence suggests that the festival originally lasted seven days, but subsequently extended to eight days. The reason for the expansion is likely due to the fact that the eighth day was consistently treated as a Sabbath day, although not technically a part of the festival (Lev 23:36; 2 Chr 7:8-9; Neh 8:18; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.189). The addition of an “eighth day” to the festival is noted in Jubilees (Jub. 32:27-29). It is clear, however, that by the time of the Hasmonean period the festival was treated as an eight-day festival, and this continued on into the Roman era (2 Macc 10:6; Josephus, Ant. 3.10.4). During Amos’s time it is likely that the eighth day was celebrated even if it was not understood to be a part of the festival proper.
9. Cf. the symbolism of the citron in Josephus, Ant. 13.372; m. Sukkah 3:4-9.
10. Nägele, Laubhütte Davids, 195. Josephus, Ant. 8.100, calls the festival “a most holy and most eminent feast.”
11. As Nägele notes, “Der Gedanke, daß vom Tempel Fruchtbarkeit ausgeht, findet sich auch in Mesopotamien, z.B. in den sumerischen Tempelbaummythen des Gudea” (Laubhütte Davids, 207).
12. The arguments of Coote, which connect the סכה with the subsequent imagery of fertility, lead him to conclude that the restoration oracle of 9:11-15 envisions the building of a vineyard. This suggestion rightly notes the connection between the סכה and the fertility imagery, but does not go far enough in rooting this firmly in the Feast of Tabernacles or ANE understandings of temple-associated fecundity. See Robert B. Coote, Amos Among the Prophets: Composition and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 121-27.
13. See, e.g., I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 590.
14. Interestingly, 4Q174 connects 2 Sam 7 with Amos 9:11 as well. However, after commenting on the nature of the future temple that the future son of David will build for Yhwh, the future house of David is connected to Amos 9:11, which is interpreted in the document as a prophetic oracle concerning the restoration of the kingdom of David.
15. That Zech 6:12 was interpreted messianically is made clear by Tg. Zech, which inserts משיחא instead of “Branch” (צמח). Likewise, Num. Rab. 18:21 cites Zech 6:12 and states baldly that the passage refers to the Messiah. Interestingly, 4Q252 5:3-4 refers to the “Branch of David” (צמח דויד) as the “Righteous Messiah” (משיח הצדק).
16. Motyer, Day of the Lion, 202.
17. John Calvin, “Commentary on Amos,” in Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, vol. 2, Joel, Amos, Obadiah (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 404; William Rainey Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905; repr., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960), 198; Richard S. Cripps, A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1981), 270-71; Robert B. Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 104; Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 290; Billy K. Smith and Frank S. Page, Amos, Obadiah, and Jonah (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 165; Jörg Jeremias, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 166-67; Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, “The Symbolism of the Sukkah: Part 2,” Judaism 45 (1996): 388; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “Single Meaning, Unified Referents: Accurate and Authoritative Citations of the Old Testament by the New Testament,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 66; Duane A. Garrett, Amos: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008), 283; Thomas McComiskey and Tremper Longman III, “Amos,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Revised Edition (12 vols.; ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 8:417.
18. The Hebrew הנפלת is a qal active participle and thus should not be rendered as “fallen.” So rightly, Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and the Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (Berrien Spring, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1972), 208; Jeff Niehaus, “Amos,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary (ed. Thomas E. McComiskey; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 490; Walter C. Kaiser, “The Davidic Promise and the Inclusion of Gentiles (Amos 9:9-15 and Acts 15:13-18): A Test Passage for Theological Systems,” JETS 20 (1977): 101; John H. Hayes, Amos: The Eighth Century Prophet; His Times & His Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 224.
19. Most English translations simply use third person singular pronouns in each instance to make the text smoother. See the NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, and others. This rendition also follows the LXX’s use of third person singular feminine pronouns.
20. C. F. Keil, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, vol. 10, Minor Prophets (trans. James Martin; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1885; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 330; Kaiser, “Davidic Promise,” 101; Kaiser, “Single Meaning, Unified Referents,” 67; McComiskey and Longman, “Amos,” 418. Note further the work of Polley who argues that the primary purpose of Amos’s mission to the north was to convince them to repent and reunite with the south. See Max E. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire: A Socio-historical Approach (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 174. The reunification view is also closely tied to another minority interpretation, which views סכה as the ancient military headquarters in Succoth. According to this view, the rebuilding of this city would stand as a symbol of the reunification of the kingdom. See H. Neil Richardson, “SKT (Amos 9:11): ‘Booth’ or ‘Succoth’?,” JBL 92 (1973): 381; Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah (WBC; Waco: Word, 1987), 398-99; Polley, “Amos and the Davidic Empire,” 74. However, this interpretation fails to account for the fact that סכה is in the construct form in Amos 9:11 (סכת דויד), hence the presence of the taw. In the MT, the city Succoth (סכות) primarily occurs with the holem waw (Gen 33:17b; Josh 13:27; Judg 8:5-6, 8, 14-16; 1 Kgs 7:46; 2 Kgs 17:30; Ps 60:8; 108:8; 2 Chr 4:17). In those instances in which the holem is written defectively, the references to other cities in the context (Exod 13:20; Num 33:5-6) or the directional qamets he (Gen 33:17a; Exod 12:37) demonstrates that a city is in view. Furthermore, the city סכות never occurs in the construct form in the MT. The presence of סכות in Amos 5:26 is anomalous because of the shureq, although it refers to a specific figure. CD 7.14-15 does demonstrate that at least some interpreters understood סכות to mean “tents” in this passage.
21. James D. Nogalski, “The Problematic Suffixes of Amos IX 11,” VT 93 (1993): 416-17; Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (New York: de Gruyter, 1993), 106. The Targumist likewise understands cities to be in view (Tg. Amos 9:11). Cf. also Hayes who understands the plural suffix “their” to refer to the insurrection of Judean cities. See Hayes, Amos: The Eighth-Century Prophet, 255.
22. Isa 1:8 refers to Jerusalem as a “booth in a vineyard” (כסכה בכרם). Likewise, Isa 16:5 refers to Jerusalem as the “tent of David” (אהל דוד), which is interpreted by the Isaiah Targum to mean “the city of David.” Again, Isa 33:20 refers to Jerusalem as an “immoveable tent” (אהל בל יצען). There are some scholars who take the regal interpretation of “David’s tent” and acknowledge the connection to Jerusalem as well. See Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), 353; Francis I. Anderson and David N. Freedman, Amos (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1989; repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 889.
23. Ådna, “James’ Position,” 153.
24. See Nägele, Laubhütte Davids, 196-97.
25. Julius Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten (3d ed.; Berlin: Reiner, 1898; repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 96; cited in Paul, Amos: A Commentary, 288.
26. Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Book of Amos: Basic Issues in Current Interpretations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 113. Cf. Isa 3:1-4:6; 8:16-22; 9:1-7; Mic. 2:1-11; 5:1-4.
27. See Hasel, Understanding the Book of Amos, 119.
28. The “remnant” then functions both as a sign of judgment and salvation. Certainly, it does convey judgment through the fact that the nation as a whole will not experience redemption, yet there is still a positive soteriological element in the promise that a remnant will be redeemed. See Hasel, The Remnant, 206.
29. As House rightly states, “In Amos, as in Hosea and Joel, the threat of the day of the Lord brings with it the chance for new beginnings. Those who heed the threats may seek the Lord, return to him, and thus find forgiveness and renewal.” See Paul R. House, “Endings as New Beginnings,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 325. Similarly Hasel, The Remnant, 198; Paul, Amos: A Commentary, 289.
30. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 108; Elizabeth Achtemeier, Minor Prophets, vol. 1 (NIBCOT 17; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 234; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 353.
31. Hasel provides several texts which indicate this. Cf. 2 Sam 8:13, 14; 1 Chr 18:13; 1 Kgs 11:15, 16. See Hasel, The Remnant, 213. Cf. also Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 397.
32. Rightly Kaiser, “Davidic Promise,” 103. Contra Anderson and Freedman who view the nations as those who aid Israel in their militaristic endeavors against Edom. See Anderson and Freedman, Amos, 917-18.
33. This phrase is used to refer to corporate covenant and election (Deut 28:10; Jer 14:9; 2 Chr 7:14; Isa 4:1; 43:7; 48:1), individual covenant and election (Jer 15:16), Jerusalem (Jer 25:29; Dan 9:18-19), the temple (1 Kgs 8:43; Jer 7:10-11, 14, 30; 32:34; 34:15; 2 Chr 6:33), and the ark of the covenant (2 Sam 6:2; 1 Chr 13:16). It could also be stated negatively to refer to those outside of God’s blessing (Isa 63:19). There is one instance where the phrase refers to militaristic subjugation in 2 Sam 12:28, although interestingly it is not Yhwh’s name, but Joab’s which is in view.
34. Rightly Kaiser, “Single Meaning, Unified Referents,” 69-70; Jeff Niehaus, “Amos,” 492. Contra Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000), 273; Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah (Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary; Chicago: Moody, 1990), 323-24.
35. Hasel, The Remnant, 214-15.
36. Gentiles are prophesied as going to the Mountain of the Lord (Isa 2:2-3; Mic 4:1-2), and will be future participants in the temple cult (Ps 96:7-8; Isa 56:6-8; 66:23) and festivals (Isa 25:6; Zech 14:16-19). Gentiles will even be priests and Levites (Isa 66:19-21). The inclusion of Gentiles is also foreseen through the understanding that Jerusalem and the temple will expand in order to make room for the multitude of worshippers, including the nations (Isa 54:3; Jer 3:16-17; Zech 1:16; 2:1-5, 10-11). This expectation is further shared in 1 Enoch, which foresees the “old house” being taken away and folded up because the “Lord of the sheep” brings a “greater and loftier house” so that all the sheep can fit within it (1 En. 90:28-36).
37. By all appearances, it seems that the translator(s) of the LXX either misread or misheard the Hebrew (thinking אדם instead of אדום and דרש instead of ירש). One alternative offered by scholars is that the differences presuppose a separate Hebrew Vorlage, one likely superior to the MT. See Michael Braun, “James’ Use of Amos at the Jerusalem Council: Steps Towards a Possible Solution of the Textual and Theological Problems,” JETS 20 (1977): 116-17. Jones, however, supposes that the MT is in fact altering the errant Hebrew Vorlage; see Barry Alan Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon (SBLDS 149; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 170-91. But, given the positive sense of “possession” in the MT, it is preferable to view the differences between the MT and the LXX as an al tiqre midrash, providing both an interpretation and translation of the text. Rightly, Nägele, Laubhütte Davids, 104; Ådna, “James’ Position,” 131. Beale likewise suggests that the LXX constitutes an interpretation of the original Hebrew (The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 242). Similarly, Kaiser concedes that even if the reading of the MT is inferior, it amounts to the same conclusion (“Single Meaning, Unified Referents,” 68-69).
38. Walter Harrelson, Interpreting the Old Testament (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964), 355. Similarly, Ådna notes that if Amos 9:11-15 is original it cannot refer to the temple (“James’ Position,” 154).
39. Nägele, Laubhütte Davids, 192-93.
40. Jörg Jeremias, “The Interrelationship between Hosea and Amos,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of J. D. W. Watts (ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 172.
41. The “Cows of Bashan” in 4:1 likely refers to the female worshippers of one of the cults in Samaria who viewed themselves as the consorts of the bull-Yahweh. See Paul F. Jacobs, “‘Cows of Bashan’—A Note on the Interpretation of Amos 4:1,” JBL 104 (1985): 109-10. The prominence of the “bull cult” in the northern kingdom is further addressed by King who notes other references to this in Hosea (cf. 8:5-6; 10:5). See Phillip J. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah—An Archeological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 95-97.
42. Simon J. De Vries, “Futurism in the Minor Prophets,” in Thematic Threads, 255.
43. James L. Crenshaw, Hymnic Affirmation of Divine Justice (SBLDS 24; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), 132; Peter C. Craigie, Twelve Prophets, vol. 1 (Daily Study Bible; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 189; Gary Smith, Hosea, Amos, Micah (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 401; Niehaus, “Amos,” 479; Garrett, Amos: A Handbook, 257; Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 269; Paul, Amos: A Commentary, 274; McComiskey and Longman, “Amos,” 415; Hayes, Amos: The Eighth-Century Prophet, 216; Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 391; Anderson and Freedman, Amos, 835.
44. Schart suggests that in the earliest tradition (9:1-4a) the temple can only refer to Bethel. Yet, the epilogue of 9:11-15, which he calls the “Restitution layer,” viewed the destruction of the altar in 9:1 as an announcement of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Babylonians. However, the inclusion of the final layer, the “Eschatological layer” of 9:12a-13, causes the altar of 9:1 to revert back to a reference to Bethel. Yet, it is finally altered back to Jerusalem by the translators of the LXX in light of the inclusion of ἱλαστήριον and πρόπυλα. See Aaron Schart, “The Fifth Vision of Amos in Context,” in Thematic Threads, 62.
45. Garrett notes that between the two texts “the same event is twice described, the first with emphasis on the destruction of sinners and second with emphasis on the salvation of the righteous.” See Duane Garrett, “The Structure of Amos as a Testimony to Its Integrity,” JETS 27 (1984): 276; cf. also Garrett, Amos: A Handbook, 281-82. The most notable examples of parallelism are (a) 8:8 and 9:5 with the references to the mourning of the those dwelling in the land as well as the references to the rising and falling of the Nile, (b) the references to the heavens in 8:9 and 9:6, (c) the promise of a remnant in 8:7-10 and 9:11-12, and (d) the famine of 8:11-13 and the harvest of 9:13-14. This argument provides a helpful rebuttal against those who claim that the references to the rebuilding of cities in 9:14 implies that the land had already been destroyed by foreign oppressors in the exile. Cf. Nogalski who states, “The promise presumes the destruction of Jerusalem.” See James D. Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads, 206. He notes elsewhere, “The language of Amos 9:11 indicates that destruction, not division [i.e., of the two kingdoms], created the situation to which it offers hope” (Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 105). However, in light of Garrett’s work, the vision of restoration can be seen to refer back to Amos’s own message of judgment. The images of restoration correspond to the prophetic vision of judgment.
46. Stefan Paas, “Seeing and Singing: Visions and Hymns in the Book of Amos,” VT 52 (2002): 260; Schart, “Fifth Vision of Amos,” 58-59.
47. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 342-43.
48. See Nägele, Laubhütte Davids, 237. In Jer 7:4, 10 the people of Israel have placed their trust in the temple so much so that they thought they were immune to God’s judgment. Furthermore, Mic 3:9-12 condemns the leaders of Israel and Judah for acts of social injustice, yet those who practice these evil deeds ask themselves, “Is not the Lord in the midst of us?” and thus conclude, “No disaster shall come upon us.” Then Micah declares that Zion, Jerusalem, and “the mountain of the house” will be destroyed (Mic 3:12).
49. So likewise Schart, “Fifth Vision of Amos,” 59, although he acknowledges this connection only after the multiple layers of redaction have been added.
50. The argument that the “remnant” refers to Jews instead of Gentiles, as espoused by Braun, is to be rejected. He estimates that “nowhere in the OT, or the NT for that matter, is the word ‘remnant’ applied to Gentiles in any soteriological or eschatological sense” (see “James’ Use of Amos,” 119-20). His conclusions are suspect for at least two reasons. First, it is apparent that his only arguments against καί being epexegetical, as in the sense of “even,” are theological ones and not exegetical ones. Braun has an a priori assumption to defend, namely, that there must be a distinction between Israel and the church. Secondly, his arguments fail to recognize that James already asserted that God is taking a “people” from the Gentiles (Acts 15:14). Therefore, the “remnant” is not a reference to believing Jews, but is in fact limited to the Gentiles whom God has “called by his name.”
51. Although the referent has clearly changed (from temple to community), the sense is maintained. The temple, which was the locus of the divine presence and the center of Israel’s worship, has now been transferred to the community. The temple simply has a new referent. This hermeneutical approach to the use of the OT in the NT is similar to that advocated in Darrell Bock, “Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents,” in Three Views, 105-51. This type of thinking is not foreign to the NT authors. Paul describes the church, comprising both Jews and Gentiles, as a structure that “grows into a holy temple” and as being “built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit” (Eph 2:21-22). Peter also describes believers as comprising a “spiritual house” (1 Pet 2:4-5). This also coheres with 4Q174 which refers to the messianic temple as composed of “men” (אדם מקדש).
52. Both Stephen and Paul speak against a structural understanding of the temple (Acts 7:48-50; 17:24). Stephen’s speech is the most relevant for this point as it directly relates to how “David’s tent” functions within the book of Acts. Stephen is concerned to demonstrate that God’s presence is not restricted to the Jerusalem temple but was with Abraham (Acts 7:2), Joseph (v. 9), Moses (v. 30), and Israel (v. 38) outside of the confines of Jerusalem and the temple. In the climax of his speech, Stephen asserts that Solomon did not build an adequate temple because it was “made with hands” (Acts 7:47-48) and cites Isa 66:1-2, which renounces God’s need of a structural building. This is all the more relevant due to the fact that Stephen was charged with speaking blasphemy against the temple prior to this speech (Acts 6:13). The terminological and conceptual parallels between Acts 7 and Acts 15 suggest that “David’s tent” is to be understood as a non-structural temple in light of the thrust of Stephen’s speech. These correspondences include: (a) σκηνήv, (b) David, (c) building and rebuilding terminology, (d) God’s “turning away” in judgment in Acts 7:42 and his “return” in restoration in Acts 15:16, (e) the inclusion of citations from Amos in each context, and (f) the same introductory formula for the Amos citations, καθὼς γέγραπται (“as it is written”), which occurs nowhere else in Acts. For these correspondences I am indebted to van de Sandt and E. Richard, although our conclusions regarding these parallels do not correspond. See Earl Richard, “The Creative Use of Amos by the Author of Acts,” NovT 24 (1982): 37-52; Huub van de Sandt, “An Explanation of Acts 15:6-21 in light of Deuteronomy 4:29-35 (LXX),” JSNT 46 (1992): 77; and van de Sandt, “The Minor Prophets in Luke-Acts,” in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament (ed. Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 74-75.
53. I would like to extend special thanks to Dr. Jonathan Lunde for his encouragement over the years as I have worked on this text.