(Library of New Testament Studies Volume 385) James A. Meek-The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations

LI BRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUD IES
385
formaly thr joam.JIIi1r the Scudy ofthe Nt-h' Tcsrumcnt Supplrrncnt Srrirl·
Editor
Mark Goodacre
Editorial Board
john M.G. Barclay. C raig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper,
Jamcs 0 . G. D unn. Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl,
Rdx-rt Fowl(·r, Simo n J. Gathcrcolc. john S. Kloppcnborg,
Michad Lahahn, Robcn Wall. Stc\'c Walton.
Robert L Webb. Catrin 1-1. Wil1iams
This page intentional(¥ left blank
THE GENTILE MISS I ON IN OLD
TESTAMENT CITATIONS I N ACTS
Text, Hermeneutic and Purpose
James A. Meek
.\\
t&.t dark
Copyright Cl hme-s A. Meek. 2008
Published by T&T Cl ur~ International

A Cmuimmm imprim
The: Tower Building. I I York Road. l ondonSEI 7NX
80 Maiden lane. Suite 704. l'ew York. NY 10038
www.c.ontinuumbooks.conl
All rights resef'ted. No p:lli of this public.lltion mny be rcproduce.d or tnnsmitted in any fonnor
by an)' mc.uns. ekctronic or mechanical. including photocopying. rcoordingor any inform:ltion
storage or retric\'al system. wilhout pem1ission in writing from the publishers.
J am~ A. Meek has assencd his right unde-r the Copyright. [)resigns und Patents Act. 1988. to be
identified as the Audwr of this work
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartcnsiu. edited by Karl Ellig_er und Wilhelm Rudolph. Fifth Rc\'ised
Edition. edited by Adri.an Schenker. •0 1971 and 1997 Ikutschc BibdgC$CIIS('haft S!uttgan.
Used by permission.
Scphaoginta. cdite.d by Alfred Rahlfs. '!:> 1935 and 1979 l>cutsc.hc B i bcfgesdl ~haft. Stut1garl.
Used by permission.
Ke.sdc-Aiaod. Novum Te-stomentum Gmcce. 27th Re\'iscd Edition. edited by Barbara Alnnd.
Kun Alond. lohunncs Kamvidopoulos. Curio M. Manini. und Bruce M . Meb:ger in coopemtion
wilh the Institute for New Testumcnt Textual Rcscurch. MiinstcrJWcstphafin. C 1993 ~utschc
BibdgcsellschufL Stuttgan. Usc:d by pem1ission.
Re\'ised Standard Version of the Bible. •0 1952 [lnd edition. 19711 by the Oi\·ision of Chri.s1ian
Educ-ation of the Kational Council of the.Chun:hes of Christ in the Unitc.d States of Amcrico.
Used by perm~ion. All rights reserved.
British Library Catalog_ing·in-Publication Data

A colaloguc record for this book is availabk from the British Libmry.
ISBN-10: HB: 0-567-03380·5

ISBK· I3: HB: 978-0·567·03380-2
Trpcsct by 1SB T)·pescuing. Sheflidd

Printed on ac.id·frce paper in Great Britnin by the MPG Books Group
CONTENTS
Preface vii
The Old Testament in Luke-Acts

1.1 The Old Testament and Gentile Mission
1.2 The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts 4
1.3 The Rhetorical Use of Old Testament Quotations 7
1.4 Goals, Methodology and Assumptions 9
2 Listening to luke 14
2. I Scripture Summaries 14
2.2 Old Testament Citations 17
2.3 Analysis 20
2.4 Conclusion 23
3 The Servant and the Nations (Isaiah 49.6 in Acts 13.47) 24

3. I Text 25
3.2 Isaiah 49.6 27
3.3 The Expected Se1·vant 39
3.4 Acts 13.47 43
3.5 Summary 53
4 The Kingdom and the Gentile-< (Amos 9. 11-I 2 in Acts 15. I6-I 8) 56
4. I Text 56
4.2 Amos9_ll -1 2 64
4.3 The Expected Kingdom 73
4.4 Acts 15. 16-18 77
4.5 Summary 93
5 The Spirit and All Flesh (loel3. 1-5 MT in Acts 2. 17-21) 95

5. I Text 96
5.2 Joel3.1-5 m 97
5.3 The Expected Spirit 104
5.4 Acts2.17-21 106
5.5 Summa I)' I 12
vi Contents
6 Abraham's OftSpring and tJ1e Families of the Eanh

(Genesis 22. 18 in Acts 3.25) 114
6.1 Text 116
6.2 The Blessing in Genesis 116
6.3 The Expected Blessing 120
6.4 Acts 3.25 122
6.5 Summary 127
7 Conclusion 130
7.1 Text 131
7.2 Hermeneutic 132
7.3 Purvose 133
7.4 Excursus: Jews, Gentiles and the People o f God 135
Appendix I Scripture Summaries in Luke--Acts 137

Appendix 2 Explicit Old Testament Citations in Luke- Acts 139
Bibliography 145
Index of Referenc.es 165
Index of Authors 177
PR£FACE
Questions about the relationship between the OT and the NT are as old as the
ministry of Jesus. My own preoccupation with these issues has lasted well over
thirty years. I recall one morning in college calling my pastor to ask how the t-.'T
writers fou nd Christ in theOT. He referred me to Hengstenberg's classic study of
the Christology ofthe Old Testament, and so my first serious exploration of the
topic began with a lutheran. reconunended by a dispcnsationalist. Subsequently
I was exposed to a biblical and covenantal theology thnt emphasized the organic
and progressively untb lding c-haracter of biblical redemption and revelation.
I continue to wrestle with a related groupofquest'ions: How does the OT speak
about Jesus'? How do th e OT and NT fit together? How does the OT function as
canon for the church of the new covenant'? Is the t-.1 interpretation o f the OT
l'esponsible? Should the church seek to reproduce it in our own exegesis, i.e. does
the NT function as canon (nonn) not only in conte-nt. but also in its inte1pretntion
o f the oT? These questions led to a Th.M. thesis on typology as one way to
explore the relationship between the te.stame-nts. The present srudy. initially
undenaken as a doctoral dissertation. is another.
Many have helped me along the way. I am grateful to the faculty of Concordia
Seminary in St Louis. for their wann welcome o f a Presbyterian into their com-
munity. [ am indebted to Drs Jack Preus and James Voelz, who allowed me to
develop fucets ofthis study in work for their courses, as well as to Drs Paul Raabe
and Leo Sanchez. who. as readers, offered valuable.counsel. I am espec.iaJI)r grate-
ful to m y Dokforl'flter and fellow Rice Owl. Dr Jeff Gibbs, who provided needed
focus. guidance and lots of encourage.ment. I am also gmtefhl to Covenant Theo-
logic-al Seminary. where it was my pleasure to serve for thirteen ye.ars, to Presi-
dent B1·yan Chapell, who encouraged me to undertake. doctoml studies and
extended financial suppo1t, and to fonne1·colleagues on the fhculty for periodic
counse.l and frequent e.ncouragement. And I remain indebted to Dr Ed Blum, my
college pastor, fo1· indulging my questions about the relationship between the
testaments (and many other things) so very long ago.
I benefited greatly from the resources ofthe Buswell Library at Covenant Theo-
logical Seminary (especially the inestimable. Director Jim Pakala and the patient
Associate Librarian Denise Pakala), Concordia Seminary libraJ)'. Duke Divinity
School library, the. Barbour Library at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, the
library ofTrinity Episcopal School tbr Ministry (especially its gracious Director,
John Doncevic). and the Stevenson library at lock Haven University.
Most of all, I am indebted to Esther, Starr. Stacey and Stephanie~ who so often
suffered from my distraction and preoccupation with this project I appreciate
viii Prefoce
your sacrifice more than (can say. I hope that seeing the work in this fonn is
some reward.
As the Preacher says, :of making many books there. is no end' . Severn! impor-
tant works appeared or came to my atlention too late to receive.the conside-ration
here that they deserved: Max Tumer's Pou.•crfrom on High: The Spirit in /srael ~'i
Restoration and Witness in Luke-Act:>, Chris Wright's T1ut A-fission of God:
Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrath-e and Terence Donaldson's Judaism and
the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns ofUniversalism (to /35 CE).
UnJess otherv.dse noted, citations of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament are from
BHS. of the Septuagint from Rahlfs' edition. of the Greek New Testament from
NA :n. of the Vulgate from Biblia Sacra Juxta Vu/galam Versionem 1 and of the
English Bible-from the RSV. Chaptet· and verse references are from the English;
the occasionally divergent numbering of the ).tT and the LXX are.noted when rele-
vant. Citations from1he apocrypha and pseudepig:rapha are from Charlesworth,
OTP. Abbreviations of standard scholarly works follow the SBL Handbook.'
I. Bonifatio Fischer <:tal.. eds. (4th <:dn. Stuugart: OeuiSchc: B ibelgcsc1l~>chaft. 199-1).
2. Potricl; 1-1. Alex.andc:r <( al.. The SBL 1/undbook ofStyle: For Andf:'llt."leur £as1em. Biblical,
a11d Early Clrristia11 St11di~s (Pe-!lbody. Mass.: Hendrickson. 1999).
T HE Ow TESTAMENT IN l uKE- AcTS
I .I The Old Testamelll and Gentile A1ission

The importance of the or in Luke- Acts has long been recognized. In an influ-
ential 1953 essay. Paul Schubert a~·gued that 'prool~from-prophee.y theology is
luke)s c.entral theological idea throughout the two-volume WOI'k', 1 specifically
the proof'that Jesus is the Chris1' .! Although Schubert's thesis was not new (he
acknowledged his debt to Hem·y Cadbury's Th• Making of Luk<rActs'), his
article has become.the point ofde.pru1ure for a considerable discussion ofthe pur-
pose and hermeneutic involved in Luke's use of the or ..1
The most substantial contributions have focused on the Christo logical use of
the o r in Luke-Acts.5 While. Darrell Bock has coJTectly observed that Christo l-
ogy is 'the key area of Luke's OT usage as acknowledged by all'.~ it is not the only
are.a in which Luke employs the OT. Consider. for example, the. important sum-
mary ofoT application in Luke 24.46-49a.
And he said to them. 'Thus it is written. that the Christ should suffer nnd on the third
day ri~ from the dcnd. and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be prc:nchc<l
in his name to all nations. beginning from Jerusalem. You arc wilnC'$.SCSOf these: things.
And behold. J send the promise-of m)' Ftuher upon )'OU. '
Schubert notes that in this text.

The k('rygma includes the-proclamation . .. of repentance and the: forgiveness of sins in
his name .. . which is to go to all the nutions . .. that tltc 'apostles' ate: to be. witne-sses of
these-things ... and the coming of the. Hoi)' Spirit. 1
I. Puul Sdwlx'rt. 'The.Structut( und Sjgnillc-ancc ofl uke24', in Nl!llli'SttliJU'tltlidren Silldienfiir

RudolfR•tltmaJIII (c-d. Walther Eltester: BZNW 11: Berlin: Alfred TOpchnann. 1954). 176, cf. 178.
2. Schubcn. 'Structure and Sig:ni.ficance". 17.3.
3. Henry J. Cadbury. Tile> /ll(lking ofLuk~-.4cts (2nd c:dn.: london: SPCK. 1958).
4. See tltc litcraturt cite-d in Oarrdl L Bock. Proclummionfi·om Propht->tyand Pattenr: Lucan
Old Teswment ChriJto/o~:v( J SNTSup 11: Shcffidd: Sbc:ffidd Acade-mic Pms, 1987}. 13- 16: Gcrt I.
Stc:yn. Septllagint Quotations in tht> Co11tex1 ofllle Petri11e and Paulit1e Speeclles (if/he Ac1a Apos·
ro!onm1 (CBET 12; Kampen: Kok Phuros. 1995). 1- 11.
5. 11le two mo!>l substantial studic-.; arc Bock. Proclamation: Martin Rese. .411t~slamemlicile
Motiw: i11 der Clll'istologie del· LukaJ (SNT I: Giit~rsloh: Gcrd Mohn. 1969).
6. Bocl:. Proclam(lfioll. 41.
7. Schubcn. ·struc.turc: and Significance'. 177. Yct Schubert himselfseems to understand ·proof
from prophecy' primatily in terrns of dc:monsttotion ' that Jesus is the: Christ' ( 173).
2 Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts
Tl1is OT-based kerygma includes more than Christology proper (i.e. Chrtsfs
suffering, death and resurrection). It includes the resulting proclamation of repen-
tance and forgiveness to the nations, the appointment of the apostolic witnesses
to Christ and his work, and the. empowering gift of the promised Spirit.8 White
these are all dependent on Christology. they are not identical to it Similarly. Jack
T. Sanders has observed that 'there are two other things that Luke thinks. the Scrip-
ture has prophesied, and they go together. These two things are the rejection of
the gospel by many Jews and its acceptance by the Gentiles.·~ Luke.'s use of the
OTwith refe-rence to the Gentiles has been largely omitted from studies of the OT
in luke-Acts.10
Jacob Jervell found the. ·center of Scripture' for Luke. in 'the suffering and
death of Messiah • and ' the exaltation of this very sutTering f\•fessiah · and rele-
gated the Ge.ntile mission to ·other phenomena in the gospel and even in the
history of the church·, 11 surprising in light ofhis interest in the people of God in
luke-Acts. ln his important study o f Tire Gentiles and 1he Gentile> Mission in
Luke-Acts, Stephen G. Wilson focused attention on the Gentile mission and the
fact that luke used the OT to ' prophesy, explain and justify' it. but he did not
explore how.n Ln an article. promising!}' entitled ·The Gentile Mission and the
Authority ofScripmre in luk~Acts', Jose.ph Tyson recognized the centrality o f
the mission. but his focus on Jervell's view that 'luke treats scripture as authori-
tative' did not lend itself to consideration of how the authoritativeOT was used to
legitimate the Gentile mission.n
A few scholars have noted the impo11ance of the 'missiological' or 'eccJesio-
logical' role of the OT in luke- Ac.ts in relation to Ouistology. Nils Dahl spoke of
S. For the ' 'iew thai 24.48-49 may be included in what 'is wriuen'. sec ch. 2.
9. J;J:(k T. Sandl!'n>. "The Prophcctc Use of the Scripturts in luke- Acts'. in Early Jell"ish and
Clrlistia11 EvegeJiJ: Studies ill Memory of Jrilliam Brm•.cnl<'e (cd. Cmig A. E\•ans and William F.
Stincspring: Atlanta: Scholars Prc$S. 1987). 194.
10. This in spite of the fact thtu 'the caural concern of much of Ac-!s is the mission to the Gcn·
tik s'. John T. Squires. The Pla11 ofGodin Luke- Am (SNTSMS 76: Cambridge: Cambridge Univ«·
sit)' Pre-ss. 1993). 188. The status of the Gentiles is ·un des grandc:s !hC.mes du livre'. Justin Taylor.
Cmmwtttaire !liJtoriqtw. \'Ols 4-6 of LesadeJ des deux ap6trl!s. ~faric-Emi lc Boismlltd and Amnud
L.amouillc- (£Bib: 2/12- 14. 23. 30. 4 1: Paris: J. Gab:dda. 1994). 4. 197.
II. Ja..:ob krvell. 'The Centcr ofSai ptute in luke'. in The Unknown Pmtl: Bsaysm1 Luke-Acts
a11d Ear~v Cluistiall History(trans. Roy A. Hnrrisvilk: Minneapolis: Augsbutg. 1984). 135-36. The
.sarne argume-nt. with wme identical language. is also found inJacobJC-1'\'CIL 11re Thrologyoflhe AC'IS
oj"Ilu? Apostb (NcwTcstamcnt Theology: Cambridge: Cambridge Univcn;ity Press. 1996). 6 1-82.
12. 'The proof. from-prophocy !heme is one ofthe most widespread phenomena in luke's \'Crsion
of the. Gentile-mission. Throughou1 the Gospe-l and AC"'squolations from (Lk. 3:6: Acts- 2:1 7. 3:25.
13:47. IS: 17) ond allusions to(lk. 2:32.4:25-27. 2-1:46: Acts I:8.2:39. 10:34. 15:14.26:17. 28:261)
the o r an:.use.d to prophesy. e-~plain and justify the proclamation tothe-Gentiles'. Stephen G. Witson.
The Gentilt·s a11d ille Gt'lllile Missio11 ill Lltke-.4m(SI'o'TSMS 23: Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 1973).243. Wilson ·s list of texis follows that advanced previously by Nils A. Dahl. ·The StOI)'
of Abraham in luke-Acts'. in SllldieJ i11 Luke- Acts (cd. Leander E. Kcck and J. louis Mnnyn:
Nashville: Abingdon. 1966: rcpr.. r-.liffl intown. Pa.: Siglar Prcss. 1999). 157. n. 50.
13. Joseph ll Tyson. 'TheGcntilc MiSliion and the Authority ofScripture in Luk¢-Acts'. NTS 33
( 1987):619. 62 1.
I. The Old Testament in Luke-Acis 3
a 'double fi.mction' in the use of prophecy in luke- Acts: ' to prove the legitimacy
o fGentile mission and Gentile churches. and to prove that Jesus is the Anointed
One o f whom the prophe.ts spoke.' .14 J. Dupont, while holding to the priority of
the Christo logical application of the OT in Lukcr-Acts. conceded the presence o f
·a sec.ondary theme ... that the salvation the Messiah brings was intended for all
peoples'. t.s
The Gentile mission is willed by God. and i1realizes the prophetic promises that the
M-essiah would bring snJvation to the pagan nations: thus it is pnl1 and p111ce-l of the-
program assigned to lhe Christ by the Scriptures. That is the-reason why Lul:e d«idr:d to
add the-story of the-apostolic missions to his Mrrativc abo\n ksus. for without those
missions tbe work of snh•ation desc-ribed in l.he messianic prophec-ies would not be.
compkte.!6
John T. Carroll has put the c-ase.even more strongly.

A 'christological' func.tion of scripture is foundntional in Acts . ... Ye~ this is only
l uke's starting poinl. the basis for an · eccksiologicnl' u.sc of scripture-which pro\•es to
be-the-ovciTidingintercst in Acts. In Jestl$. God's Messiah. Israel recei\·es the-salvation
promised in scripture. and thnt salvation encompasse-s gentiles as welL That is. Acts
appeals to scripture in or<kr to legi1imate lhc gentile mission.
For CaJToll. the Christologic.al usc of .scripture in Acts 'stands in service of an

even more c111cial theological c-oncem within the narrative ... Who are the.people
ofGod'?" 11 Kenneth Litwak has recently argued that Luke's use of the OT for
Christolog.y ·functions in the service of ecclesiology', i.e. ' to legitimate the
followers of the \Vay' .1s although he pays little attention to the specific question
o f the Gentiles. Bock writes that ·a major portion ofluke's purpose for his wo1·k
is related to a christological justific-ation o f the Gentile mission· .•9·Christology is
not unrelated to mission. Jesus is Lord of all. so the message can go to all (Acts
10:36-43). Mission has two expected elements: Gentile inclusion and Israelite
hardening and rejection.'!() Reviewing intluential sntdies by Cadbury. Schube11.
Rese. Bock and others. David Pao concluded:
14. Dahl.· Abraham'. 131. 'Sal\'ation of the Gentiks was from the beginning cn\·isagcd by God
and included as part of his promises to Israel.·
15. Ja~qucs Duponl. ·Apologetic Usc of the Old Testament in the Spccdlts of Acts'. in Tlu! .';(1/-
mtion ofthe Gentilt>s: Emryson ille Acts ofrile A{X)stles(lrans. John R. Keating: New York: PnulisL
1979). IS6.
16. Jncques Dupon1. Jhc Sah·ation ofthe Gcmiksand the Theological Significance of the Book
of A~":ls' . in Tlu! Salmtio11 oftheGentiles: E.n·ay.<on the Acts ofthe .4)Xlslles (trans. John R. Kealing:
New Yoli:: Paulist 1979). 13.
17. John T. C:urolt. 'The Uses of Sc-ripture in luke-Acts·. in Sodety q(Biblic'al Literature S~mi·
11ar Pap~rs, l990(c:d. David J. Lull: SBLSP: Adnnta: Sdtolars Press. 1990). 513- 14. Carroll ckvoles
almost one-third of his anlde to the-Gentile mission. but since-the anid e ls brief. he provides only
hvc pages on this topic.
18. Kenneth D. l itwnk-. Echoes ofSt:ripture in Luk~-Ac1s: TelliJJ-g the Hi.WOI) I ofGod"s Peopl~
lntertextually(JSt-.'TSup 282; London: T&T Clark. 2005). 202.
19. Bol' k. Prodam(lfion. 238.
20. OaiTC'II L. Bock. 'The Use ofthe Old Testament in Luke-Acts: Christology and Mission'. in
Sodety ofBiblictll Li1era1w-e Semi11ar P11pers. 1990 (cd. Ed..vu.rd J. l ull: SBLSP: Atlantn: Scholars
Their strong emphasis on Christological uses ofscripntrn1citations tends to overshadow

oonccrns for the «c-lesiolog«:al function of lhc ·evocation' ofscriptum] traditions in thc-
l ukan writings. ... A s111dy focusing 011 1!Je ealeJiologirnl jimcti(IJI of u-ri;Jt•tml
ciwtio11s in 1he Lukan nriti11gs Jlill 1u-eds lo fu. writren.lt
Pao himself attempts to partially remedy chis concern. but his focus on Acts and
the J:wionic New Exodus prevents a ft11l consideration ofecclesiological and mis-
siological citations.22 ll1ere remains no substantial study of how theOT is used to
legitimate the Ge.ntile mission in Luke-Acts.
I .2 The Use ofthe Old Testament in Luke-Acts

The discussion of the use oftheor in Luke-Acts has focused on three mainare-as:
text, hcnneneutic and purposc.2~
1.2.1 Te.xf
Are or citations in Luke-Acts lJased ou a Hebrew or Greek original? Iffrom
Hebrew. does the text conform to Ihe MTor reflect another Hebrew te.r.tual tradi-
tion? Iffrom Greek, is there evidence ofa Hebrew le.·dual tradilion that nu~)1
explaiu thr Greekfonn q{flut text? lflhf! citation appears to come from a Gre.ek
original, is the use ofthe dtation dependem on distinctl~·efeatures ofthe Greek
text. or ~"'ottld a translation from the Hebrew have sen-·ed as well?
It is generally agreed th~lt Luke most often c-ites the OT from the LXX. and tTom
the A text in particular. except when he quotes from memory or takes his OT text
from another souroe.24 Dupont claims that not only the text but 'the whole
Prc.ss. 1990). 509-10. Bock had hoped to C-:tplort-this connection further. but wrote that ·enough
material has been brought forward . .. to open a possible fruitful lldd for further research. It is the
relationship between luke's use of the: OT for christology and Luke's 1LS(' of the. OT for Gentile
mission.' Bock. Prodamdlion. 178.
21. D:wid W. Pao. Acts and the Jsaitmic Ne"· £uxlus {WUl--'T 21130: Tiibinge-n: Mohr. 2000:
rcpr.. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2002). 7- 8. Emphasis added.
21. Sabine \'lln den E)·ndc spc.oks of ·a christological ond ecclesiological aim. 11le main point of
Luke's usc of tile Old Te:>tllllle.nt is the: proclamation of Jesus. 11le hope oflsmd and the nlC$Sianic
expoclotions have now come to fruition and dilll3X in the life-. suffering. death. and rcsurrcc.tion of
Jesus. who is portmycd a:> ..the propbeelike Moses", the' Servant the Davidic-Mc-RSiab. the: lord. The
ecdesiologicol aim can be discovered in twocsscntial ite-ln.;: the: Gentik mission and the rejection by
lsmcl.· Sabine-van den Eynde. ·cbildr~n of the Promise: On t.hc .d!A9 /IKII·Promiseto Abmham in
Lk 1.72 and Acts 3.25 ~. in The Unityq(l.uke- .4t'l.f (ed. J. Verheyden: BEll 142: leuwn: Lc-uwn
Uniwrsity Pru.s.. 19'99). 479.
23. E.g. Bock. Prodamalion. 47- 53: Charks A. Kimb<iii.Je.uu •£xposilionqrtheOfdTe.ftMU!III
ill Luke's Gospel (lSNTSup 94: Sheffield: Sheffield Acackmic Press. 1994).
24. William Kemp Lowthc.r Clatkc. 'The: Usc. of the-Scpn1agint in Aci.S'. in Tht' Beginnings of
Cluistiallit}'. Pan 1: The Ac-ts aflllt' Apostles (cd. Fre<kric.k J. Foakcs Jad:son and Kirsopp lal:c-: 5
vols.: l ondon: Macmillan. 1920-33: rcpr.. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1979). 2.66--105: Traugott Holtz.
l.huersuchungen iibt'rdiealtres/OrMittlidu!ll Zi/(l(e bt'i L11kos(TUGAl 104: Berlin: Akademic.Ve.rlag,
1968). For the view that Luke's soul'l:'cs included traditions lx:sicks the LXX. s«: M:u Wikox. 'The
Old Testament in Acts 1- 15'. ABR 4 ( 1956): 1--U.
argumentation of the speeches in Acts is based on the Septuagint te.xf .15 i.e. there
are ·passages in which the whole weight of the argument depends on readings
proper to the Greek version. and in which the Hebrew text would offer no
support to the argument at all' .16 Bock has sought to distinguish between the
form of the citation and its use or ;conceptual fonn ': he conte-nds that the concep-
tual form of the text in the speeches of Acts in no c-ase. depends on distinctive
LXX readings.n
I .2.2 Hermeneutic
How has Luke used (interpreted and applied) the OT text? Is this use congruenl
hrith the meaning ofthe text in its or con/ext? Is the text 's siguijicoucecltanged or
expanded iu order to fimcliou in its ,\ T context? How does the argunumt develop
1
fi·om the text? Is tlw hermeneutic controlled by assumptions thai imerpreters

today cannot embrace. or may the NT's use ofthe or play a positi\•e role in guid-
ing exegett•s today?
Many scholars view the use. of the-OT by NT authors as essentially similar to
that of first-ce.ntllly Judaism. In both rabbinic and sectarian interpretation. con-
text seems of linle importance. meanings can be fou nd in wordplay or linguistic
ambiguitjes, and texts may be linked merely on the basis of catchwords. Early
Christian interpt·eters are.said to show equally little interest in the. original con-
text or meaning.211 Dupont claims that •the scriptural interpretation practiced in
the speeches [of Acts] betrays no interest in the original meaning of the Hebrew
text• and. in at least one case, ·distons the original meaning·.11J Jervell asserts,
' obviously, one c-annot expect too much logic in the use of Old Testament quo-
tations in New Testament writings·.3<l
Such negative estimates deny l uke·s OT henneneuric any relevance fo1· our
interpre.tation of the OT·H and deny any canonical role for the NT in guiding lheo-
logical and exegetical method. These as.."essments. however. are p1·emature. The
supposed absence ofhemwneutical logic has been asserted. but not established,
25. Dupon1. ·Apologetic'. 139.

26. Dupon1. ' Apologetic'. 153.
27. Bocl:. ProdamaJioll. 210.
28. lmponant works include Jan W. Oocw. Jeni:.-h Herml'llt>llti<s ill the Sy110p1ic' CiO.'ip£'/s <md
A<ts(Asscn: Van Goroum. 1953): Edward Earle Ellis. 'Bib!K:al lnttrprctlltion in the New Testament
ChuKh'. in .4/ikm: Tro:t. Trmulati<m, Readi11g and Jmerpretatioll ofthe Hehr<'W Bible ill .4ncient
Judaism <md Ear~v Clui.ftiolfil)' (ed. ~iarti n Jan Mulder: CRINT 2.1: As.scn: Van Gorcum. 1988).
691- 725: Michad Fishb:mc. ·u se. Authority nnd lntc:rprc:tationofMikra at Qumrnn'. in Mikru: Tcxl.
TmMiation. Reading and JmerprdaliOJ! ofille Hebuw Bible ir. .41Jcif!m Judaism and EarlyCI!rislimlil)'
(c:d. Manin J11n .\iulde.r: CRtNT 2.1: Assc:n: Van G~um. 1988). 339- 77: Rich11rd N. Longenecker.
Biblical E:regt>si.f in 11J~ Apostolic Peritxl (2nd cdn.: Gr11nd Rapids: E<rdmans. 1999).
29. Dupont. •Apologc:.tic: '. 154. 133. •Pla)'ing upon thcvarious possible meanings ofan ambiguous
tenn was a popul:u and lcgitirnatc: proe-cdure in early Chti~ian interpretation· ( 144).
30. J11eob Jc:rvdl. '1'1lc Di,·idcd Pe-Ople of God: The Restoration ofl srud and the: Salvtuion ofthe
Gentiles'. in Litke a11d li1e Pt>ople rifGod: A Neu•Look 01 Lu.kf!--AC'IS (Minneapolis: Aug:;burg. 1972).
52.
3 I. For !tuc:h 11 judgcmeni on the usc of the OT in the NT !IS 3 whok s« lonb><ncxkc:-r. Bibli<ol
E.tegesis. 219-20.
6 Gentile Mission and Old Testament Citations in Acts
and its frequent assel'tion discourages investigation that might find such logic.
We will never know for certaill whether there is a logic if we do not look.
1.2.3 Purpose
How does the citation fimclion r!Jetorical~y in ils NT coutexi? What is Luke's
purpose in citing the or? What does he hope to achieve? How i.'> this purpose
realized in the work? Rtn·ersing tlw question. what do the citations tel/us about
the purpose of/he work?
The starting point remains Schuben 's assertion that ' Luke's proof-from-
prophecy theology' is the. ·central theological idea throughout the two-volume
work'.31 Schube1·t focuses on Luke 24, but also finds evidence in the first half o f
the gospel and the conclusion to Acts. Others have advanc.ed similar views.n
CadbUJy had earlier proposed a similar unde1·standing of prophecy and fulfilment
in l uke-Acts. altJ1oug.h he spoke. of an ·apologetic motive' in luke's use o f
scripn1re rather than 'prooffrom prophecy'.~ Conzelmann. whose Die Milleder
l ei/ appeared the same year as Schubert's aJ1jcJe. speaks of'evidenceof promise
and fulfillment' and 'proof from Scripture· that ·points to Christ' .35 Dahl. in the
SchubeJt festschrift. speaks both o f ·prophecy and fulfillment' and ·proof-from-
prophecy' ...6 More reoently. luke Timothy Johnson has writte-n that '"proof from
prophecy" is an important weapon in Luke's apologetic annory' that ' Luke
extends and refines .. . by including not only the life, de-3th and resun·ection of
the Messiah. but the development of the. me-ssianic.community as well'.li
Others have been less enthusiastic about 'proof fro m prophecy'. Charles Talbe11
has noted that not all OT citations or allusions can be seen as promise and fulfil-
ment, not all prophecies in Luke-Acts come from the OT (e.g. some come from
Jesus, angels, contemporary prophels). and the purpose of promise-fulfilment
must be understood in light of Luke's cultural context.n Talbelt concedes. how-
ever. that 'the theme of prophecy-fulfilment is a major one- in Luke-Acts· ,.liJ
Martin Rese has argued that few quotations and allusions display the ·Jinear" tenl-
poral relation that ·proof from prophecy' requires and believes this c-asts doubt
on Cadbury's ·apologetic motive· and the prominence of Schubert's ·proof from
32. Schub.:-n. 'Situcntrc and Significance'. 176. cf. 178.

33. See the sur\'cy in Book. Pnxlumatio11. 21- 37.
34. Cadbury. Makin.g ofLuki'-Ar:ts. 304.
35. HansConzd m:mn. ThoologyofSt. Luke(ltnns. Geoffrey Busvodl: New York: Harper& Row.
1961). I 57.
36. Dahl. ' Abraham'. 147. 15-0. lSI.
37. Luke Timothy Johnson. Sf:'pmaginw/ Midnulr in tire Speeclre:.·ofANs(Milwaukoe: Marquette
Univcrsit)' Prns.. 2002). 11- ll.
38. Charles 1·1. Talbert. 'Promise and FuJiilln:tent in Lucan Theology'. in Lukt---Acts: New Per-
SfH:<'Ii~-esfrom Jlre Sod(7/)' ofBib/irol Litt•rature Seminar(cd. Charles H. Talbert: New York: Cross-
rood. 1984). 93- 10 1. Sc.hubcn did not d aim that all or citations and allusions wen: prophc-.tic. and
had already callc.d auention to 1he presen« of prophecies by ch:unctcrs in the-NT Mtratiw . which
were a p.an of his understanding of ' proof from prophecy'.
39. Talbcn, 'Promise and fullilln:tenl'. 10 1.
prophecy'."' Robert F. O'Toole believes that 'proof from prophecy' and 'promise-
fulfilment' call too much attention to the use of scripture compared to other ·ways
of portraying God's saving action among his people'. He believes that these
wrongly suggest an historic--al ' break' between ancient Israel and the Christian
movement. when in fuc.t 'Christianityj ust continues the Old Te$tamenf .JI Litwnk
has similarly argued that ·promise-fulfilment' accounts tOr only a small portion
of the demonstrableOT quotations, allusions and echoes, which all serve to high-
light the-continuity of the people of God.<!! Bock has argued that 'Luke's use of
the OT for Christology is not primarily ... a defensive apologetic', but ' the direct
proclamation ofJesus·. and that ·Luke sees the Scripture fulfilled in Jesus in terms
of the. fulfillment ofOT propheC}' and in tenns of the l'eintroduction and fulfill-
ment oflhe OT pattems that point to the presence of God's saving work 'Jl_ hence
his charncterization, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern. But Bock also
demonstrates that the promise-and-fulfilment morifplnys a prominent role-in the
development of Luke's Christology..u While some of these may be more quibbles
than objections. they require a reevaluation ofSchube11's claim that 'proof from
prophecy' is at the heart of Luke's use of the OT.
The question of"prooffrom prophecy' has dominated the discussion ofLuke's
purpose in using the OT, but the citations raise other important questions about
the author's purpose. An appe.al 10 scripture is an appe.al to authori1)'~ a rhetorical
strategy designed to persuade the readers about matters of some importance to
the author. Considered along with othe1· rhetorical strategies. c-itations may then
offer insight into the overall purpose of the work.
1.3 The Rhetorical Ure of Old Testament Quotations

In n series of articles and a recent book,"5 Christopher D. Stanley has argued for
rhetorical study ofbiblical quotations in the NT. since 'the decision to introduce a
direc-t quotation into a piece o f discourse is a rhetorical act' :.16 Stanley's work
40. Rcse. Aitresramemlichr! Moriw.1 l0. Foran inl<'ra<:tion with R<:se'$ \'icws,sce Bock. Prod<t-
mtlfion.
41. Robert F. O'Toole. 7111! Unity ofl.uke "s Tfrt•olog)·: .4/ltfnalyJis ofLukt:-.4cts (GNS 9: \Vil-
mington. Del: Michael GIWe.r. 1984). 17.
41. Litwak. Echoes.
43. Bock. Proclamarion. 274. ' Proof' c-an refe.r to a positive demonstralion as wdlasa defensive
response. Bock lnil)' wrongly assume th:u Schubert thought primarily in tcnns of dc: fcn~X. Tbe.two
are not as f-ar upart as Bod: ~uggcsts and his dis..:omfort with ·proor i~ unnecessary.
44. Bocl:.Prodam(lfioll.215- n.
4S. Christopher D. Stanky. 'Biblical Quotu!ions liS Rhetorical Oevitts in Paul's letter to the
Galutians·. in SocietyofBiblirol Litcra/llre ~mimrr Papers, 199$ Pm·J Two(SBLSP: Atlmlta: Scholar.;
Pres!'. 199S). 700-30: ·~Pearl s Before- Swine!': Did Paul's Audiences Undc:.rsumd His Bibli<'-lll
Quotations?' .N011T 41 ( 1999): 124-44: ·r he Rhetoric ofQuotations: An E~)' on ~ic.thod'. in Early
Chdstiall lnterprdation of tile Scriptures of /sra~f (cd. Cruig A. Evans and lllmc:s A. S!lllders:
JSNTSup 148: Sheffield: Sheffield Acad:mic Press.. 1'1:)7). 44--SS. Iam indebted to Profc~wrSI.anlc:y
for slwring with me ponions of the pre~publ ic-.ation manUS(ript of Argui11g hith Scripture: T1u:
Rlretoric ofScriptur~ in tlte J.euers ofPaul (Edinburgh: T& T Cl:uk. 2004}.
46. Stank y. 'Rhetoric'. 57.
differs from much of the scholarly discussion of the or in the NT.J7 because it
focuse.s on "how quotations "work'' within the surfuce stniCI\II'e of [Paul's] letters.
not how Paul himself read and unde-rstood the biblical text ... on the way the quo-
tations advance. (or f.'lil to advance) Paul's rhetorical aims in a given passage· ..cs
Although Stanley fOcuses on biblical quotations in Paul. he raises important issues
for the. study of quotations throughout the NT.
First. Stanley argues that we must distinguish the way in which the OT shapes
the author's thought from the way in which the author uses the OTto instmct and
persuade his audience. A rhetorical analysis calls attention to the way in which
the OTis actually used, and particularly to quotations that the author's intended
aud ience would have recognized (most ot1en because these areclemly marked as
quotations in the text).~
Second, quotations are a rhetorical strategy by which an author seeks to pet·-
suade the audience.5° A quotation is usually an ·argument from authority ... used
to anticipate and/or close.offdebate'; its effectiveness 'will depend in large paJ1
on the audience's perception of the authority and/or credibility of the original
.source' .51 For the early Christian community. an appeal to scripture.would be.the
highest appe.al possible.sl Surpl'isingly~ even though an appeal to scripture would
seem sufficient to clinch Paul's argument, Stanley notes that Paul seldon'l relies
on quotations alone.n In f.1ct, "the use-o f multiple lines of argumentation is a
standard recommendation of rhetoricians as far back as Aristotle· .s.~ The use of
quotations, with other rhetorical strategies, provides insight into the author's
rhetorical purposes.ss
Third. Stanley warns that limited access to biblical scro1Js56 and low rates o f
literacy 57 mean that few in the audience would have been able l'O identify and
4 7. ·while there is much to be gained from studying curly Jewish and Christian hemteneutie-uJ
techniques. this should not be-confused with an in\·esti~tion of how the. Bibk wus actuully used in
early kwish and Chri~iun literuturc.' Stanky. "Rhe-toric·. 58.
48. Stanley. 'Quotutions'. 701-03.
49. Stanley. 'PeurJs•. 131- 32. Ofcourse. some texts would haw been r«ognizablewitboutexplicit
textual markers. just as ·tct thc.re be.lighr . 'God is lo,·c· und 'do not judge• 1ruy be recognized as
bib1fc:altoda)'. even by thof.C with limited biblicul koowkdge. Many others would have needed to be
marked in order to be recognized.
50. Stanky. ·Quotations·, 707.
51. Stank y. ·Quotations". 703.
52. 'From Paul's quolation<> wecun see.tbnt he. like olhc-r kws. believed thutquoting lhe words of
Sc.riptutc s.hould close.off all debate on a subject.' Stanky. 'Quotations'. 714.
53. Sltlnley. ·Quotations". 714- 15.
54. Stunfey. ·rcnrls'. 140. n. 35.
55. Stanky. 'Quotations'. 724.
56. Sltlnk y argues that privute.ownerdlip of biblical scrolls would have been rnre nnd diaLonce
ten~i on:s de-veloped with official Judaism. Christians would huvc had limited access to synagogue
scrolls. St:mlc-)·. ·Quotutions'. 711- 19: 'PCilrls·. 127.
57. Stank ycitcs data indtcating lit«uc.y rates of perhaps 10- 20 per cent. Stanley. 'Qu(l(ations'.
719: ·Pe.arls'. 129. OCD. s.v. •fiterncy'. ('5till13tcs rates of 111most20-30 percent but notes that this
varied overtimc:. locatioo. b'<'ndcrandsocial class. Slaves were g<ne-rnlly less literate. but ·much reacJ.
ingand writing was done: by slaves. cspeciuUy in Rome'. When: muc.hof the church was drawn from
the ]ower clll$SC:S (e.g. I Cor. 1.26-29: 2 Cor. 8.2: Gul. 2.10).litcracy in the c.hurch may have. been
examine the-background or original contexts of biblical quotations.5t Fewe1·still

would have possessed sufficient biblic.al knowledge to rec.ognize more subtle
scriptural allusions or 'echoes'.59 Still. in Paul at least, usually ' the rhetorical
point is clear enough·,fh although the audience's understanding of the.quoted text
would be shaped as much ;by the. broader rhetorical context in which the quota-
tion was embedded' as by the original context.t>l
1.4 Goals, Methodology and Assumplions

The present study seeks to contribute to the understanding of the OT in Luke-
Acts (and in the NT generally) by focusing attention on the neglected use of the
OT to legitimate the Gentile mission in Luke-Acts. By doing so, we e-xpect to
shed fresh light on the te.xt of the OT cited by luke. his OT henneneutic and his
purpose in citing the OT. The hermeneutical issues are of particular importance:
i t~ as C. H. Dodd has argued, the.source of the NT's distinctive approach to the OT
is Je.sus himself•.sl its hermeneutic is of more than mere literary or historical
interest for those who regard him as ·teacher and lord' (John 13. 13). In addition,
the study will contl'ibute generally to the ongoing discussion about the purpose of
luke-Acts and will have implications fo1·wider questions about the relationship
between the testaments, the doctrine of the church and its mission. and the rela-
tion of Israel and the church.
This study will focus on explicit OT citations. The OT has influenced the t--1
in a variety of ways: linguistic inftuence-(o1· imitation). explicit quotation. and
implicit influe nce (e.g. allusion, reference, motifs).63 Recent sn1dies have increas-
ingly focused on scripmral allusions and intertextual 'echoes' .0-1 Such studies can
quite low. but 'the-anciem habit of reading aloud meant that wriuc-n texts could often be shared l.bc
more easif)· by other:>'. Stanley's O\'ernll point is unaffcelcd by differing estimates.
58. Stank y. 'Pearls'. 133- 36. 138.
59. Stanky. 'Pc:uls'. 131- 33. 139. ihis is not to say that tbc--audi-c:ntt was compktdy biblically
illitcrmc-. 'The.Christian gospel was accompanied by blblic.nl prooftc:tts from its earliest d:.ys', indud-
ingthc--tcn c.ommandmcnlS.. 'storic:s about imponant biblical figures'. ·texts !hat cuuld :ts.:>ist the: mem-
bers in defending their faith before a hosrik world'. 'But this is :t far cry from the kind of biblical
knowledge that would be required to grasp the signific-ance of the many quotations th3t Paul offers.
for c.xa1nple. in Romans9-ll . c:sp«ially when the letter was being read aloud before 11 gathered con·
.b'Tc:gation! Stanley. ·Quotations' . 721.
60. Stank y. 'Pe-arls'. 139.
61. Sltlnky. 'Qooutions·. 720. Soc 11Jso Stanley. ·Rhetoric'. 53.
62. Charles H. Oodd.Accordi11g in th~ Scnjnur~.f(l.ondon: Fonltlna Books, 1952}. 110. See 11lso
Bock. Proclamation. 214.
63. Steyn.•'te-plllagint Quotations. 2. Lari:in divides the latter catc:gor)' into allusions and usc of
o r ideas. William J. l ar\:in. ·r oward a Holistic Descriptionof luke's Usc of the:-Old Tc:stament: A
Method O('.!OtCribcd and lllusltll!cd from Lui:(' 23:33-38. 4--.1--49'. in £range/ira/ T1reological Sorie1y
Papas (PonJand. On:-.: TheologicaJ Re~:uc:h Exchange Nct,VOfl:. 1987). I.
64. Richard B. Hays. Echoes nfScriptltrt! i111he L~ll~n of Pmtl (New H:wcn: Yale Uni\·crs.it)'
Press. 1989). For Lu.ke- AC1s. sec Rebecca Dtoo,·a. T11e T11ing:s AccompliJ!IedAmong Us: Prophetic
Traditinll and lh~ Smtctural Pollem nfLltkf'-Act:; (JSt-.'TSup 141 : Sheffi('.ld: Sheffield Ac:tckmic
Press. 1997}: l itwllk. Echocs: Dav)d P. Moessner. Lord~?!'the &mquet: T11e Literwy u1lti T1JEYJ!ogicul
legitimately provide insight into the ways scripture may have-shaped theauthor·s
thought and presentation, but questions of identification and resulting disagree-
ments will ahvays leave a degJee of uncertainty. As Stanley has observed, only
clearly identifiable quotations (and allusions) are likely to be part o f the author's
intentional rhetoric>ill strategy. Howeve1·. by tbcusing on explicit quotations. we
may develop a framework by which to e.valuate more objectively other proposed
allusions Ol' intenextual references.
Recent contributions to the study ofthe OT in Luke-Acts have foc used on the
role oft he OT in the development of Luke's Christology. As a 1'esult. the.y address
' the pi'Oblem [ofthe.OT in Luke--Acts] from the perspective ofonly one aspect o f
the l uk:ln theology' .11$ To understand the role of appeal to the-OT in Luke--Acts.
other or cita1ions must be brought into the discus..'\ ion. Because of the central
place occupied by the Gentile mission in the ecclesiology of luke--Acts. an exami-
nation of related OT citations will constitute a major step toward meeting this need.
This study will examine four explicit OT citations in the. book of Acts that are
related to the Ge.ntile. mission. Tilese will identified by an analysis offered in
chapter 2_iJ>
T<1ble 1.!
NT Ref~l<'lla Reyerence Jo Gemiles or Citalion

Acts2.16-21 All Aesh . .. everyone who calls- on the name of the.lord Jod 3. 1·5MT
Acts 3.25 All the-families of the c-.artfl will be bb~d Genc:sis22.t8
Acts 13.47 A lig}ltto the: natioll$ Lsoiah 49.6
Acts 15.16-18 All the Gen1ilcs calle-d by my nan1e Amos9.11-12
Each o f these is plainly marked as an explicit cita1ion by the use of an intro-

ductory fonnula. Two. Acts 13.47 and Acts 15. I6-18. e.xplicitly t\mction in the
narrative to legitimate the Gentile mission. In the other two. Acts 2. 16-2 1 and
Acts 3.25. the Gentile.mission has not yet begun or become an issue in the life o f
the church, but it is nevertheless anticipated by the.se citations.
These four texts come from four OT books. evoke four major prophetic themes,
and occur in speeches by three of the most important characters in Acts.67
Signijicall<'i! ofthe Luka11 Trol'd Narratil't' (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1989): Pao. Acts. For the-usc of
all u.sions in Jewish inte-rprclation. see Manin Hoogd and Danie-l P. Bailey. ·r he Effective History of
Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period.>. in The SIIJ'(i:ring Sm'tlnl: l.mialr 5J ill Jewish <lltd Christian
Sources (cd. Bemd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher: (rans. Danie-l P. Bailey: Grand Rapids: Ec:rd·
man!:. 2004). SO.
65. Steyn. SepJuagi11t Quotations. 3.
66. A fi fth text Luke: 3.6 (l.sa. -10.5). also may be related to the Ge-ntile mission. but limiting the:
present work to the four citations in Acts makes fora mon: focused and cobcrc:nl study. Luke 3.6 will
receive-briefane.ntion in the discussion of Acts 2.16-2 1. The-same li\'C texts haw aJso been identified
by Dahl. ·Abraham'. 157. n. 50: Wilson. Gentile Mi.uion. 243.
67. Three-of these s.pced-.cs ·are strongly Do vidic:-Mcs~ianie' and they are gi\'C:n by 'thi'(IC of lhe
most tlre>ologic{lf(l' imporunt eharoc-ters in AC1s' (('mphasis in original). ~fark L.Strnuss. Tile> D<widit:
/lle.(siah in Luke-,fcu: 71w Promise ond Its Fuljilfn}e/ll in IJ.tkun F.sclrmologr (JSNTSup 110:
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1995). 192.
I. The Old Testament in Luke-Acis II
T<1ble 1.1
.?JT Rt'ji!ret/Ct! orCiwtion or Tf•l!me S{N:tlkl?f Ri!ftmu:e to Gemiles
Acts2.16-21 Joel 3.1·5 MT Spirit Peter All Acsh . .. everyone who calls
Acts 3.25 Genesis 22.18 Abraham's seed Pe~er Alithe familic.s of the c-ortfl
Acts 13.47 l:>aiah 49.6 1saianlc !:Crvant Poul A light to the nations
Acts 15.16-18 Amos9.JJ. J2 D.w idic kingdom James All the Gentiles called by m)'
name
Tannehill has argued that two of these (Acts 2.17-21; 13.47) occur in texts with
broad significance for the.rest of the narrative.68 The c.entrality of the themes and
speakers underscore." the importance of the is.~ues.G9
Once these OT citations have been identified, e-ach text will be studied in detaiL
Examination of text-critical is-s-ues related to the citation in the MT. the
LXX, and the NT.
E.xamination of the OT text. with particular atte-ntion to its meaJling in its
original context.
• E.xamination of the NT citation, including its context. interpre.tation in
this context. and appare.nt purpose. i.e. the way in which it contributes to
its NT context.
Two texts. Ac,ts 13.47 and Acts 15.16- 18, will be examined in greater detail
because of their role in explicitly legitimating the Gentile mission>beco.mse of
complex issues involved in their interpretation. and beco.mse they have received
le."s attention in recent studies of the OT in Luke- Acts.70 The citations in Acts
2. 16-21 and 3.25 will be. examined more briefly. with a focus on the way in
which they legitimate the-Gentile-mission.
A numbe-r of assumptions and limitations are necessary. This study focuses on
the extant book of Acts and the way in whic-h selected OT citations function within
it The complexities posed for an ·extant text' of Acts by distinctive readings of
the Western text\\~11 not be a significant factor in studying these four texts.11 We
68. Tannehill finds imponant parallels in l.hc way thai the missions of John. Jesus. Peter and Paul
are introduced in l uke 3.4·6 (ls.1. 40.3-5): 4.18-19 (lsa. 61.1-2): Acts 2.1 7-21 (Joc!J.J-5): 13.47 (lsa.
49.6}. ·There is 3 scm1on by each of these figures near lhc beginning of the story segment that wiiJ
concc-nll:ue on his woli:. and the sermon either includes or is accompanied by a scriptural quototion
which rcveols the divine pulpOSe behind the mission thai is be-ginning. These: scriptural quotations
h3\'e.a ~igni ficance- beyond tbc scenes in which they appear.· Robcn C. Tannehill. Tlrt' NarraJiw:
Unity ofLuke-Acts: A Literary lntei]JIY!Ialitm t2 vok: Philade-lphia: Fonre.ss. 1986-90). 1.52.
69. All four of these themes are introduced early in the: third gospel: the: Spirit ( 1.15. 35. 41 . 67:
2.25-26). the-promise to Abraham ( 1.54-55. 72·73). the lord's scr\'a.nt ( 1.69) ond the Oavidic. king·
dom (1 .32-33. 69: 2.4. II}. Thrtt appe-ar in the-song ofZccharioh (S<-r\'a.nt. Oovid. Abm.h3m) as he-is
lillcd with the Spirit. All four of thcsecita!ions and associated themes play a prominent rok in Ma~
Turner's intcrprctotionof lukc-AC'Is. whioh Idiscovered too lute togl\'c the otlcntion that i1dcscn•es.
Ma~ Turner. Power from 011 Higil: Tile Spirit in lsntel's Restort1tio11 and Willless in Luke-Acts
{Shdfld d: Shcffic.ld Acade-mic Press. 1996).
70. Bec.ouse-lhey focus on Christology.IK'ilhcr Bock. Prodattwtion. nor Rcsc. Alttestamentlic/1e
J./(Jtiw•.lre-o<s thc-.sc te.-:ts.
71. Distinc•ivc \\'este-rn n-adings occur around and within these four texts. but none-prcscnl
12 Gentile Mission and Old Testamen/ Citations in Acts
will not attempt 10 identify sources or traditional material lying behind tJ1e text,
nor to examine the way in which the author may have used such mate.rial. The
present form of the work is won hy o f stud}'. particularly by those who view it as
paJ1 of the authoritative canon of the church.
This study assumes the unity and common authorship of l uke-Acts. both o f
which are. widely acccpted.12 For convenience. the author of the two-volume
work will be referred to as ·Luke·.n
The study focuses on tJ1e narrative sequence and world as presented in the
work. Questions concerning the historicityofthe account are beyond tl1e scope of
the present study.7.t The speeches will be treated as, within the narrative world o f
the work. ·at least faithful epitomes. giving the gist of the arguments used' .iS
significant obstacks to their interprdation. For a concise and current summary of the tc.xtual issuc..s.
S« Bruce M. ~ic:lzg<:r. A Textual ConmJemary Olllfle Gnvk New Te.ffament (2nd cdn.: Stutt.gan:
Deutsche Bibdges.:llschal1. 2002). 222- 36.
72. See e.g. Frederick F. Bruce, The Book oftile Act:; (re\'. cdn.: NICNT: Grand Rapids: Eerd·
mans.. 1988): Joseph A. Fitzmyc-r. The Gospel according to Luke (2 vok: AB 18-1M.: Garden Cily.
NY: Doubleday. 1981-85): Donald G111hrie. New Testament Introduction (3rd re\'. cdn.: Downers
Grove-. 111.: lnrer·Varsity. 1970): Werner Georg Kumrnd . / nJroductiolllo I he New TesMmenJ (UiLtl.S.
Howllld Cl-aR: K<:e: Nashvilk: Abingdon. 1975): Ben Witherin,!,1on Ill. The Acu ofrlw ApoJtla: A
Stxio·Rhetorical Comme11tary (Gr.md Rapids: E.trdmans.. 1998). fot a rtccnt response to wme
argume-nts offered against the unity of Luke- Ac-ts. see Litwak. £dltX'S. 35-47.
73. 11le prescnt study docs not depend on the idcmilic-.ation of the author. although a strong case
can be made for the 11:tditional ide-ntification of the author of the thin-1 gospel and AcH. as by. e.g.
Fi12my«, Luke. 1.35- 39. The proposal that the Akxandrian te-xtrcprej:(nts n subst!lnliaJ post-l ucan
t<:da-ction would. ifcstabli~d. compltcatc: references to the 'author' of the work: sec ~·1 arie- Emile
Boismard and Arnaud lnmouilk . Lt tt'~leot•cidenw/ desacresdesapOtrf!J: r&:onstituJionet rehahifi·
rmion (2 \'ok: Synth(sc 17: P111is: Editions Rccllcrche sur lcs civilisations. 1984): Les actes dcsdeu:r
ap0trf!s(6 vols.: £Bib 2/12- 14. 23. 30,4 1: Pa~: J. Gabalda. 1990- ). Tbe-irposition. ho,veYcr. has not
me-t with widc-acttptancc (sec c.g. Ch111les K. Batrett. A Criticaland E.teydical Commentary on tht•
Acts q(lhe .4pos!le.f (2 vok: ICC: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1994-98). 2.xix- x:tii: Joseph A. Fitznl)·er.
The Acb (!(the Apostb (AB 31: New York: Doubk-.dny. 1998). 84-8.5).
74. Nonr:thelcss. the.rc are indic.ations that the narrative is m ka!>! a re-liable account of the c,·ents
i1nxords. Sec e.g. the: de-fence of luke as historillll in I an Howard .\tarshoU. Luke: Historian and
Thrologian (3rd <:dn.: Downers Grove. Ill.: lntl!'rVarsity. 19&8).
75. Frederick F. Bruce. The Spe(·C'hes ilrtl1e ~tcts ofthe .4poslfe.f (L-ondon: Tynilik P~ss. 1942).
21. S« also Conrad Gcmp( ' Public Spc-~'lking and Published Accounts'. in 71u! Book ofAcu in/Is
A11cie111 LifmrryContexl (cd. Bruce \V. \Vinter and Andrew D. Chute: vol. I of The Book ofAm in
Irs Finl Cent11ry Si!lling. ed. Bmoc W. Wint<:r: Grand Rapids: Ec.rdmans. 1993). 259- 303: W. Ward
Gasque. ·Tt.e SpttC<-hcs of Acts: Dibd ius Roconsidcrcd'. in Nt'W Dimen.sio11s in Nen· Testament Study
(ed. Richard N. Longcncck<:r and ~te-rrill C. Tennc)': Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1974). B)' <:omrasL
many view the speeches as mo:;d)' or entirely rompositions by Luke. Cod bury found tha n 'devoid of
historiC<al basis in genuine lladition•. Henry J. Cadbury. 'The Sp«.:hes in Acts'. in The Begi11ningso[
C!uistianity. Pan 1: The Acts oftlle .4poJtfes (ed. Frc<kric.k J. Foakcs Ja-ckson and Kirsopp lal:e: 5
vok : London: Macmillan. 1920-33: rcpr.. Gnmd Rapids: & kcr. 1979). 5.416. So also Codbury.
Making ofLltktt-Acts. 184-93. Similarly. Dibdius believed thai 'all of the preachill.£, . .. h:as l uke as
its author.... The nuthor did not feel himself oblige.d to be loyal to what h< had heard or the te~t that
had come into his pos:;cssion.' Martin Oibclius. Stltdif!J in Jhe Acu oftile ApoJtles(Ncw York: Chart"Cs
Scribner's Sons.. 1956). 183-84. E. Schw"Cizcr believed !hal ' the spcoche1 arc basi eall~· compwifions
by tile awlror-ofActs' (emphasis his). Eduard Schweizer, ·concerning the Spocche1 inAeiS'. in Studies
in Lltke-Ads(cd.lc.andcr E. Keel: and James louis Martyn: Nuslwille: Abin,!,-don, 1966: rcpr.. Mif·
Aintown. Pa.: Siglar Press. 1999). 208.
This study will not e.xpiOI'C in detnil the theme of1he rejection of the gospel by
many Jews. although this has been related to the Gentile mission both histol'ically
and theologically.16 Haenchen, for example, has argued that ' for Luke, the Jews
are '"written off'" and "the. Jewish people .. . has forfeited salvati on ~ and. as a
result the effort to re.ach the Jews has ended and "now the mission goes only to
the Gentiles' .17 This vie\v has come under increased attack. as 'a growing chorus
of scholars .. . are protesting: the-notion that Luke.depicts cJle triumph of gentile
Christianity at the expense of Jews'.18 1n Acts. not all Jews reject the gospel; in
every text in which ' the Jews' oppose the. gospel, there are. also Jews who
believe.~ Thus ' the schema that sees the rejection of the. gospel by the-Jews as
providing the impetus for the. Gentile mission is not supported by a reading of
Luke- Act'! as a whole.' .il> Rather ·the. salvation of the Gentiles and Jsn:tel are
inseparable-·.s1 This is an important and sensitive area. Jewish scholars are under-
standably troubled by the idea o f the.' replacement' or ·supe-rsession' of Israel by
a Gentile church as the true heir of the scriptures and ·heritage of Israel' .112 Chris-
tian scholars are eager to claim theOT as part of the heritage of the church. These
questions are as old as the book of Acts, and the.ir sensitivity has not been dimin-
ished by the long history of anti-Semitism that has sometimes been based on
readings o f this work The present study~ however) can only hint at how such
questions might be addressed.
i6. See.e.g. Acts 13.36; 18.6: 28.28. Sanders bc.lieve-s Acts :1.1 J ulso connects the rejectio-nof lhe
gospe-l b)' kws wilh tbe Ge-ntile mission. arguing tbut LheeS1ablishmcnt of therorncrstoneensurcstbut
the building goes on. but with othc.r builde-r.; (compare Luke 2 0.16· 17). S3ndcts. ' Prophetic Usc'.
19 5-97.
77. Ernst Haenche-n. Tlrt• Acts of/he .4postfes: A Commemury (trans. R. Mel. Williams: Phila-
delphia: We-stminster. 1971). 128. 12 9. In 3 similar ve-in. Jack T. Sander.; t:an spe-ak ofChrist :c; 'the
cornerstone (the.reference. is toPs. 118.22 I oot ofa "rtttC\\'<:d lsract'.of ..,he redeemed within Israe-l".
but of the church. which i.s Gentile'. Or. more bluntl)': 'The Jews arc.out and the Gentiles art· in.•
S:m<krs. 'Prophetic Usc' . 196. 197.
78. Robert L Bfilwley. Luke- AciJ a11d tire Jeu-s (SBlMS 33: Adanto; Sc.holars Press. 1987). 3.
See also Jervdl. ·oi\'ided People·. 53.44-49.
79. While man)' Jews (and officiuJ Judaism) rejected the message-about Je-sus. ln:an)' did no1. The
expression ·the Jews• will appcar inquotation marks. both to signify that this is languuge l uke uses
to characterize Jewish ad\·ersaries and as a reminder thai 'the kws' docs not ntc:m all kws.
80. Eari Richard. 'The Divine Purpose: The kws and the Gentile Mission (Acts 15)'. in Luke-
Acts: New Perspttlil'esjrom tire S«Myq(Biblic-oll.iti!rolllri! Seminar(ed. Charks H. Talbe-rt: New
York: Crossroud. 1984). 19i. ·The pan ial rcjce1ion on the p:ut of the Jews doc.s not provide the b:IS.is
for prc-nching to Gc-ntiks bccnusc prc.aching toGe-nlik s \\'as already contained in the missionary com-
mand of God.> kn·e-11. 'Oi\·idcd People'. 61. (The arsumcnt is b~~SC.d on the citaiion of I s::~. 49.6 in
Acts I3.4 7. Sec: below. ch. 3.) Similarly.· salvation ofGentiles was from 1he be-ginning envisaged b)'
G-od and included as pan of his promises to Israel. l uke-does not d aim that the c-hutch Ius replaced
t ~rud as the people of God. • D.abl. ·Abraham·. 151.
81. Johannes Munt:l:. Paul amf tlJe Sttlmtioll ofMankind (trans. Frunk Clarke: London: SCM
Prc.ss. 1959). 44.
82. This Juner e-xpression is prompted by the recenl volume-edited by David P. Mocssocr.JeS/.u
a11d the HeriWgi! ofb·rael: Lltki!'s Narratit•e Claim upon lsrael'J Legctcy (Harrisburg. Pa.: Trinity
Press lnlernutional. 1999).
2
L ISTENING TO lUKE
To leam how Luke understands the.OT, we have to listen to him. aJld particularly
to the ways in which he appeals to the OT. Tl1is study will examine two impo11ant
ways in which he does so. First. there are 14 state-ments that summarize OT teach-
ing without citing a particular text (Appendix 1). These are seldom considered in
the discussion of the use of the OT in Luke-Acts. Second. there are more than 75
explicit OT citations (Appendix 2). Slightly more than half of them are cited as
prophecies and it is these that have attracted the greatest attention. The summary
statements and explicit citations focus on five themes: the. suffering. death and
resurrection of Christ: the attendant e.schatological blessings; the rejection of
Christ by many Jews; the coming j udgement, particularly on unbelief: and the
proclamation of forgiveness to all (Jew or Gentile) through Jesus. This twofold
witness to Luke.'s understanding of the OT sheds light on Luke's pmpose. in
writing, as well as on his understanding of the OT and its fulfilment in Christ.
2.l Scrip/uri! Summaries

One of the distinctive fe-atures of the use of the OT in Luke-Acts is the. 14 state-
me-IUS that summarizeOT expectation.l These statements use language.commonly
employed in citation fomlUias. but do not (apparently) cite-particular OT texts.
The two summarie-S in luke 24 are.especially important. Schubert argued that
this chapter plays a crucial role in the message of l uke-Acts and he c.alls parti-
cular attention to its emphasis on fulfille-d pi'Ophecy.! Fh·st. Jesus instructs two
travellers on the road to Emmaus on the interpretation of1he OT and its applica-
tion to himself.
I. Jcr\'dl has noted lhat these summ.1rie-s arc distinc-tive of luke's approac-h to the-OT and c3n
find onl)·a few similar statCITII:'ntsclscwhcre in the NT (Matt 22.40: 26.56: John 1.45: 5.39. ~6: 20.9:
Rom. 1.2· 3: 3.2 1: 16.26: I Cor. 15.3-4: Heb. 1.1). He calls Lukc'ssummarics ·sunmury references•
and lists nine: Acts 3. 18.. N: 10.43: 17.3: 18.28: 2~. 14: 26.23: Luke 24.26• .:16. JcrvciL·centd. 123.
FiiZmyercaUs tflesc ·global references' and JisiSSC\'ett in Acts: 3.18. 24: IOA3: 17.3: 18.28: N. 14--
15: 26.12·2.l The pr<Sent Sludy couniS Acts 3.18·26 as a single swnm:uyand adds Acts 7.52: 13.27:
28..23 as wcllas luke 1.68· 75: 18.31·33: 21.20-24: 24.25-27: 24.44--49. I cannot find any attempt by
Fi12m)·er to itkntif)' sinUiar te:tts in luke. Fitzmycr. Acts. 91. Bock calls the-m ·summary citations'.
and lists fi ve: Luke 24.26. 44..H: Ac.ts 3.22·23: 17.2-3: 26.22·23. Darrell L. Bock. ·scriptute and the
Rc.alization of God's Promises·. in trilrli!SS to lh€' GospE'/ (cd. lan Howard ~{:ushall and Da\'id
Peterson: Gnmd Rapids: Ecrdtn3ns. 1998). 42.
2. Schube-rt. 'Sttuc:•urc and Signific-ance·. 167- 77.
2. Listening to Lukt! 15
And h< said to them. ·o foolish men. and slow of hean to bdicvc all t.hat the prophels
have spoke-n! Was it not necessary thutthc Christ should suA·« these things and enter
into his glory?' And beginning with Moses and alllhc prophets. he interpreted to them
in all lhe scripturtS- the thing:; concerning himsdf. (.24.25-27)
' In all the scriptures' (emphasis added) thet'e are things about Jesus. h is not a
matter of identifying a few isolated predictions here and there, but of finding
Christ throughout the OT. The roadside le.sson in OT interpretation prompted an
enthusiastic response: 'Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on
the road. while he opened to us the scriptures?' (24.32).
Luke-24.44-49 records Jesus' final and fullest recorded sutnnKtry interpreta-
tion of the OT.
Then he said to them.. 'These are my words which I s.po~e to you. while I wus still with
you. that t\•erything wriucn about me in the law of MOS(-S und the prophels and the
psuJms must be fulfilled.' Then he.opened their minds- to unde-rstund the scriptures. and
suid to them. 'Thus it is 'Vl'itten. that the Christ should suffer and on !he tflird duy rise-
from the dead. and thut repcntuncc and (lit Wlto] forgi\·enes.s of sins should be pmtchcd
in his name to all nations. beginning from Jerusalem. You art-witn('$$(';sof these things.
And behold. I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay in the-city. untiJ yousrc.
d otbcd with power from on high.·
Again. there ilfe many things ('everything written') t1U'oughout the OT ('the law
of Moses. the pmphets, and the psalms') to be fulfilled in Jesus. The OT speaks
not only of Jesus' suffering, death and t-esurrection. but also ofche implications
ofthe.se for the proclamation of repentance a.nd forgiveness •to all the nations'
through the Spirit-empowet-ed apostolic witness.1
Similar summary statements nre found in 12 other passages in Luke-Acts.
They refer to ll1e OT in a variety of ways. All refer to either 'the prophe.ts' ( 11
.summaries) or ' the scriptures' m 'what is written' (nine summaries). Moses or
' the Jaw of Moses' occurs in five. Although there are 13 explicit citations from
eight Psalms in luk~Acts. the Psalms are. mentioned only once. All of the
3. ~iost co-mmentators conclude the summaryof ·what is writttn' with the-proclamation to ·uJI
nations.· (or possibly with U,X.<if.lt\•ov CutO l epo-ooa:l. ft~. if we follow ItS\' and the substantial
number of MSS rending i.rp~ciptVOY in place-of ((~<i~E\'0\ ). Dupont duims that here Luke ·rc<fuces
tfle teaching of the messianic prophecies to thrte points·, lhc suffering of Chris!. his resurrection on
the lhird duy and the protlam!l!ion to the nations - omitting the apostolic witness. and promise of lhc
Spirit. Dupont. 'Salvation•. 17. Whik \'\'. 48 and 49are not grllnmuticully part of 'thus it is written'.
the Spirit-e-mpowered upostolic witness is the mc:ms by which the rncssage of repctuancc. and
forgi\·cness is to bt" prcuchcd to the nutions. Dennis Johnson hilS argued that this witr.ess. the Spirit.
and 'the ends of the canh • :tJe thr« themes from the Jsaianic strvant songs \VO\'en togelher in the
·programmatic• Acts 1.8. Dennis E. Johnson. T1u! Ml!:i.ftTg~ of~tcts ill lilt! HiJIOJY of Ri'dcmplion
(Philtipsburg. NJ: P&R Publishing. 1997). 34- 36. The-universal witness and the Spirit belong to a
conl!)lc:\ ofthemes thul luke found prophesied in the or and theirpresctlC( in this summuryof ·whut
is written· is not accidcntul. The apostolic 'vitness to Christ's sufferings and re.s urr«tion in fact
becomes pan of the kt'l}'glm (Acts 2.32; 1. 15: 5.32: 10.39. 41: 13.31: cf. 22. 15: 26.16.}Thus. ·all !.he
ck ments of \'Cn>cs 46-48 fall under the spell of tbe lcud. ~thus it is wrille-•l'': tfle dcath and
resurrection ofJerus. lhc worldwideprodamation of convcrsion und forgiveness. the gift of the Spirit
to tht-witnessing community'. Curroll Stuhlmudlerand Donald Senior. The Biblical Follmfationsfor
MiJJiOil (Mury~noll. NY: Orbis. 1983). 251.
summaries in Acts appear in speeches toOl' description.sofencounters with Jews,

who would be e-xpected to know and respect the OT; none appear in addresses to
unbelieving Gentile.". who might be less likely to find such an appeal persuasive:•
Ten of the summaries focus on Christ. and his suffering. death and resurrec-
tion. He must be ridiculed. abused. killed and raised again so that ·everything
that is written of the Son of man b)' the prophets will be accomplished' (Luke
I 8.31 -33)5 In Thessalonica (Acts I 7.2-3). Paul argued ' from the Sct·iptures" that
'it was necessary for the Christ to suft"e.r and to rise from the dead'. so that his
heare1·s would believe that ' this Jesus ... is the Chl'ist'. ' What the. prophets and
Moses said would come to pass' includes the fac.t that 'Christ must suffer, and ...
rise from the dead' (Acts 26.23). 'What God foretold by the mouth of all the
prophets' (3. 18, cf. 3.21. 24) was 'that his Christ should suffer' (3. 18). Other
summaries are employed more generally to indicate. that ·Jesus is the Christ'
(Acts 17.2-3; cf. I 8.28) and the expected ·Righteous One' (Acis 7.52; cf. 3.14).
Other summaries de.scribe. the eschatological blessings of the Messianic age.
Zechariah's prayer in Luke 1.68-75 celebrates God's redemption of his people
"as he.spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from ofold' in keeping with ' the
mercy promised to our fathers. and ... his holy c.ovenant, the oath which he
swore to our futher Abraham'. Acts 28.23 finds Paul'te.s-tifYing to the kingdom of
God'. Acts 3.19 speaks of promised ·times of refreshing from the Lord'. These
blessings include •a hope in God ... that there will be a resurrectjon of both the
just and the unjust' (Acts 24.14-15). which is "nothing but what the prophets and
Moses said would come to pass' (Acts 26.22-23).
The sufferings of Christ result ft'om his rejection by many Jews. 'Behold. we
are going up to Jerusalem . .. he will be delivered to the Gentiles' (Luke 18.31-
33: cf. Acts 13.27-29). Acts 13.27-29 describes how 'those.who live in Jerusalem
and their mters .. . did not recognize him and they asked Pilate to have him
killed'. Stephen charged this generation with nlerely following the example of
their fathers. who had killed the prophets (Acts 7.52).
Because ofthis rejection, judgement will c.ome. ln Luke.21.20-24. distress and
desolatjon will come "to fulfill all that is written· .lltis is (in lightofluke 19.37-
44) the result of the city's spiritual blindness and refusal to acknowledge Jesus.
Ne.vertheless.forgi~·euess ofsins is offered through the name of Je.~u s. Acts
J0.43 focuses specifically on this gift. asserting that 'all the prophets' testify that
'every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name·.
l uke 24.44-49 makes forgiveness (\\~th a call to repentanc.c) thecentml feature
-l. This is not meant to suggeSI thai the o r was unimponant to Gentile bcfic\'ers. but simp-ly thut
it was unlikely to be: seen as amhori!llti"e-by most Gcmiks. The o r is not cited in sp¢eches addressed
to 'true pugans'. G.:ntilcs \\ilo did nol huve previous oontac.t with the S(riptul't'S offsracl (e.g. Acts
14.1-4-18: 17 .22·31}. Paul"s rerercncc to the luw und the.prophets in his hearing bdore Fdi:t (24.14)
is not :m uppeal to authority but an atte-mpt lo present himselr as an orthodox kw guilty only or an
intramutu] di~greemrnt. In Ac-Is 26.21. 27. Paul app.arend)· hope-s to winagreement rrom Agrippll by
appealing to the propbets.
5. l uke alone amplifies the third pas~ion prediction this wuy (cr. ~·t atl. 20.17-19: ~fark 10.32·
34).
of the apostolic proclamation. Acts 26.22-23 indicates that Christ would. by

virtue ofhis resurrection (and tltrough the-apostolic witness}~ 'proclailn light both
to the people and to the. Gentiles'.
The summaries all have a Christological focus. They speak not only of his
rejection. suffering, death and resurrection. but of the e~~hatologic-al blessings he
brings. warnings ofjudgeme-n t tOr fuilure to acknowledge him, and the offer o f
forgiveness to all (Jew and Gentile) through him. While the summaries do not
comprise all that Luke understood of the OT, it is clear that he approached the
whole OT Christologically. i.e. with reference. to Christ.
2.2 Old Testament Cilations

The second way in which luke appeals to the OT is by explicit citations. Luke
employs explicit citations in a variety of ways. as references to provisions of the
Mosaic law. to historical e.vents. to doctrinal beliefs. and as prophecies. The pro-
phetic citations focus on the same five themes as the scripture summaries. While
the summaries indic.ate. generally wha1 Luke believes the OT says about these
things. the explicit citations indicate./tow it does so, i.e. his hemteneutic.''
Identifying citations is an inexact science.and there is little consensu.'i on which
texts in Luke-Acts are explicit citations and which are paraphrases or allusions.1
Although sharing a common text. the two standard editions ofthe NT differ on OT
citations.ll Neither text agrees with Bratchet·'s survey ofOT quotations. which was
also pre.pared under the direction of the United Bible Societies.9 Other ~tudies dis
play a similar disparity. 10 Texl~ marked a." citatiom in NA 21 and UBS generally
4
rept·ese.n1 a middle-of-the-road appronch (i.e. mot·e citations 1han some studies.

fewer than others). Limiting citations to only those.marked with an introductot·y
6. ·ff l ukc ddinl~ the Chri~ian mt3ning of the or inch. 24 ofhi sGospd . he docs not indKatc
which biblicuJ texts are most npt for this Christo1ogic:al demonstration. It is the citations in Acts
which fulfill the program announced inch. 24. • Fra~o-is Bovon. Luke 1/1~ 71re-ologi(f11: T11irty -Thr!!t'
rears ofRest>arc/1(/950-l98J) (trnns. Ken ).1cKinll('y: Allison Park. Pa.: Pickwic-k. 1987). 85.
7. 1'1lis three-fold categorization of citations. pnrap}u!lscs and allusions is employed by Robert G.
Bratcher. Old Tesuurtf!lll (}rwratiorts iJi lhf!Net~' Tcsrament(3rd rev.edn.: l~ e!ps for Trnnsllltors 3; Lon-
don: United Bible Soc.ietie-s. 1987). For a mo~ detailed sc.hcmc. see Fmnklin Johnson. rhe Quora-
lions ofi!Je New Test(/JIU!IIt[rom the Old CoJtsidered in 1hc- Jiglu ofGerwml l.ilf!ralllrt• (Philadelphi11:
Anll!-rican Baptist Publication Society. 1896).
8. In Luke. NA: 1 tnarks33 passages asquotalions.tenofwhich 11re oot sh!lred with UBS'~ UBS'
list!: 25 texts llS quotations. two of which arc not shilled with NA::1• In Acts. NA:' marks 36 passages
as quotations. three of which a~- not shared with UBS': UBS.a li!:I.S 40 texb; os quolations.. se\'en of
which a~ not shared with NA :J.
9. Bratcher. Quotttlimu.
I 0. Charles K. BarrctL ·Luke/Acts'. in It is IJ'ritum: Scripture Cili1tg Scnjnure (ed. Donald A.
Carson 1111d Hugh G. M. \Villionuon: C!lmbrldge:Cambridge Univusit)' Pre-ss. 1988). 23 1- 4t Hohz.
Unrer:mC'!umgtm: Johnson. Qlmtatio11.r. Long<:ncckc-r. Biblic(i/ Exegesis. 57- 59: He-lmer Ringgrcn.
·Luke's Usc of the-Old Testament'. HTR 19 ( 1986): 227- 35: Cr-awford How·ard Toy. Quotalions in
rlJe New Te.wamentCNcw Yoli:: Chorb Sc-ribner's Sons. 1884}: David Mt'C31man Turpic-. T1rt: New
Tl?slament 1/elt'(}fl/re- Old: A CollfributioJIIO BiblicaltntroductiM and £regc-Jis(London: Hodder &
Stoughton. 1872).
fomtula would be too narrow. and even then. difficulties and unceJ1ainties would
re-main (a tb rmula may introduce multiple citations, e.g. Acts 1.20; 3.23).
The development of a consistent rationale. for idenri~ying citations and the
detailed application of such a methodology to luke- Acts would be a study in
itself. h is possible. to gain some idea of l uke"s use of the or by analysing:
{ 1) citations identified in either NA21 or UB~ (the two agree over 80 per cent of
the time)~ and (2) citations prefaced by an introducto1y fomtula. Examination of
both sets of citations yields strikingly similar results.
Luke employs a considerable variety of fonnulas with OT citations. Forty
fomtuJas introduce 48 citations (several fonnulas introduce multiple dtations).
The tem1inology is gene-rally similar to that found in the scripture summaries
(3lthoug.h~ since.chese citations have-specific sources. we do not find generalized
expressions such as ' the law aJtd the prophets'). The ·written' characte.r ofOT
revelation is emphasized ( 18 times). as \Veil as the language of speech (18 times).
Speakers include Moses, David, ' the prophet' (i.e. Isaiah) and God himself.
When we look at the sources ofluke's OT citations. the same pattern eme-rges
4
whether we consider the texts m:lrked as citations by NA27 or UBS or only those
explicitJy marked by an introductory fonnula. The citatjons come primarily from
the Pentateuch, latter prophets and Psalms. with few from the. historical narra-
tives. Citations, including those with introductory fonnulas, are more numerous
in Acts, despite the gospel' s greater length.
Table2.1
Citatio11s All cit(ltimu CitaJions 11-ith introductoryformulas
by sow·ci!11 Utke Acts Total Per cent Lltki! Acts Total Percell/
Pe-nlatcuch IJ 20 J3 42% 10 8 18 38%
Histotyl1 I I 2 3% 0 I I 2%
Lotter Propbe.t:> II 10 21 27% 6 10 16 33%
Psalms 10 12 22 28% J 10 B 27o/.
Tolnl 35 43 78 19 29 48
45% 55o/. 4M'o 60%
Luke cites theOT ina variety of ways.H We can ide.ntify four general categories:
11. Luke 7.27 ls 1aken as a quolation from Mal. 3. 1(not E.xocl.13.20): soc Gleason L Atcher ond
G~otyChirithingo. Old Ti!SI(Imem Quotations in 1fle Nnv Testafllt!llt (ChiCilgo: r..'Joody. 1983). 165:
G~g K. tkoleand 0 . A. Corson. cds .. C.ommeiiiOI)'OIJtlte New Testamt>nt Use ofthe OldTest<tmem
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). 300-3: Fit7.myer. Lukt>. 1.674. II is more difficult to choose
between E:tod. 20.11 and Ps. 1 ~6.6 as 1hesourceof the quototions in Act~4.24: 14.15: one quouuion
each i~ a~si,£ll('d to the Pcnmtc-uch ond Psalms abo\"<.
11. ·His1or)" here includes lhc: forlllC'r propheiS and the narrative books fro m 1M writings (i.e.
Joshua-Esl.hcr in lhc English Bible}. Apari ftom thc-Ps.:ilms. there ore no quotations from lhc writi ng.~
(unless AclS 4.24 is understood as a quotalion of Neb. 9.6. bu1 i1is more like!)· aquolation of E.xod.
20.11 and Ps. 146.6:cf.also2 Kgs. 19.15: lsa. 37.16).
13. All of the: OT citations in Acts occur ins.p«chcs with the exception of Acts 8.32-33. the text
being rr-ad b)' the Elhiopian eunuch. Clalke-. ·use'.2.93. None occur as comme-nts by the namtot. in
malkcd coniC$SI to. e.g., Motthcw. Cf. ).flltt. 1.22-13: 2.25. 17-18: 3.3: 8.17: 12. 17-11: 13.35:21.5:
21.9- 10.
legal. histol'ical. doctrinal and prophetic. 1" !Rgal citations recite requirements of
the OT law. as when Mary and Joseph prepare ' to offer a sacrifice according to
what is said in the law of the Lord, ''a pair ofuu·tledoves. Ol' two young pigeons'''
(luke 2.24; citing Lev. 12.8), Ol' Jesus reciting the two great commandments
(Luke I0.26-27; citing Deut. 6.5: Lev. 19.18). These occur primarily in the gos-
pel, accompanied by introductory fonn ulas. Citations f1•om accowtts ofhistorical
events. with the.exception of Acts 13.22, all appear in Stephen's speech in Acts
7. These come primarily from the Pentateuch and refer to foundatio nal events of
Israel's history. although a few refer to the e$tablishment of the kingdom or
subseque.nt events. 15 A small number of passages cite.OT texts that express doc-
trinal convictions. as when Jesus appeals to the designation of Yahweh as ' the
God of Abraham and the.God of Isaac and the God ofJacob' to demonstrate 'that
the dead are raised' (luke 20.37; citing Exod. 3.6). or when Paul proclaims in
lystra the God 'who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in
them' (Acts 14.15; citing Exod. 20. 11; Ps. 146.6). The majority of citations are
employed in a prophetic capacity, principally drawn from the prophets and the
book ofPsahns and applied toevent.s whic.h have been fulfilled in the.narrative or
which are yet to be fulfilled. These are most often in view in discussions of the.
OT in Luk~.A.cts. We summarize these findings in Table 2.2.
Table .U
Citations All citations Citaiions with introdudoryfonmt/a.f
by liSe LuJ:e Acu Total Per ('('Rt Luke Act:~ Tmal Per ('('Rt
leg;ol t2 15% 9 10 21%
Historical "0 li li
;
21% 0 i 7 15%
4%
Doctrinal 2 3 6% 2 0 2
Prophetic. 22 22 44 S6% 8 21 29 60'A
TO(al ); '3 18 19 29 48
We can further categorize the ways in which the prophetic citations are
applied. The majority are concemed \\~th Clwistology, as when David ' foresaw
and spoke-of the resurrection of the Christ' (Acts 2.30-31 ~ citing Ps. 132.1 1:
16.1 0) orJesus applied to himself the words of Isa. 61.1-2 (l.uke 4. 1-21 ). Isaiah
61 also includes a broader soterio/ogica/ component, speaking not onl)• of Christ
as the Spirit-anointed pre.acher~ but also about the blessings that he will bring. The
same is tnte of the citation of Joel 3.1-5 ~n in Acts 2.16-21 . Luke also cites or
texts to warn of the comingjudgemenl, particularly on unbelief and the rejection
of Christ by many Jews: ;but for others [the secrets of the kingdom] arc in par-
ables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand'
I4. Tt.e categories 'VCre daiwd from a study of the: ci1a1ions themselves. Although a degree of
subj«tivity is invoh·cd. the O\'Crall pallem is no! likely lo differ grt".atly from OI\C' reader to another.
RC".aders are invited to \•iew the-texts in Appe-ndix 2 and make their own judgements.
15. Many of thc:sc-.appear to bc--cite-d simply as pari of Steph('n•s relating the story of !!'fad's
history. no1 as an appe--nJ to authority. (The onlyothct hi$toricalcilations arc--the citations ofPs.. 8-9.10
and I Sam. 13.14 in Acts 13.22.) AlthoU£)1 St('phcnmay havetm<krstood the histoty he summarizes
10 be prophetic. thc:n: is no indication that individu:t1 citations are unders.!ood prophetically.
(Luke 8.10; citing Isa. 6.9) and Paul's waming in Act'! 13.40-41 ofthe.judgement
announced by Habakkuk ( 1.5). Finally, several citations speak of the tmiver:;a/
spread of the gospel to include all nations (i.e. Gentiles): 'all flesh shall see the
salvation of God' (luke 3.4-6; citing lsa. 40.3-5) and the promise of blessing,
through Abraham's posterity, for ·all the families of the eanh·(Acts 3.25: citing
Gen. 22.18). We c.an summarize these inTable 2.3. (Some citations address more
than one theme. so the percentages total more than I00. Raw numbers do not nec-
essarily indicate which the-mes m·e more important.)
T<1hle 2.1
Prophetic .411 citations Ci1otio11s witII illtmduciOIJIfomwfa.r
citations Luke .4crs To1al Perc-em Luke Ac1s Towl Percent
Christologic:al 10 10 20 4 8% 4 9 13 45o/.
Soteriological ; 4 9 21% 4 4 8 2So/•
Judgerncnt 1 7 14 33% 2 1 9 Jl%
Rejection 4 5 9 21% 0 5 5 17%
UniveNal I 4 5 12% I 4 ; I 5o/•
Whether or not we restric.t our analysis to citations with introductory formulas.

the same patterns emerge in analysis of the sources of Luke's OT citations. their
uses (legal. historical. doctrinaL prophetic)> and the various applications of the
prophetic citations. This suggests that the methodology for identifying citations
does not bias the results, and that however we may look at it. the.same picture of
l uke's understanding and use of the OT will emerge.
2.3 Analysis
l uke.'s scriptme summaries and OT quotations make similat· appe.als to the OT.
Both regard the OT as "what is wriuen ·and 'spoken by the prophets' and foc us on
five central themes.
Old Te:sUimem e.tpt'C'IOiion in 1ile st·ripmre SltJflmaries Old ToUIJf/C'II( ciUitimu
The suffering. death. rcsutTCc.tion and C):altation of Christ Christologic:al
The eschatological bl($$ings Sotcriologirol
The coming judgement Judgcrnent
The rcj«tion of Ch:tisl b)' many kw.s Rejection
The proclama1ion of forgi\'encss to all (Jew or Gentile) through Jesus UnivcNal
These.themes - Christo logy~ soteriology,judgement rejection and the universal
offer of the gospel- form the prophetic significance of the or in Luke-Acts.16
Why these five themes? luke is not writing an academic theology of the OT,
but presumably with the needs of his intended audience in mind. [tis at this point
that Christopher Stanley·s work (see chapter 1) is helpful. Stanley argues that
16. Cf. thennalysis of Amsler. who finds four points in the proctnmntion of Acts nuc:stcd b)' ot
cilations: the.c.oming of the promise-d prophet-king. the n«essit)·of the: suffering and death ofJC'$US..
his resurrection nnd IISC(nsion. and the proclamation of.salvation to all mc:n along with t.he hardming
of lsmd. Samuel Amskr. L 'And(!ll TesUI/11(!11/ dtms I'Eglise: Es.mi d'hem•h:ewiq11e clwiliemre·
(Neuch:i.te-1: Odachnu.x & Nie!>'! IC. 1960), 71.
"the decision to introduc.e a direct quotation into a piece of discourse is a rhetori-

cal act•.17 As a rhctoric.al strategy, the use ofquotations, pm1icularly as an appeal lo
authol'ity}offers insight into the author's purposes and expectations of the intended
readers. Luke·s citations of OT prophecy are appeals to authority intended to secure
agreement and end debate. Since authors (generally) appeal to authority only when
some.issue is in doubt or dispute. Luke's appeals to the OT in these. an.~s highlight
issues of concern to the author and/or his intended readers.
In the preface to his gospel, Luke indicates his inte-ntion to write for Theophilus
a t:pljl&; .:a&tl;~<;, an 'orderly accounl'' wilh lhe goal tva in•yv0; nep\ rov
Kttt ll;(t\61Y. i.oyrov tqv aaq>CtAttav ('that you may know the truth concerning
the things of which you have been informed'). Theophilus 1k has been informed
about certain things (presumably the-essential elements of the life. death and res-
urrection of Christ, and pcrflaps key events in the history ofthe early church), but
Jacks 'ce.J1ainty' (NIV) or ·assurance' (Fitzmyer).19 Luke's ac-count is ~eaae~~;,
used also in Acts 11.4 to describe Peter's explanation of his behaviour at Cor-
nelius' house, an account designed to persuade his critics of its appropriateness.20
luke- Acts. then. is intended as a persuasive document. to bring.Theophilus cer-
tainty regarding aspects of the. Christian t11ith about which he has already been
infomled, but may be in some. doubt.21
As rhetorical strategies, then. the OT citations and summaries provide a clue
about the things of which Theophilus needed assurance or that we-re in dispute in
Theophilus' circlcs.22 1t appears that Theophilus was in need of assurance about
the person and work of Jesus. We know from elsewhe1·e in the NT that the cruci-
fixion of Jesus in particular was a stumbling-block to belief( I Cor. 1.23). that his
l'esurrection was denied (Matt. 28. 12-15). and that his Messiahship was disputed
(Matt. 26.63-66).u The condemnation and execution o f Christ by the Romans
17. Stank y. "Rheloric'.57.

18. For the. present purpose. il docs not mallcr whether Thcophilus was a rcaJ individll31 or a
.symbolic construe~. although the fonncr is more likdy. Fitanyer. Luke. 1.299-300. Fitt:myerbclie\·cs
he was probablya calce:humcnor neophyte. Bock dc!lCribcs him liS 11 ·ncwbdic.vcr or onc whose faith
needs bolstering'. Darrell L Bock. Luk_. (2 vok: Bal:c-r E:<cgclical Commentary on the New
Tcstan~nt 3: Grand Rapids: Baker. 1994-96). 1 .~.
t 9. Filzmycr. L11ke. 1.300-01. RSV's rendering ·know the !roth' is inadequate. S« BDAG. s.v.
Ua cpcU.ttcc Alcxantkr prdcr:i ·ussured knowlcdgc'.lovcda)' Alc.xander. Th~ PrefaN! to LJtk~ ':;
Go.\pel: LirermJ' Com·t-mion and Social Co11tex1 in l uke 1.1-1 and Acts 1. I {SNTSMS: Cambridg-e:
Cambridge Univer.:ity Press, 1993). 140. "The: word convc)'S the: llntilhc:si.s to unrdiabk go!ISip.
rumour11nd doubt." Wille-m C. ' 'an Unnik ·Remarks on the Purpose of luk-e's Historie.al Writing
(luke I 1-4)'. in Sparsu Collccur: Tht· Coll«ted E.uays of 11: C. \ "all Unnik. Pan One: Ewmgelia,
Pmtlilw. Acta (NovTSup 19: Leidc-n: Brill. 1973). 14.
20. Fitzmyc-r.L1tke. 1.299.
21. Robe-rt Maddox. Th~ P11rpose q(l.uk~-.4cts (Edinburgh: T&T Cl11rk. 1 ~82). 22. 181- 87.
22. 'The: plot of a wort can often be illuminated by consickring the: nujor ronAict or eonAicts
within it.' Tannehill. Narraliw! l.l11ily. 2.34. The citations in a work 11rc a d ue: lo conflicts present in
the 11uthor" s llndforrccipic-nts' surroundings and may there:fore illuminlltc. the author"s conc-erns and
objceti\·es.
23. ·The firS! objections to the- faith were conce-rned with the s.uffc:-ring and <kath of ksus. •
Bamubas lind:u!:. New Testam~lll Apologetic (Pilifaddphia: Fortn:s.s. 1961). 284.
was an obstacle to Je.ws. as well as an emba1·rassme-nt to Gentiles.u Half of the

or citations and almost all of the se.ripture stmunal'ies in Luke-Acts foc us on the
suffering. death and resurrection of Christ as the fulfilment of prophecy and the
plan of God for the. salvation of his: people. The more generally soteriologic.al
texts also support the claim that Jesus is the Christ. by claiming the arrival of the
blessings that attend tvfessiah's coming.
It also appeal'S that Theophilus was in need of certainty about the church's
mission to Gentiles. If he was himself a Gentile. the.question would have been of
considerable personal significance. Acts indicates that the Gentile mission was a
matter ofconrroversy: Jews in Je,·usalemlistened calmly to Paul's account of his
conversion until he claimed that God had sent him to preach good news to the
Gentiles (Acts 22.21-24 ). Jews who believed in Jesus had misgivings as well
(Acts 10-11 ; 15.1-35). In such an e-1wironment. Gentile believers would undoubt-
edly have \'londered whether they did in fact now belong to God 's people.25 T1te
o r citations and summaries that speak of the inclusion of Gentiles would encour-
age those who have believed in Jesus that they have indeed been accepted by
God. At the same.time. the failure of many Jews to welcome Jesus as theh· Mes-
siah was a matter of concern. both pastoral and theological (Romans 9- J 1). In
l uke- Acts, citations related to Jewish unbelief(e.g. Luke 8.10: Acts 3.23; 13.40-
4 1; 28.25-27) appear most often in conjunction with an announcement of the
Gentile mission. luke's use of the OT "is de.signed to calm any doubts that may
have existed in the church either about Jesus' position in the.plan- of God. or his
offering ofGod's salvation to all men. especially the direct offer of salvation to
the Gentiles'.26
A comparison of the summaries and the.quotations. however. reveals that some
elements of the summaries are not included in the explicit citations. Consider
again Luke 24.46-49:
Thus it is wriltc-n. that the Christ should ~• ffer and on the. third day rise from the dc.1d,
und that re:pcnlanceand forgiveness ofsins should be preached in his nametoall nations.
beginning from Jcru.sak m. You arc witnesses of these things. And behold. I send the-
promise of my Father upon you: btu stay in the city. until you are c.IO(he<f with power
from on high.
The sufferi ng and resurrection of Christ is the predominant theme in the citations.
and the proclamation to the nations is also suppo11ed by appeal to the or. The
content of the proclamation (repentance and forgiveness), however, is not sup-
poned by or citation. Although Schubensuggested that the apostolic witness and
the gift of the Spirit are part of what ' is wri tten· ~ the apostolic witness is sup-
ported by no OT citation and the gift of the Spirit by only one.2-i Then again. these
things did not appe-ar to have been topics of dispute. That God forgives sins or
24. Frrocric.k F. Bru<:e. The !RfoJIJe of tlte GoJpt"l in 1h~ New Tn t(IJJU!IIl (Grand Rapids:
Ecrdmans. 1977). IS. 32. S+-55.
25. Maddo:-:. P11rpose. 183- 84.
26. Bol' k. Proda11wfi<m. 219.
27. A<:t!: 2.16-21 (Joc-13.1-5 MT) supporl:> the. Janer. lsa. 43. 10: 55.4 <:ou!d have- supponcd the
fom'!Cr. but is not cit<:d.
would in the last days send his Spirit were. not in question, but that he would do
so for Gentiles, without circumcision and obedience to the law, apparently was.
Stanle}' notes that. even though an appeal to scripture. might be sufficient to
clinch an argument, Paul seldom argues by citation alone. Luke uses his narra-
tive. as \\'ell as the appeal to the OT. to make his case. The risen Jesus meets with
his unbelieving disciples. persuades them ofhis resurrectjon (Luke 24.31. 36-52)
"by many proof's' (Acts 1.3), and ascends bodily into heaven in their sight (Acts
1.9-11 ). The narrative in Acts documents God'sacceptanceofthe Gentiles through
the accounts of Philip's preaching in Samaria (8.4-17), the conversionof the Ethio-
pian eunuch (8.26-39), the commissioning of Paul for the Gentile mission by
divine 1·evelation (9. 15: 22.21 ; 26. 17-18), the evems at Cornelius' house ( 10.1-
11.1 8), tl1e rec-eption ofthe gospel by ·Greek.<' ( 11.21 -26). and the Spirit-directed
decision of the council of Jerusalem ( 1S. l-35). Luke thus brings two lines o f
argument to bear: his narrative. record of "the things which have been accom-
plished among us ' (Luke 1.1) and the divinely inspired prophecies of those events
in the OT. These. two lines of reasoning together provide Theophilus with cer-
tainty regarding the things of which he has been informed.
2.4 Conclusion
This analysis of luke's scripture summaries and explicit citations demonstrates
that the prophetic signific-.anceofthe OT in luke-Acts is found in five themes: the
suffering. death, 1·esum":ttion and exaltation of the Messiah; the attendant eschato-
logical blessings; the coming judgement: the rejection of Christ by many Jews:
and the proclamation of forgiveness to all (Jew or Gentile) through Jesus.
Considered as rhetorical devices. these appeals to the OT offer insight into his
purpose(s). Luke appeals to the authol'ity ofthe OT (with other rhetol'ic.al strate-
gies) to bring Theophilus certainty conceming the dtings about which he has been
instructed, i.e. that Jesus is the Christ and that God has ordained the proclamation
of the gospe.l to the Gentiles. This line of reasoning does not lead to a new con-
clusion about the purpose of Luke-Acts. but it does bring new evidence to bear
on this question.
We began by noting that recent discussions of the OT in Luke-Acts have
focused on Christo logy. This chapter has argued that there are other themes and
emphase.s in appeals to the OT in Luke-Acts: the blessings of the Messianic reign,
the comingjudgement. the rejection ofChrist by many Jews. and the Gentile mis-
sion. It is essential thai these themes and texts aJso be brought into the oontinuing
discussion about the OT in Luke- Acts. In order to contribute to this discussion, we
will proceed 10 examine the four texts in Acts that refer to the Gentile mission.
3
T HE SERVANT ANU THE NATIONS (ISAIAH 49.6 IN ACTS 13.47)
Tlte citation of lsa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47 represents a major tuming-point in the
narrative. 1 In the first 12 chaptCI'S, Peter has been tlte leading character and the
gospel has been preached primarily within a few miles ofJen1salem to Jews or to
Gentiles somehow connected with Judahm (Samaritans in Acts 8 and the pious
Comelius in 10-1 1). A few disciple.s. ·scattered because of the persecution that
arose over Stephen· {8.4). began preaching to Gentiles ('Greeks' 2) in Antioch.
Tlte apostles, recognizing the significance of this developnlent, sent Bamabas to
investigate ( 11. 19-26).3 Nevertheless, in the.narrative ofActs. the church has not
conducted a conce1·ted or intentional programme. of preaching to Gentiles. 11lis
will now change.J From chaplet· 13 to the end of the book. Paul will be the prin-
cipal spoke~'iman, and. while he will continue to preach in synagogues to Jews
and pious Gentiles. he. will increasingl}' focus on Gentiles. The turning-point
takes place in Pisidian Antioch where, frustrated by continued and determined
opposition from Jews, Paul appeals to !sa. 49.6 (Acts 13.47) as justification for
an intentional mission to Gentiles and. in so doing, sets the agenda for the second
half of the book.
This section begins as leaders of the church in Antiochs are directed by the
Spirit 10 'set apart for me Barnabas and Saul tOr the work to which (have called
them • ( 13.2). What this work is to be is not stated. but it will pt'eSllll\ably bec.ome
evident as the narrative.unfolds.6There have already been anticipations. God had
told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen instnunent of mine to carry my name before
I. LukcTilllO(hy Johnson. The Arrsoftlre Aposdes(SP5:Colk gevilk . Minn.: Liturgical Press..

1992). 225.
2. The t~ml here refers to ' pagan $}lpathizcrs of Judaism . .. in the: synagogues in Antioch'.
Eckhard I. Schnabel. £ar~l' Christian Mission( l \'Ols.: Downers Grove. Ill.: lntcrV:usity. 2004). 786-
87. Acts 15 indicates that those invoh•ed were Gentile$ (15. 19), not mc:.rdy Gtcc:k·spcakcr$. and Lhc
issue in 15.1 is cin:.umcision and rd igious obligation. not languag-e: or culture.
3. Charles K. Barrett. 'The Gentile Mission as an Esc:hmologicaJ Phenomenon·. in £Jrltatolq;J•
a11d rlw JVew Testame11t: Es.wtys br Holloro.(G('Otge Raymo11d Beaslq-Mwray(cd. W. Bulitt Glocr:
Pe-abody. ~fas.s.: Hendrickson. 1988). 1.552: Darrell L. Bock. .4c·ts(Grund Rapids: Baket Academic.
2007). ..f14.
4. David Pao speaks here-of •the first sustained cfforl c:atTied out by Christian missionarie-s to
bring the. gospel to the various regions beyond the:-Land ofhracl.• Pao. Acts. 9&.
5. Batrett notes that there is no indication in the text of the. c:hul\~h as o wflok being prc.sc:nt.
Barrell. ·Acts'. 1.604.
6. Note the-signs of divine guidance dir«'ting Paul's minisuy. e.g. 13.4. 9: 16.6: 19 .21.
3. The Serwmt and th~ Nations 25
the Gentiles and kings and the sonsoflsraet· (9. 15)/ although thus far, Luke has
reported only that Paul has p1·eached to 'the sons of Israel' .• After the initial
preaching in Antioch ( 11.20-21), :a large company was added to the. Lord '
(11.24) through the ministries of Barnabas and Saul over a period o f more than a
year ( 11.26).9 Both Paul's call and the ministry he shared with Barnabas suggest
that 'the work ' will involve preaching to Gentiles.
In the subsequent narrative. that is what they do. Although they preach in
synagogues to Jews ( 13.5, 14, 34; 14.1) and to those that ·fear God' (1 3. 16). they
typically meet with opposition from Jews ( 13.45, 50-51: I4.2. 5). while 1\."Ceiving
a more f.1.vourable response from Gentiles ( 13. 12. 43,48: 14.2). When they retum
to Antioch. Luke summarizes their joumey solely in tenns of their minist:Jy to
Gentiles ('how (God] had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. 14.27; cf. 15.3,
12). The substantial infltLXo f Ge-ntiles into the church becomes the occasion for
the c.ouncil in Jerusalem conceming the basis on which Gentiles will be included.
In these two accounts. coming roughly in the middle of Acts. we find the. t\vo
explicit OT citations that directly address the Gentile mission: here.• when Paul
and Barnabas first embark on a deliberate programme. of preaching to Gentiles,
and at che council in Jemsalem, when James appeals to Amos 9. 11- I2 to settle
the question of the means of Gentile inclusion.
The citation of Isa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47 is also imponant because the1·e are at
least two other allusions to Isa. 49.6 in Luke-Acts (possibly more.). In those. the
object o f the prophocy appears to be Jesus. while in Acts 13.47. Paul applies it to
his own ministry, raising questions about the interpretation of the prophecy.
Nevenheless. this repeated useofthe.text indicates its substantial importance-for
luke.111
3.1 Texl
Although the phrase c•i;. ;;"~ (ti~ ~~ £6v6lv) appears in both Isa. 49.6 and Isa.
42.6. othe1·language indicates that the citation comes from fsa. 49.6 LXX: t i 6e:uc0.
O£ in 49.6e (42.6d reads £Sro.:a <!£)and the purpose clause, toil tTvcti at ti~
arot11piav £ro~ i axat ou tij; '(ii; (49.6g. absent fi'Om 42.6).
1. T1le Gentile mis,.;ion also fi.b'Utes prominently in Paul's accouniS of his c.all in 22..21: 26. 17-18.
Eckha.rd Schnabel sees echoes of servant languag< in Paul's descriptions of his call in Acts 18.9-10
{lsa. 41.10} and 26.16-18 (lsa. 42.(~7. 16). Schnabel. Early C/Jrisriall Missio11. 943.
8. In Damascus (9.20) and krusalcm (9.28· 29). Bruce bdie.ves Paul W'3S already preaching to
Gentiles in Ambia (Gal. 1.17) shanty after his conversion. but lhcre is no in~iication orthis in Acts.
Bru« . .4crs (r<v. cdn.). 19 1-92.
9. The text docs not indicate howmunyGentiles(or k\vs) were included in this ·comp:my'. but
Gal. 2.9 see-ms to indicate tflat Barnabas as wdl os Paul had had a ministry to Gentiles. Bruce. Ads
(rc.v. cdn.). 267: Fitzmyer•.4crs. 49 5.
10. 'ISiliah 49.6. which is ex.plicidy cited in Acis 13.47 and is rdlcctcd in luke l.79and 24.47 as
wdl as in Acts 1.8 and 26.20. upparently inftoence.d the shape of luke's entire wort:.' Ja<'k T. Sand1.'\fS.
'Isaiah in l uke'. inLJtJ:e a11d Scripflirt?: Tfu· FlmC'tionof Sacred Tradi1ion i11 L11k~Acts(ed. Craig A.
Evans ond Jack T. Sanders: Minncapolis: Augsburg. 1993). 20. Se< also Tanne.hill. ."klrrafil'l!fJiliry.
1.52.
26 Gentile Mission and Old Testament Citations in Acts
I.Wiiolt 49.6 MT lroialr 49.6 u :r .4cts !J.Ji

4711 ofuto; "(~ i:vtitaAtcn ~IJ.lV
O.:,)pto;·
l':~'\ 6a Kal d >t£\' IJ.OI
... , • ..:.
~...
':!A .. - ......._ ..,,·
(V.''/~ ··r..,
b 'IV~
I"'«
/
-o,
u · ,·""' -·•v •o'·
,. v
.-l.q&t)\'a.i oc <t«ilici IJ.O b
:;~~ '.:;;?'"r~ cr:;:f? C- 'lOU Of~O((I til; ;pu).(t~
la.:roP
Y;:;::7 ~~!!;': ' 1'=?fo d .;ai ·ti]v litaa·xop(xv t o{.
lopaqA i ntotpiwc.n.
r~:x;; c ilio\nEEkucci at b ti9u.:.X ot:
·: :u 11K? f ci>; Ota&l}Krlv yi:\•o~ e ti; ¢ ; t 'Eh.>O)\'
t:i; -POOr; i&vcOv
d toU dvo:i o c ci; Ootl)p\u"'
O(;)t·t}p\av £~ caxci:tOU
'tl)r; '(~~·
/soia/r-1~.6 u;x Acb·IJ../1

47a oi>t U>; ·(Upiv'fitaAt ctl ~IJ.tvO
.:opto;·
~1~; ~r<:lK!;' ,,1~ -~~ 6a iyili .:llpto>; 0 &cO;
i..-ciAtoci oc Ev
litk'((IOOUvn
11:~ r:,;t<~ b Kai Kpan}oro t il; Xttp<);
001J
'i!~~! c Ka t n •or.OOro oE
1~~: d Ka i i&ot:ci OE b 't(Ow.-6. O E
O';' il - ~K'? c; :!'"!;? C- ci; OtaOI\..:-IlVyivou~. ei; c ci~ \PcO; i&\."(i)v
'C>&; i evuw
d 'lOU eh•ctl oe ci.; OUWI}piuv
iW~; i oxchou t i); y1);.
Tilere are several minor textual issues in the MT oflsa. 49.6, but only one occurs
in the portion of the text cited (6e-g): IQlsa3 makes the singular ii~p("end ') in 6g
pluraL a distinction that makes no discernible difference in this text. 11
There are two significant textual issues in the LXX of49.6e-g. [n 6e, some MSS
read Otoroteci ae for ti6£u~ti 0'£. Tile former was more freque.ntly used to trans-
late rru and could be seen as a mo1·e literal rendering. but the latter was used fre-
quently enough that it was clearly an acceptable ahemative. Although tietudt OS:
may have been read back into the LXX from Acts 13, the fact that the two verbs
are interchanged in other texts suggests that the motive here (whichever verb was
original} wa.'\ stylistic.u Both Rahlfs and the GOttingen Septuagint conclude that
the corre.:t reading in 49.6 is ~t6£n<ci OE. In 6f. some MSS read Ei<; Sux6ljK~V
II . The singulnr is lll()fe<ommon (sec l!:ll. 5.26: 42.10: 43.6: 48.20:62.11: Jer. 25.31: Ps. 46.9:
Prov. 17.4) and may indicate a panic.u lar loca1ion ordireccion in se\·eral te~ts (Dcut 28.49: lsa. 5.26:
k r. 10.1 3: 51.16 : Ps. 61.2: 135.7). The plural appears only in Isa. 40.28: 41.5. 9: Job 28.24.
12. AI ka!>! five other texts show vmialion br-lw-cc:n Oi6ro~.n and tieru.n: 4 KgJms. 5.1: 2 Chr.
3.16: Eccl. 7.22 (2 1 MT): Ezek. 30.24: 2 Esd. 17.7 1 (Neh. 7.71). The h\'O \'e.rbs !lpp.:-!lr somewhut
interchang.c:able. HRCS. s.v. n&Eva1.
y£.v ou;, although this is absent from the MT and Acts l3.1ts. inclusion here appears
to represent assimilation to Jsa. 42.6, where the 'light to the nations' is accom-
panied by ·a covenant to/for the people'. The reverse appears in 49.8, where some
MSS insert ·a light to the nations' following 'a covenant forthe people' .U Although
Rahl fs includes the phrase in 6f. the GOuingen Septuagint l'ig.htly omits it. It
There are no significanr textual varinnts in the c-itation in Acts 13.47. Some
vnriation appears in the introducto1y words in 47a (e.g. oUtro; and oUtro,
evtitaAtaL and other fomlS including evtitaA~(v}, evt£A.1..etttt, etc.). but
none significnntly affect the menning. The citation itself includes minor vnrinnts,
such as an initial iOOU and tot; £6vtotv instead of i6v(l)v. but none are well
attested and none atl'ect the meaning of the text.
The citation follows the rvtT oflsa. 49.6 more closely than it does the LXX.
Except for a few MSS, Acts 13.47 omits the iOOUpresent in the L'<X. The citation
in Acts omits the apparent interpolation from 42.6 (and/or possibly 49.8), ei~
otaO~K'lV ytvou~ (49.61), which appears in some LXX MSS. T he rest of the
citation follows the ~IT and the LXX exac,tly, suggesting that Luke (or his source)
has eithe-r made a fres h translation of the. ~iT that coincides remarkably with the
LXX or used an LXX ~fS closer to the MT than any now extant.
3.2 Isaiah 49.6

It is necessary first to place the citation in the context of the servant songs and
paJ1jcularly the.similar language that appears in (sa. 42.6. Isaiah will be.treated as
a literary unit: whatever its compositional history. it was regarded as a single
work in the. first centUJy. IS
3.2.1 The Sen'alll Songs

Both Isa. 49.6 and !sa. 42.6 have been identified as belonging to the servant songs
of (saiah 40-55. The literature on these l'exts is immense and only a cursory
survey c.an be given here. t6
I3. Howeveor. North believes lhat C•.!f ;;·~.;.? in 49.8 ·Ms been inserted for the purpose of making
what was originally an lsr.K'I-Song into a Song about the- Ser•nnt'. Christopher R. Nonh. 71r~
Sl(l[eri11g St'lwmr ill Dl?utero-/Jaiah: A11 HiJtorical and Cr ilirol Stud...· (2nd edn.: London: Oxford
Univtrsity Press.. 19 56). 119--30.
14. ·The Hebrew te:tt is probably rig!u u.s agoimt LXX .. . in omitting C•l: r'l "U; (fora c.oven!lnt of
thepcopk)as 11 gloss from ~1.6.' Nornun H. Snaith. 'Isaiah 40-66: A Study of the Teaching of Sec-
ond Isaiah and Its Consequences·, in Sr11di~s o.or the S!'ro11d Pan oftlr~ Book of/Jaiflh (\•!Sup 14;
Leickn: Brill. 1967). 156.
15. Luke attributes to Lslliah quotations fro m 6.9·1 0(AC1s 28.25--27): 40.3-5 (Luke 3 .4--6)~ 53.7-8
(Ac.ls 8.28-33)~ 61.1·2 (Luke 4. l 7·19). Cf. lsa.. 9.1·2 (Matt 4.15-16): 41. I-I (Matt. 12. 17-10)~ 1.9
(Rom. 9.29): 10.22-13 (Rom. 9.27-28): 11.10 (Rom. 15.12)~ 53. 1 (Rom. 10.1 6)~ 65.1-1 (Rom. 10 .20·
2 1). A good ca.seean be made forthe integrity of the songs as they appear in the MT. Nonh finds lhat
the songs were writte-n ·almost ccnainly by the same author' ns the surrounding prophecies. Nonh.
Sl(fferil~g Sen·ant.
188.
16. ·A well-known commentator is said to have-abandoned his projected conuncntnryon Isaiah
bccau.~ this pan of his subject O\'erwt.dmed him.' Henry Wheeler Robinson. The Crou in lhf' Old
In the first edition of his Isaiah commentary ( 1892). Bernard Duhm first identi-
fied four texts in 1he latter portion o f Isaiah as "Setvant Songs': 42. 1-4; 49. 1-6;
50.4-9; 52. 13- 53.12.17 Duhm believed these hnd been written by a single amhor
and inset1ed into the book by a later editor. Other scholars have suggested that the
songs may also include 42. I9-2I: 48. 14-16: 5 I.4-8: 51.9- I6; 6 I. 1-6: and. notably
for our purposes. 42.5-9 (or 5-7) and 49.7-13." Othertexts in Isaiah 40-55 also
speak ofYahweh's 'servant', but have not been viewed as servant song.s.19
Many have. followed Duhm 's view that the.songs speak of a single servant,10
but there is less agreement on the se-rvant's identity. The se-rvant has been viewed
as an indh•idual {e.g. the prophet, Cy111s, one ofthe kings of Judah), as a corporate
entity (e.g. Israel. a pious remnant within lsrael).21 mythologically (reflecting the
Babylonian myth of the dying and rising God). nnd as tl1e Messiah (possibly
combining the servant with the Davidic Messiah in Isaiah 9 and 11).:u Others
have combined these. Kittel and Rudolph argued that the servant was both an
anonymous historical figure and a messianic one.D Delitzsch famo usly spoke of a
pyramid. with all lsrne-1as the base. the re.mnant as the centre section, and ' the
apex [as] the. person of the !vlediator of salvation springing out of lsmel'.!.S
The-tigute of the Servant is a very fluid one-: it scc:ms to refe-r now to one-lhing. now to
another. and any attempt to interpret it too rigidly will do violcne< to lhe evidence and
Testam~nt (london: SCM Press. 1955}. 66. Still ofgreat help ar< two older surveys: North.Sufli!ring
Seroam: Harold H. Rowley. The Senm•tofl!Je Lord a1td Other£ssays(}n 1/w Old Tnf(llltt'nt (O~ford :
Blackwell. 1952). 3-<50.
17. Cf. B. Duhm. Das Buc-h JeJaia (4th edn.: GOI1ingen: Van<knho~k & Ruprecht. 1922).
18.. North. S!rlft'rillg Sermnt. 127- 38.
19. 11le sin.!,'lllar noun. 1.;€. appcars20tirne-s in Isaiah 40-55 (41.8-9: 42. 1. 19 (2 )~ 43.10: 44.1·
2. 2 1 (2 ). 26:45.4: 48.20: 49.3. 5-i : 50.10: 52.13: 53.11}. onl)· six of which appe-ar in Duhm's
ac-eount of the scn •ant songs (42.1: 49.3. 5. 6: 52.13: 53. 11 ). The tem1 is absent from J>uhm·s third
song('50.4-9). ahhough it appears in 50.10. as has been noted by Hany .\f. Ortinsky. ·The So-Called
"Servant of lhe Lord.. and ..Suffering Se-rvant.. in Stt.ond Isaiah'. inStudit>s 0111h~ Sf!C'OJ!d Pa11 oftile
Book ofIsaiah. 90 and Snnith. ·servant·. 168. Sec also Hugh G. ~I. Williumson. l'ariati01u on a
Th~me: King. Ml'ssiuh om/ SenYJnt in tile Bo(}k ofIsaiah (Cnrlisk: Pate-rnoster. 1998). 131.
20. A singk identity for the ~rvant in these. passages had not bc~·n insisted on prior to Duhm.
North. Suffering Servant. 46. So q;. Calvin underslands 41.1to speak of ChrisL but 49.3 to spe-ak of
the chu«h. John Calvin. Commemaryon1!Je Book ofthe Prophet Jmia/1 (Cah-in's Commcntarks 8~
Gr.tnd Rapids: Baker. 1979: n:pr. of Cah•in Tr.tnslation Soc:ictyc:dn. Edinbrugh. 1845- 56). 3.284 and
4.11- 12.
2 1. See especially Henry Wheckr Robinson. Corporate Personality in Ande11t Israel (rev. cdn.:
Philadelphia: FOT1TC$S.I9SO): Robinson. CroJs. 75-i9.
22. North. Sl(tferill.g Sen'(lnt. 64-68.
23. North. S!rlft'rillg Sermnt. 85-U.
24. Fr.mz Oditz.'iJCh, l.faiah (Commtntmy on lhcOid Tcstam(".nt GrJ.nd Rapids: Ec:rdmans. 1975).
2.174. Sec also Joseph Addison Alexander. Comm~·1!lat")' on 1he Proph«ies ofb·oiall (2 vols.: new
and rtv. cdn.: New York: Chatks Scribner's Sons. 1865). 2.128: W:dt«C. Kniscr. Jr.•/llission in tl1~
Old Testomt'nl: Israel as a light to the N(ltioJu (Gr.tnd Rapids: Hnl:e-r. 2000). 56: Edward J. Young.
Thf' Book (}j/saiail (3 vols.: NICOT: Grand Rapids: E<:rdmans. 1965- 72). 3. 109. n. I.
almost ccnainly distort what the prophe-t wished to say . .. . Th~ figure of the-servant
osciillltes betwccn tbe indi\·idu3) and the group.lS
Insisting on a single identity for the. set·vant vit1ually demands a 'fluid ' undet·-
standing, since the servant cle.arly appears in some texts to be an individual but in
others to be IsraeL
Unfortunate-ly. as Not1h has observed. ' there is no theory that has been alto-
gether immune from criticism' .u; The absence of consensus suggests that the
whole question may need to be reexamined. panicularly the isolation of the$e
texts from their prese.nt conte.xts21 and the assumption that the songs all speak o f
a single.servant. John Goldingay has recently called both assumptions into ques-
tion. arguing that 'the separation of these passages from the.ir literary contexts
seems to have made it impossible to answer the question regarding their refer-
ence' and that 'the assumption prevalent since Duhm that the four passages must
have the same t•eferenc.e needs to be. regarded as an ope.n question'.28 Such a
reexamination is beyond the scope of the present stud y~ but we will follow
Goldingay's lead and attempt to read Jsa. 42.6; 49.6 in their present contexts.
with the se.rvant's identity as an O~)en question.
A scholarly impasse sometimes indicates the need for a fresh look at the data. A
cursOJ)' survey, summarized in Table 3.1. finds ove.r 100 retC.rences to a servant of
Yahweh (rather than a human master) in the ~n: ' my servant' (~';i~~· with i ;P. "~
only in Isa. 44.2'1 ; 49.6; cf. Lev. 25.55); ' his servant' (i1~.g. with f, ,;¥ 01\1). in
Isa. 49.5). ·your servant' (lj;i;:,V). and •servant ofYahweh' (i'i1:-t: ,~~). (Pronoun
antecedents were determined from 1he contexts.) ·
T<thl~ J.l
,,~,,
His )'our ra/rwe/r:'i Total
Abr11ham I 3 4
Moses 6 5 8 9 28
Caleb I I
Joshua I
Da\'id 2J 4 29
Solomon
Hezckiah
lsai11h
25. John Bright. The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Con~pt a11d Its Meotringfor tire Cl111rdt
(Nashvilk: Abingdon. 1953). 150.
26. North. Sl(tfering Serm11i. 209.
27. Some scholars haw noted importllnt connectionsbe--twttn the !iCn'anl songs and other portions
of lsai!lh 4G-55. Mom3 D. 1-lookcr. Jesu.~ a11d the Sermm: Til~ !Jiflu~nce oft/a~ Sermnt Conctpt of
DeuU'tYJ-b·aialr ill tire Nt'll' Te.wament (london: SPCK. 1959). 27- 30: Johanfl(S Lindblom. Tire Ser-
I'Otlt Sot~gs ill Dl'llfero·lsaiah (lund: Gl«rup. 195 I). 52-64.
28. John Goldingay. The MeJsag!'ofiK~ia!J -10-55: A Wt•raJJ'· T1reologiatl CatlltJwmary(Londoo:
T&T Cl11rk. 2005). ISO. See also Hans M. Barst.ld. ·The Future of the "Servant Songs'': Some Rdkc-
tions on the Relationship of Biblicll1 Schol11rshipto hs Own Tmdition'. in /.ungllage, Thro!(}g)\ <md
rlre Biblt•: Essay$ in Ho11or ofJames fktJ·r (ed. Samud E. Balentine and John Bnnon: Oxford: Clllr·
cndon. 1994). 161- 70: Lindblom. Semml Song$: Orlinsky. 'Servnnt'. 11- 16: William>on. J'arktti(}ns.
13~3 1. 141.
.~~1' His Your l'a/rwdr 's Total

A prophet 7 7
Job 6 6
Ncbudl3dnczzar 3 3
Anon)'lnOUS 2 3
Jacob (as individual) 2 2
lsrod II 2 B
The lsaianic.S<rvant 5 2 7
The 'Bronch> I I
Total 108
Clear pattern,s are. evident. Moses and David are the set·vants of Yahweh par
excellence~ with Israel a distant third and other prophets and kings forming a
small pan of the background. Viewing these as a whole. we see that Yahweh's
servant is chosen tbr a special role in the accomplishing of his redemptive pur-
poses: ·a master chooses a servant to get a job done' .29 11le servant is typically
the object ofYahwe.h's affection and regard (but see Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. 25.9:
27.6; 43.10).30 Pe-nding detailed study of any particular text. we. would expect
the-se things generally to be true of Yahweh's servant.
3.2.2 /saialr 42.6

•..I will give you for a c.ovenant to the people. to be n light to the nations." This
formula is so central: and yet so difficult to grasp in its precise significance!'3t Tile
expression 'a light to the nations· appears only in Isa. 49.6 and 42.6.n At least in
lhe present form o f1he book. lsa. 42.6 forms pan of1he bockground of49.6.
In 42.1-4. Yahweh addresses his servant. whom he ·upholds' and has chosen.
and in whom he delights (I n). The. servant has a task to perform. to ·bring fort h'
(x~~i"') and 'establish' (o·~;) justice (~~,~i~)~ through applic.ation of God's law
(' instruction': ;"j1iil).n These.are royal responsibilities and imply that the servaJlt
is a royal figure.M The goal is universal: the. servant is to bring justice 'to the
29. John Goldingay and David Paym-. A Critical a11d £xcg(!tirol CommellfUIJ' on Isaiah .f0-55
(ICC: london: T& T Clark. 2006). 152.
30. Contm.ry to the impression giv<-n by the litemturc. the title 'sef\"ant' is never applied to Cyrus..
who is nxntioned by name in lsuiah only in 44.28: ~5.1. The same obsel'\'ation has been made by
Goldinga)'. Isaiah .fO-JJ. 151 : Orlinsky. ·sel'\·ant'. 96.
31. Klaus Baltzer. Deutero-/soia/1: A Comm(!nfmyon lfaia!J .f0-55 (ltllns. Margaret Kohl: Her·
meneia: MintlC'apolis: Porll'(SS. 2001}. 131. 'The pluasc:s are rich and sug~stivc. but their pnxise
intent is unde~~r.' \Valtcr BrueggcmalUL /saioll (2 vols.: Westminster Bibk Companion: louisvllk:
\VestmillSter John Knox. 1998). 2.H.
32. A simil.are:tpl'e$Sion appears in 1~. 51A. where the LXX re:uis ti.; ~6 ~ EEh•6v (although the
MT there has cro~ instead of O:\i. and it is not thescrvant. but God's justice that will be alight). The
context shal'(s key tcrms and expressions with 42.6and 49.6. including il1ln(42A}. o~;i;; (~3. 1 . 4).
';;9: (49.6). and lhc cxpcc.tation by ' the coastlands' (c.f. 42.4: ~9. 1 ). Isaiah 51.4 fomlS pllrl of lhc
complc:t of id~s to whtch lsa. 49.6 and 42.6 be-long.
33. 'Justice' is more than exacting legal 001npliane<: it is testomtiveas things are-put .right as God
intends. B. Johnson, TDOT. sx. o~<;:;. 92- 93.
34. Williamson argues thato~:7;:. and :q1nrefer to the royal function of 'administe-ring. upholding
and e\·cn initiatingjusticc'. particularly on behalf ohhose least able to defend thcrnsdws. such as
the orphan and the widow'. Williamson. rarialions. 135- 39. Sec alsoGoldingay and f'tt)'ne: .lsoioh
3. The Serwmt and th~ Nations 3I
nations' (c;t-7) and establish justice 'in the e-.arth' (i'1:::;). Even ' the. coastlands
(t:~:~) wait for (LXX i/.:rnoOa tv) his law' ..;.s For this task. the servant has been
endowed with Yahweh's Spirit (1 b).36 The servant labours faithfully. despite
apparent failure and discouragement until he accomplishes his mission (4).
Dulun and others tenninate the first servant song \\~th v. 4;n but others have
recently argued that the. first song continues through v. 9.U In these verses, Yah-
weh is described in universal temts that match the lmiversal scope of the servant's
mission.l9 In v. 6, Yahweh announces four ac1ions with four verbs. First, he has
' called' ('commissioned')«' his servant ·in righteousness' (6a). i.e. f()l' the.right-
eous. 'saving' purpose. ofYah\~.r·eh.J 1 The next two verbs de.scribe Yahweh's care
for his servant (6b. c).J1 The tb un h verb introduces the servant's mission: ' I have
given you· to be ·a covenant to the. people. a light to the nations' (6d-e);~l
40-55. 1.209. Howcn:r. the-focus is more on the-task to be perfomt::d than on the identity of lhc ser-
vant. ·The passuge's own key word is not t>lw-d but mi pii(. Goldingay nnd Payne. lmialt 40-55.
113: Williamson. fariation:;. 146.
35. Ahhough n.~;: could be tronsf:rtcd 'in the lond'. references bc:rc to the 'nations· und t.hc
'coastJands' indiclllc l:bat 11 broader reference is in ,·icw. The-'coost)ands' arc distant and !:0 bc:rc
imply a universal applicution of torah. ·coostlands' pnrallcl 'the ends of tbc: eanh' in 41.5: 42.10:
·peoples from afar' in 49.1: d. 'the coostland acros.-. the sc-11' (Jer. 15.22).
36. The Spirit is given in tile OT for leadership (Nun1. 11.25. 29). especiull)' in w~~r (Num. 27.18;
Dcut 34.9: Judg. 6.34: Judg. 14.6. 9: 1 Sam. 16.3: d. !sa. 28.6}. sei'\·Ke (Exocl. 31.3: 35.31: 1 Chr.
12.!8). and prophecy ( 1Sam. 10.6. 10: 19.23: ~fie. 3.8: Nch. 9.20).11tc Spirit ise!>'J)Cc.iallyaswciated
with eso:hutological bk ssing!l-. inc-luding newc.re:uion(lsn. 32.15: 44.3: 63.11. 14: Ezd:. I I . I ~: 36.27:
37.14: 39.29: Jocl 3. 1-2 Mr. Zcch. 4.6).
31. North. Sl!lfert'ng Ser'I'(IJtf. 131- 35.
38.. Yahweh spe-aks firs-t about the scn·unt {J-4). then to the SCI'\'a.nt (5-9). J. Alec Mot)·cr. T1w
Prop/1ec·y of/rat'all (Downers Grove~ Ill.: lntc.rVanity. 1993). 318. See ulso Baltzer. Deurero-IM~ia/1 .
124-37: Lindblom. Si"I1'0itt Songs. 23. For the view that 5-9 is n scpuratc oracle. sec.Claus Wester-
mann. Isaiah -10-66 (trans. ))avid M.G. Stalker: OTL: Philadelphia: Westminster. 1969). 98: Roger
N. Whybra)'. 71te Secm1d lsoi(lh (OTG: Sheffield: JSOT Preo;s, 1983).
39. Yahweh creutcd the heave.ns.theeurth. and e\'erything(orcveryone?) in it (42:5). The.Hdwcw
~~ (llS\' ·and what c-omes from it') is most often rendered ·off.-.pring' (i .e~ of men). Of I I instanccs
in tbe~rr (only ls.,inh and Job). BOB proposcs ·produce• only hert.and !ltlsa. 34. 1. In the l:utcr versc
Ynhwch gi\·es life to all people on C-tu1h ('who gives breath to tbc: pcopk upon it und spirit to those
who w·alk in it'). supporting a referenc.e to people ratbc:r thun produce. Verses 8-9 continue the
universaJ orie.nlation. echoing thcnlCs from d sev.ilere in l!t-aiah. There. is no othe-r god (43.10- 13;
45.5-1. 14. 18-2 1: 46.5-11 ). Only Yahweh c:m deel:uc things before the)' happen (41.21-29: 43.9- 13:
44.6-8: 45.18·21: 46.5- 11: 48.3-8. 14). He will not share his glory with others (48. 11). pnnioularty
images (40.18-20: 41.29: 42.17: 44.9-20: 45.16. 20·2 1: 46.1: 48.5: 57. 13: 66.3).
40. Perhaps 'summoned' or · i n,~tcd'. BOB. s.\'. :-:.v.
S.
4 1. In this wuy God's 'righteous purposes are fulfille-d'. Mot)'t'r. Prop!Jec·y . 322. 'The -s cn•ant's
mission is rooted and grounded in God's righteousness.' Young.lraiaiJ. 3.118. 'In the bool: ofls:U:th.
"'righteousness" mc11ns llclp. sul\•ution. and peace for the.downlloddcn. Koonee:toept the Messiah can
and will establish ilumong his pc.oplc and the nations.' Markus Unnh. Epltesians: A JVI!h' n·a11slalion
l)ith Jmnxiuctioll and Commentary (2 \•ols.: AB 34-34A: New York: Ooubk d:t)'. 1974). 796.
42. To ' hold the-hand' is an C-:tprts:>ion oftcn<kr care (Ps 73.23: I39. 10). The other vcrb <1:~~1)
could be dcri\·cd from 1:0l('(o keep')or i:.\' ('to form'). The former would indicate God's prcsen·a·
tion and the. latter God's cn:ation of the sen·:mt c.ithcr wuy. God's care ise-\·ide-nt. MO(}'Cr. Proplwcy.
312: Young. baiah. 3. 119.
43. 'Given' (trll) with ~ likdy bear:> the-scnsc: of 'assiy.. designate• or ·make, constitute•. ond is
'People' (Cii) in the expression ·a covenant to the people' is often understood

as refen·ing to lsraei.J.I This is supponed by the consistent use of the singular ofOJ?
for l.srael in Isaiah 40-66,"5 the conjunction with 'covenant" (nomtally associated
with Israel). and the applic-.ation oflhe same expression to Israel in 49.8. In this
case. the twofold character o f the servant is highlighted: to Israel (e.g) and the
nations (c:i::). However, C·,¥ ma)' refe~r to the people of another nation.,;t; to people
generally (e.g. Jsa. 13 .4: 25.3), or to all people on earth (e.g . Jsa. 24.4)." The
broader use (fo1· 'all people on earth ') in 42.5~& and the paralic.) with O:.:li. in 42.6
suggest the broader sense here.J9 Either way. the Gentiles are included in I he ser-
vant's ministry. The phrase ·~.V rt~~ has been variously rendered ' covenant
people·.so an 'obligation' to the world.51 'a confederation of peoples' .s2and ·splen-
dour of the people',n but more likely indic-ates the means by which Yahweh's
thus rough!)· paralklto 'call' in 6a. BOB. s.v. iN. Q<tl2.d.. .lb. ·we-might also cornpare its usc to
denote tbe •·appointing" of somoone to a position or task (cf. Ezrn 8.20). •Goldingny and Payne. Isaiah
-10-55. 1.227.
44. As in !sa. 40.7: 42.22: 43.8. Dditt.sch. J~·aiall. 17(): Jan Ridderbos. lmjalJ (truns. John Vricnd:
Grnnd Rnpids: Zondcr\'an. 1984). 379: Sn.ailh. ·sc-tvant'. 158: Young.ls.<lia/;. 3.119-20 . Some MSS of
1he L'\X seem to share this view. inserting J.lOU afte-r yi\'0\1; in .J1:6. 'My pc.oplc' would nom1a1ly
suggest Israel. lindblom believe.:; that ·jf the author had meant the Mtion of lsrncl. he would surely
hsve written Ol'.1 or something else unmist;,'lkably pointing to lsmc-1". Lindblom. Semmr SonJP·. 2 1.
45. Snaith. ·se.ronnl'. 151. Theonlycxecptionsarr-lsa. 40.7 (which Snaith beJic,·c.s is a gloss) and
425.
46. E.g. Gen. 19.4: 23.7: l!ta. I. IO(Gonlonah}: 14.20 (Babylon): 18.2. 7 (Cush?): 23J3 (Bab)··
Jon): 33. 19 (Babylon?): 345 (Edom).
41. The translntion of n~ here mu.st be ·ennh' rnth« than 'land'. in light of l.hc associalion of
'heaven' with i'!~;tc-arlier in the \ 'ersc and the fact that God 'gi\·cs brcnth' not only to Israel. but to all
who li\·c {cf. Jsa. 2.22}.
48. JuJian Morgcnstc-m. ·The Rest of the Nntions' .JSS 2( 1957): 225-31: James Muilcnbcrg. ·The
Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66'. 18 5: Nonh. Sufforillg Sen·mrt: Charles Cutler Torrey, Tf1e
Compo!.'ilion and Del/~ ofAc1s (Cambridge. ~fas.s..: Harvard University PJ'CS$-. 1916).
4 9. ·rhe rdcrent of"pcople"' ('am) is most plausibly lhesameas that found in tbe prtocding "erse.
n.tmdy. alll.he inhabitants of the eanh. a meaning supported bydlC pnralkl"n.ltions"that immediately
follows.' Paul D. Hansoo.lraialt .f0-66 (JBC: Louisville: John Knox. 1995). 46. Sc.c aJso Baltzer.
Demenrlwitlh. 132: Bre\'lltd S.Childs.lsaiail:.4 Comm~nlalJ' (OTL: Louis\·ilk: Westminster John
Kno:<.. 200 J). 326: Lindblon1. Sermm Songs. 21: Motyer. ProplwcJ•. 332: Wcstcmlann. /saiuh ./0-66.
99-100: Roger N. Whybmy./u1ia/t -/0-66(NCB: londoo: Oliphants. 1975). 74-75. Whilc-O::and ' 'J
are often oppose-d (e.g. Num. 23.9: Dcut. ·t 6 : 2 Stun. 7.23). thcy aJso appe-ar in parnlkl (e-.g. Dc-ut.
3.8: r-.·tic. 5.8: Hag. 2.14: Ps. 96.3: andcspociall)' lsa. 2.4: 11.10: 14.6: 25.7;30.28.: 33.3: 4 9.22: 61.9).
including parallels bc!wt·en the ~i nguJar cz: and the plur;al C"U (e.g. E:<.od. 34.10: Ps. 18.4).
50 . lsrnd W. Slotki. lsaiail: Hebr~w Text and English TramlalioJJ witlwn lnlroductionalld C.om·
memary(Soncino Books ofthc Bibk: l ondon: Soncino. 1949). 200. 1'he syntax. howe-ver. seems to
prc\'c-nt this re-nding.
51. ' H~: is to be the 3b'<nt who imposes Yohw·ch 's obligations upon them.· Whybrny.lsuiah -10-
66. 75. 'The-nations of the world will be obliged to accept Yahweh's SO\'crrignty. of which they will
now b~olllC' awar<: forthe firS1t-imc (hc-.noc a ligltt). and will thus be forc-ed to accept the obligation
(b•;;ri)'whicb he imposes on them. •
52. ' "The-c-.allcd" will grow into 11large a!l.!ill:mbly of peoples bound togd bc-t. of course. by the
same fn ith aod a oommon subjection to Yohwch. lsrad's God.· Lindblom. Sen·a111 SongJ. 21.
53. Dcri,·ing il' ~.; in this c-nsc from a root meaning 'shine'. North. Sl(/ferh~g Serwmt. 133.
covenant is fulfilled. Goldingay understands the expression as a metonomy com-

parable to light to the nations or Abraham's becoming a blessing: ' In each case
the idea is that the person not only mediates but also embodies the thing. ·SJ
Light (6e) is associated throughout (saiah with Yahweh's salvation and blcss-
ing,SS a fit accompaniment to the joy of those rescued from the darkness of
anguish, gloom and oppression (9.2; 59.9). SupernaturaJ brightness, with abundant
and life-giving water. accompanies Yahweh 's healing of his wounded people
(30.26). He gives light to those who are blind and have lost their way in darkness
(42.16), metaphors in Isaiah for spiritual ignorance. calamity and judgement.56
Israel is called to ·,valk in the light of the Lord' (2.5). as his law (or instmction) is
made known to the nations. Light comes not merely from awareness of Yah\veh's
will, but from his liberating and restorative justice (~~~;ir;) (51 .4: 59.9). Light
evokes the glory Yahweh will give to his restot'ed people (58.8. 10:60. 1, 3).
which is ultimately the glory of the presence of Yahweh himself ('for the LORD
wi ll be your everlasting light', 60.19-20). The servant thus brings delive.rance.
' Light to the nations· is thus tantamount to 'salvation to all the world'.
Some-have sought to limit the seeming universalism of 'light to the nations·.
Rashi applied goy;m he-re to Jsrael.s1 Snaith understands the. light as a beacon for
Jewish exiles sc.attered among the nations: Jsmel will experience salvation while
the nations only ·see· it. 5ll However. Koole observes that 'in OJc·'U always means
the other nations and never Israel".59 Goldingay notes that texts such as lsa. 45.22;
42. 10 envision that the nations experience God's salvation.«>
In Isa. 42.6. the servant is distinguished from both the. nations (cf. 1) and the
people (cf. 5). His accomplishments. bringing forth and establishing justice ( 1,
4), are nowhere predicated of Israel, but are.the responsibilities of the.king.61 'His
54. Goldingay. /.faiail .fO-JJ . 164. 'The-one commissiOMd docs 001fom1aco,•enant bu1 rather
embodies a oown:uttal relationship with the nutions. • Childs. Isaiah. 326.
55. ' \Ve may t!ll:e lh< two ('light' and ·s!l]\'ation'} as- rough synonyms. both of them referring: to
the full offer of well-being as intende-d by lhc cre-!ltor.' Bruegge-mann. lsai(lk. 2. 112.
56 . Snaith understands blindness and imprisonrnent to refer to the: C'xilc. Snaith. ·servant'. 158.
ibis dO<'-S not fit h:aiah's use of the terms. howc\•er. For blindness and dalt:nes:s as metaphors for
spiritual ignorance. sc:c INt. 29. 18; 35.5: 42.16. 18· 19: 43.8: 56.10: 59.10: and as metaphors for
j udgemc-nL sec: !sa. 5.20. 30: 8.22: 9. 1: 29. 18: 45.7: 47.5: 49.9: 50.10: 58. 10: 59.9: 60.2.
51. Jan L Kook l.<aiah. Pc1rt J (trans. Anthony P. Runia: 3 \•o k; Kampen: Kok Pharos. 1997-
2001). 1.233.
58. Snaith. "Servant'. 156-57. Orlinsky argues that the expression ·must be understood strictly
within the limits of Judc:an nationalism" and that •the \'Cn>tsthat prece-de and follow ow own lll3kt it
amply d C'at that l s~l olonc: is to benefit from God's actions'. Orlinsky. "St-r\"ant•. 111- 14. (He docs
not address the: s«mingly uni\·cml references in 42.1. 4. 5. I 0. 12.) ·1n a word: fsracl will be -!I light
of nations·· in the sense that lsrad wlll dazzle the rutions with her God-given triumph and restoration:
the whole:-world will be-hold this single beacon that is God's sole: covenanted pcopk .' Otlinsky.
"Scr"ant'. 117.
59. ·our''·· too. must mean that the nations 001only perceive Jsrad 's salvation. but also share in
the great liberation.• Koole. Isaiah. 1.233.
60. John Goldingay. Isaiah (NtBCOT 13: Penbody. Mass.: He-ndrickson. 2001). 283.
6 1. IS<l. 9.7: 11.3-5: 16.5: 32.1: 2 Sam. 8.15~ I Kgs. 10.9: Ps. 7.2. 1: kr. 22.15: 23.5: Pro\', 19.4.
Williamson argues that the servant is a royal figure:. but understands the tO)'Illlanguagc to apply to
lsrnd's tole vis-3-'l'is the nations. Wiltiamson. Vcm'ofiQtU. 131. 139-46.
law' (irry\1'~) is Yahweh's law. not fs raers. The 'blind' in lsaiah are. most often
Israel and, if so. cannot be. the.sight-giving se-rvant as well (42.7).llle servant is
distinguished from Israel and is most plausibl)• an individual.62
3.2.3 Isaiah 49.6

There. is no consensus on the boundaries of the unit to which Isa. 49.6 belongs.
While many follow Duhm in limiting the song to ''"· 1-6.6! others have extende.d
the song through v. 9a or 13.64 Many also follow Duhm in isolating the song from
its present context.rl$ although others have identified important connections to the
immediately preceding and following C{)lltext s.f>f> Verses I-6 are distinguished by
the voice o f the servant speaking in the firs-t person. in contrast with the ve,·ses
that precede. or follow:n Although in vv. S-6 Yahweh speaks. this speech is
reported by the servant. Vet it appears th.at Yahweh continues to speak through v.
9a to ·you' (masculine singular). the servam whom he has chosen {7). answered,
helped. kept>and g iven a unique role (8-9a). 11te tbllowing verses (9b- l3) then
appear to describe those who are bl'ought out o f prison :.lJld their return to the
land. Even then it is not clear that we. have reached the end o f the. text: the fol-
lowing vc'l'Ses (even into the opening versesof lsaiah SO) continue the assurance
that Yahweh will restore his people as he promised in 49.9 (continuing the
thought, if not the so n g).~>S Neverthe.le.ss. the focus of 49.1-13 is on the servant,
while the focus after 49.14 is on Zion and its restoration~ and so we can re.gard
49.1 -13 as the pl"im:uy context for lsa. 49.6.
Following the. pi'Ociamation of Yahweh's victory over Babylon (chs 46-48).
Isaiah 49 issues its call to the ·coastlands' and ' peoples from afar' to listen to the
servant's words. The servant has been 'called' and ' named' by Yahweh from
before birth ( I ).~ The servant is described as a \Veapon carefully prepared for use
- a sharp sword. a polished arrow (2). The reason for concealing the. weapons is
62. See the careful argument of Orlinsk)'. 'Servant•. 76-79. I~ is llFb,'U in<nts do not however.
estublidt the individual a~ lhe propbe1 himself. The Targum understand~ him to be an individual.
designating him by udding the 'vord m y~ ~ Goldingay und Paync.lsaiah ./0-55. 1.213.
63. ~iO()'«. Prophecy. 383: Slolki, l.flriail . 139: Wh)·brny. l:wiah .f0-66. 135.
64. Ridckrbos recognizes !l change in s:pcaker with ''· 7. bot believes thut the servunt is still in
vie-w. as. the: prophe1 speak~ of him or to him through 9:t. R i~iderbos. Isaiah. Those: who extend lhc
te:tt throu.gh v. 13. including Hnnson. /utia/• ./0-66. 116- 33: WeSicnnann.lsaiah ./0-66. 2 13; Young.
J.miah. 3.276-83.
65. Whybrny. l.raiall -10-66.
66. For connections to the preceding context. sec Motyer. Prophecy. 383-84: Huub von de SandL
'The-Quoutions in Acts 13..32-51 as a Rdlcc.tion of luke's LXX Interpretation·. Bib 75 (1994): S I.
Lindblon1sees 49.1 -7 related both to 48.10-11 and to -49.8-21. Lindblom. Si'twmr Sonp. 27- 31.
67. The later verses ore ·a response on the Lord's part to the-uuerancc of the scr"ant·. Young.
/.mia/1. 211.
68-. Curious!)·. in 50.4-9{or4- ll?) the third song (the-only oth« ooc to be written in the. first pcr-
son)alroaflimls God'se"entuul ,·indication despite present suffering. ~fight the whole of .19.1-50.11
be a singk uni r.~
69. Cf. ls:t. 44.2: Jer. 15 : Gal. 1.15.
not clear. although protection and preparation have been suggested.10 At a mini-
mum, the.se expressions indicate Yahwe-h's c-are and preparation.
Despite Vahweh 's call and c-are, the servant's mission proves difficuJt. · ( have
labored in vain.( have spent ffi }' strength for notllingand vanity' (4). Tile cause of
frustration is not stated. but there may be il hint in v. 3, which speaks of "lsrael. in
whom (will be glorified' . fn fact, Yahweh has not been glorified through fsrael,
but ·continually all the day my name is despised' (52.5). Isaiah had also experi-
enced frus-tration. He \vas called to
'Go. and say to this pcopk: -Hc-.ar and hc.ur. but do not understand: see and set. btu do
not percti\'·c." ... 1~ they see with their eyes. and hear with thcir<:ars.und u.tl<krstand
....ith their hc-.arts. and tum and be h<:t.lod.' (lsa. 6.9· 10)
lsmel did not listen (28.12; 30.9: 65. 12: 66.4) and. altlwugh Isaiah does not
reveal his feelings. it cannot have been easy. Jeremiah was sent to preach to an
unresponsive people (7.27). and he complained bitterly to Yahweh (20.7-1 0. 14-
18: I 5.10, 17-18). Here, Yahweh responds to the servant's complaint with the
assurances of 49.5-6. 7J
These assurances include the promise thilt God will use his servant to res-tore
lsn:tel. His mission is 'to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gath-
ered to him' (5), ·to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to res-tore the preserved of
Israel' (6). 10 be ·a covenant to the people' .1::: and 'to establish the land, to appot·-
tion 1he desolate heritages; saying to the prisoners. '"Come forth". to those who
are in darkness. "Appear"' (8-9). The restoration includes return from exile and
res1oration as a coherent state. but the promised restoration is never merely geo-
graphical and/or political;n it is primarily about restoring Israel to God himself
("to him· twice in 49.5 7-a). The.exile had a spirintal cause (fuithle~~o;ness to Yah-
weh and his covenant) and was a spiritltal punishment (separation from Yahweh.
Isa. 54.8: Jer. 52.3). The return is above all a return to blessing in Yahweh ·s pres-
ence as his people. is.
10. Riddtrbos-. Jsoialr. 434-35: Young, l5aiah. 3.268.

71. Young. Isaiah. 3.273.
12. ·fhc poopIt' here- is lsrad in liglu of 'the f:md'. thc.appon ioning of ·desolate hcrituges·. and
the summoning of (t.xilc:d) prisontrs. Kook .lu1iah. 1.2.30: Mot)-cr. Proph«y. 322.391. Stealso lsa.
42.6 (see1ion 3.2.1 above).
7.3. Whybruy wrongly claims that'salvation• 'gtnt-mUy in Dt-Uit-ro· lsaiuh denotes not spirituul
blessings but Yahweh's coming victory O\'er Babylon'. Whybray./5aillh .fQ-..66. 139.
74. In the second instu.nct, Qc•Jt' ·7 ('to him') in place-of K7 ('not'). Rending K~. Culvin saw an
indication of lsmd's 'n:jcction•. uhhough he granted that 'it C-llnnot necessarily bt-prov«i from the
context {of Acts 13.47]that Paul affinns th:at the. Gentiles wert not to be enlightened until the light
had b« n t-:\tinguishtd for the Jt\vs'. John Calvin. Ac1s !.f-l S(ttllns. John W. Fmsc-r: Cah·in's New
Testament Commc.ntarics: Grund Rapids: Eerdmuns. 1995}•.391- 92. Tbe (k1~is suppont<iby JQJsu•
and oth« versions. If K.:, is the rorn:ct text. \Vhybray bdicvcs the: \'Crb ·must not mean "gather" but
'"swccp awoy'': "thut Israel might not be swept3way.'' ' Wh)broy. Isaiah 40-66. 1.39. How·c wr. this
substitution appt3rs in3 numbe-r of texts (stt BOB. s.\'. ~7. Note.) ihc parallelism with 1'71:' in J.he
previous lint-makes 1~ fl(re ·undoubtedf)· correct'. Mot)'«. Propltecy. 387. n. 2.
75. Set-also th< prominence of s;pirimul restoration in Otut. 30.1· 10: Ezt k. 36.24-36: Jod 2. 18-32.
Grnmmatically. the interpretation of lsa. 49.6 begins w ith v. 5. where the

speaker ofv. 6 is identified. his Yahweh. \VIto has fonned the servant in the
womb for his purpose-16 (i.e. to gather and restore.Jacobilsrnel) and who c.ontinues
to honour and strengthen his servant It is Yahweh's regard for the se1vant that
leads to the expanded mission o fv. 6. (tis, first of all, ' to raise up the-tribes o f
Jacob and to restore (::-g~~) the pre.servedn of Israel'. But Yahweh's desire to
honour his servant means that it is not enough for the servant only to be the-agent
of Israel's restoration. That would be l::P..~ · ' trifling' Ol' 'too small or insignificant' .is
Instead. Yahweh will make his servant a ·tight toifor the nations' (~:1:l iiN7).
On the basis o flsa. 42.6. we would expect this expression to refer to release
from the-darkness ofspiritual ignorance.and oppression into the salvation of God. a
salvation now extended. not only to the descendants ofAbraham. but to Gentiles.19
This is supported by the purpose clause*' that follows: )'~~~ ii~P,-i¥ "i!¥~~1~ n~ryl;
('that my salvation may reach111 to the.end of the e.arth').Kl
In Isaiah. God's salvation often looks toward both deliverance from the
Assyrian threat or Babylonian captivity and a more comprehensive deliverance.
In 25.9. God 's awaited salvation include.'! a fe.ast in Jerusalem 'for all nations'
and fulfilment o f the promise that God ·will swallow up death for ever. and . ..
wipe away tears from all faces' (25.6. 8). Isaiah 51.4-6 joins three major ele-
ments oflsa. 49.6 (light, salvation and the nations): 'a Jaw will go fOrth from me,
and my justice for a light to the peoples' (c~;pi;); ' my salvation has gone fon h ...
Young goes too far when he claims ·the reference is not to a return from Babylon. but 11 spirituul
return to God .. Young. b·aialr. 3.273- 74. Conversely. Nonh wrongly believes the mission of thc-ser·
vant is primarily potitic31. North. Suffering &nv1111. 145-46. The-two are intimatcl)' related.
16. cr. Jer. 1.5: Ps. 22.9: 71.6: 139. 13.
n . ' Preserved' translates the (ktt- · ~1. the-q;)/passi\'e-participle: of 1 :>l: lhe Kn·hi1' ' 1".{ ;.. an
adjective occ.uting onlyhert-. ha:> the-sanX' gencral meaning. BHS margin conjectures -~~from -r;J
('braoch'). The noun is used only four timt$ in the MT (lsa. 11 .1: 14.19: 60.2 1: Dan. 11 .7) and never
\\·ith the-sense of'desccndants'. ihe Lxx·s <Til\'lilctostopciv may reflect uncert!linty about ·~·:pand
the reasoning that. if Israel was to be 'gathered' (5). i1must first be scauc...W (&uxoxdpo is used of
the ·scattering' of exile in lk ut. 4.27: 28.64: 30.3}.
18. BOB. s.v. :,;;: HALOT. s.v. ~7V: Young. lsaiuh. 3.275. See I Kgs. 16.31. What is ' tri\·ia)' is
not being Yahwc-h•s scrvanL but being the ag:<nt of 'oo]y' the restorntion of Israel. Kook . Isaiah.
2.21- 12.
79. ·The genitive construction o:u ;·~ "" "light of the nations". means not only that the-nations
(with the <xiks) sec salvation. 52.10. but th111God's intcr\'mtion brings about their own salvation.
51A f.' Koolc./saiuh. 2.23.
80. Bruce K. Wahkc and Michael P. O'Connor. An lntrodu<tion 10 Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake. Ind.: Eiscnbrauns. 1990}. §36.2.3d: RonaJd J. Williams, Hehrell' Synt(l.t: An Outli11e
(2nd c.dn.; Toronto: Uni\'ersity of Toronto Press. 1976). §520.
81. Thus RSV's interpretation of n1'.,7. inferring that for God's sah·:uion to ' be' to the rnd of lhe
earth. it must be extended there. Others personalize the translation: •that you may bring mysal\'ation•
(t'tV): 'that thou mightcst be-my salvation' (Young. b·aiall. 3.276).
82. The c:tpres.sion :.-~xi"l ~.:;? appt3rs eight ti1ncs in Isaiah 40-66. three times in the plural
(40.28: 415. 9) and four others (as in 49.6) in the singular (42.10: 43.6: 48.20: 62.11). The end(s)of
the c:uth are create<~ by Yahweh (40.28): tre-mble before his judge-me-nt (41 .5): are the place from
which be. has gathen:d {41.9} or will gu1her (43.6) his people: will hear that he has rcde<mcd his
pcopk (48.20: 62.11): and will give him praise-(42.10).
my salvation will be- for eve-r. and my deliverance will never be.ended': 'and my
arms will rule the peoples (~~,g); the coastlands wait for me'. Tlte tmiversality o f
the promise of salvation in Isa. 49.6 also looks forwm·d to a greater salvation.
The universal dime.nsion of the servant's ministry is not at the expense of
Israel. The servant's initial calling is ' to bring Jac.ob back to him. and that Israel
might be gathered to him' (49.5) and •to restore the preserved of lsmel' (49.6)-
and this c.alling will be fulfilled (vv. 8-1 3). Nor is it prompted by divine rejection
of Israel (or the initial fruitlessne.'ls of the set·vant's minisoy to Israel), but by
God's desire to bestow even greater honour on his servant (49.5-6. especiall)• 6b).
The mission to Israel remains fit·st. not only in time. but ofnecessity. bec-.ause it is
the means by which God will glorifY himself and win the worship of the nations.
Clcorly lhc Servant's work for lsmel will offeel tfle whole worid. After her rt'<kmption
lsmd will call othe-r n:uions to her. and they will come running (55.3-·5). In response. to
Yahweh's invitolion to turn to him ond be saved (45.14. 22). the-tl3lions will bow down
before. the-lord's. people (45. 14: d . 49.23). acknowledging that there is no other God
thon Yohwch and he is ocnainly with thc-m.Sl
The-final goal will ben red«mcd humanity. Israel will be the center of o confe<kration
of peoples. subject to Yahweh. the God of Israel andCrcatorof heovenand earth . .. The-
reoli1ing of thot goal will imply both the glorif)'ing of Yahweh and the cxoltotion of
Israel. tbe people. of Y:thweh.~.l
Who is the servant'?Verse 3 seems plain enough: 'You are my servant~ Israel.
in whom I will be glorified' (i~~,l!~ "i; --.;11$ ~~'1~: ;,~~-,:r;~).ss Yet, although
the laii!!'IOS< ofcalling and fomting fro m the womb can be applied to Israel (44.2.
22, 24)~86 its use in 49.1 , 5 most nantrally suggests an individual (Jer. 1.5}. In
49.5-6, the servant seems clearly to be an individual. who is distinguished.from
Israel and given a mission to Jsrael.87 The comprehensive. universal scope of the
mission strongly suggests that the servant is an eschatological figure.u (f the
servant has a broader reference. it is not to Israel. but to those other royal and
prophetic servants of Yahweh who conrributed to the ultimate fulfilment of the
servant's mission.
8-3. Andreas J. KOstcnberger ond Pcttt T. O' Brien. Salratioll w the £11ds oftile Eurtlt: A Biblicuf
Tht--ology q(MisJion (New Studies in Biblic.ol The-ology II: OowllCfs. Grovc. lll.: lnterVarsity. 200 I).
48.
84. Lindblom. Sen'tin( So11-gs. SJ. The citotion is from Lindblom' ssummary of the teaching of the
s.<'l'\'nnl son~. not a comftl(nt on this text in porticular. Lindblon1view'S lstnd ha"ing been gi\'e-n Lhc
calling of the scrv.1nt ' to mediate wdfarc to' and ·be o wilnC$:> nmong the pagans to foith in Yahweh•
(Sl).
85. Lindblom. who bdie.vcs thallhc prophe1 is oddres!lCd in lhe-sc \'c-t~s. bdiews the text should
be read ·you. my scrv.ant. )OO arc (i.e. symbolize} Israel'. Lindblon1. Serm11t Songs. 30.
86. Young. /.l'<liah. 3.273.
81. Some have soughl to rewlve the difficulty by removing~~!~: from\'. S. bu1 textual suppon
for lhc omission is limited to a single medien11 •runuscript Stt the or!,'lllllents in Orlinsky. ·Scl'\·an!'.
80-89.
&8. Dirk H. Odcndaal. T11e Erchurological E.rpedatioll oflsuial• .f0-66 with Speci<ll RC{Ii!ren<Y to
/Jrael o11d tl1e J'v'otion:i (Nutley. NJ: Presbyterion and Rcfom1ed. 1970j, 13-5.
The return fro m exile. is part of the same redemptive worl: of God of which Christ's
coming in the tle-sh is the focus. Fundarncntally. the. work done by men lik(' Z«Ubbabd .
Joshua. and Ezra in bringing Ism! back is the work of the Servant of the Lord: they
we-r t His instrumcnl:>. and- nt the same titne they prefigurtd Him.11il
3.2.4 Summmy
On two occasions, and particularly in Isa. 49.6, the lsaianic servant is designated
by God as 'a light to the nations'. This light is, in Brueggemann's phrase, a
' rough synonym•')() tb r salvation in Isaiah. Tile se-rvant is to bring this salvation,
not only to Israel, but also to the nations. We can note a number of eleme-nts
common to these texts.
I. The servant is the object ofYahweh's special regard and care(49. 1-2. 5-
6: 42.1,6).
2. He. has been called and appointed to his task by Yahweh (49. 1; 42.1, 6).
3. The servant faces difficult challenges, frustration, and even appare-nt
fllilure in the fulfilment of his divinely appointed mission to lsrael (49.4;
42.3-4). Yet in the midst o f this experience, Yahweh assigns his servant
a broader. seemingly univet·sal mission (49.6).
4. The results o f the servant's ministry are. in the ge-neral sense. salvific
(49.6): eyes opened (42.7), prisonersreleased (49.9: 42.7). 1srael restored
(49.8). a new Exodus (49.10- 13).
5. This ministry has a universal scope. -Inch. 49, headdresse.'\ the :coas-t-
lands' and ' peoples from afar ' ( 1) and his salvation reaches 'to the end
to the earth' (6) in such a way that he receives obeisance from 'kings'
and ' princes' (7) while heaven and earth join in praising God ( 13). In c.h.
42. he is called by the creator of 'the heavens· and ' the earth' (5) and
brings justice ' to the-nations' ( I). and 'lhe coastlands wait for his law'
(4).
6. The.servant appears to be an individual. fn 42, he is distinguished from
the nations and c-alled to establish j ustic.e ( I. 3. 4). a royal responsibility
never ascribed to Israel. In 49. he has a mis.-sion to both Jsmel (5-6) and
the nations (6).
7. Finally. in both passages and in Isaiah as a whole. the comprehensive
nantre of the salvation the servant brings strongly suggests the work of
an eschatologic--al figure.
In sununa.ry. ' the cEbed Yahweh is a royal. individual, eschatological figure. who
is instrumental in bringing about the royal eschatological dominion of Yahweh' .91
89. Ridckrbos. b·aia/1. 437.

90. Bruegg<mnnn. /saia/1. 2.112.
9 1. Ckkndaal. E:r:p« Wiioll. 135.
3.3 71" Expected SeJva/11

Outside of Isaiah. there are no c.ertain references in the or to Isaiah's unnamed
·servant'91 and the.figure ofthe servant apparently does not appear in the apocry-
pha, pseudepigrapha'H Ol' (non-biblical) DSS. Neve-rtheless the lsaianic servant
belongs to a larger complex o fpi'Ophecies of restoration. renewal and conversion
o f the nations.9.1 (Then again, the term · f'-·tessiah' appears fewer than 40 times in
the OT, and most of those. in historical narratives. but few would deny the preva-
lence of messianic expectation.) The. royal figure of Isaiah 9 and II has been
associate.d with the servant o f the latter chapters - both are endowed with the
Spirit and bring light. justice. righteousness and release to the oppressed. Both
David (Ezek. 34.23-24: 37.24-25) and Moses (Deut. 18. 18-19). the preeminent
OT se1·vants o f God. are mode-ls for or types of figures to c.ome. Morna Hooker
has noted close. similarities between key themes in Isaiah 40-55 and tJlose in
Jeremiah 30-33 and Ezekiel34- 37.95 The servant, and others ofthese themes, are
picked up by Luke and other NT authors.
Scholars have found numerous echoes of the se1·vant songs in Luke-Acts.~ In
luke 4.16-30. Jesus applies the language oflsa. 61. 1-2 to himself. Although the
te1·m ·servant' is not in Isaiah 61and it is not commonly identified among the ser-
vant songs. Sn.aith finds that ' the characteristic phrasing is unmistakable'. "The
opening of His ministry~ then. is said by Luke to be the flllfillment of that proph-
ec.y. T1lis is the advent of the Servant of the LORD.'~7 Snaith also sees servant
language in the account of Jesus· healing.s, particularly Luke 7. 18-23.98 Jesus·
92. Hookcr.Jt>sus and thf" St>n-tlllt. 53.

93. Hookcr.Je.nts and the Sen·ant. 53- 54. There is an allusion to lsn. 49.6 in I Enoch 48.4. whett
the Son of).fan (not c~pli cit ly the sm·ant) is ·dae light of the Gentiks'. Ste)'n. Septuagim Q11ota1ions.
197. There arc occasional CX'hoes.. pnnic.ul:ut)' to lsainh 53. bu1these do not rrfcr explicitly to t.hc
ser'l'ant. Bernd Janowski and Peter SIUhlmnchcr. cds .. Tile SlljfeJ·il~g Sn wrm: !Jaiah 53 in lt>'ll'iJ!J and
ClwiJtian Sourer's (trans. Oanid P. Baile)·: Grand Rapids: Ecrdmllll$. 2004).
94. ·fhis figure [i.e. the Servant of the lord) cmbrnees the nuire messianic hope of the or in nJI
irs de.plh.nnd lsniah was pmniucd to stt in this ligure basic and essential fcatures which see-m to be
based on a ()'pologic-aJ approath.' Lconh:ud Goppcll Typos: The Typological lmnpreration of tht·
Old Tt>stamem i11 tilt: JVell' (trans. Donnld H. Madvig: Grnnd Rapids: E«dmans. 1982), 39, n. 99.
95. lsmd will be galhcrcd again. from the-ends of the earth: Jerusalem will be. rtbuilt: Yahweh.
the creator ofall things. will be with his people and will agnin be their shepherd: Yahweh wlll mnke3
ncw cow·.nant with his people~ Hooker. Je.ms a11d the Sen·a11t. 30-40.
96. Isaiah's inAucnoc on Lukc-Ac.ts is not limited to the servant songs. ·Luke did not merely
mifize- Isaiah as 3 source for prooftcxts to suppon his own poi.nl of view. Ruther luke had inwsti 4
gated Isaiah extrns.i\•e-lyand had 11 dttpappl't'Ciation for lsaianicthcme.s . His mind was saturated with
lsnianic te-~IS andconccpls. which Mapc:d his \'ic:'vs.· Thomas S. Moore. ' .. To d1e-End of the E:uth":
The Gcogrnphjc-al and Ethnic Uniwnalism ofActs 1.8 in light of lsaianic.lnAuence-on Lukc'.JETS
40 (1997): 392. Sec aJso Pno. Act:.': Sanders. ·rsaiah in Luk<'.
tfl. Snaith. "Scn•ant'. 205.
98. Rccowry of sight and rescue.of the oppressed become.distinguishing m:uks of Jc:sus' min·
isuy. Sec-especially Luk< 4.18-19 (citing lsn. 61.1·2): 7.20-22. The gospels rCX"ord at leas! six oo:a-
sions on which Jesus restored sight to blind people: Mntt. 9.2"7: 1222-23: 15.30-3 1 par.: 21.14: ~·1ark
8.22-26: Luke-18.35-43 p:u.: John 9. Saul's spiritual con\'crsion is p:unJk lcd by his being blinded by
passion sayings (Luke 9.22: 18.31-34 and pars., reflecting Isa. 50.6; 53.3-6), and
Jesus' reference in the upper room to Isa. 53.12 (luke 22.37). He concludes that
•Jesus deliberately modeled his ministry on the conce.pt of the Servant of the
LORD of the Second lsaiah.'99 Other scholars he.ar echoes of lsa. 42. 1 in the
words from heaven. au £1 0 ui~ )IOU 0 ciycm~t6<;. EV oo\. £U00,1JOU, at
Jesus' baptism (Luke 3.22). 100 The application o f lsa. 53.7-8 to Jesus in Acts
8.32-35 is also evidence of the c.hurch's identific-ation of Jesus with the lsaianic
servant.lOJ Luke refers to Jesus as God's servant in Acts 3. 13, 26; 4.27, 30 (using
nat~. the primary term translating •.;:-¥ in Isaiah 40-55). 100 The explicit citations,
narrative indications that Jesus fulfilled tlle responsibilities o f the set·vant (e.g.
sight for the blind). and the usc of servant terminology demonstrate that Luke
saw Jesus as the. awaited servant.
While. Act'! 13.47 is the only explicit citation of Isa. 49.6 in Luke-Acts. two
other texts reflect the langtmge-of ' light to the narions' and t\llO more contain
possible allu.sions.tOl The first of these is in Simeon's prayer (Luke 2.32). Prompted
by God's Spirit (2.27). the aged saint see.s Jesus in the temple. and adds his testi-
mony to that o f the angel (2.10-12): this is the Christ. the Lord's anointed, 'thy
salvation which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples. a light for
the appearance of Jestl$ on tht Damascus road and the roming of Ananias so that he would 're-gain
(his) sight and be fille-d 'vith the Holy Spirit' (Act:; 9. 17).
99. Snaith. ·servant'. 20$--7. 210-14. Moessner describes 'the sc:rv'ant passage:; oflsai:th ;c; liter·
aril)' and thrologicallyconstituti\'C for much ofthe-story material in Acts'. 1>.tvid P. M ocs~ncr. ·The
Ironic-Fulfillment of israel's Glory'. in Luke- Arrs o11d llteJewislt Pt·opfe (ed. Joseph B. Tyson: .\ fin-
neapolis: Augsburg. 1988). 46-47. Sec: also Strauss. Da\•idic Mes.fiak. 325 (cf. 235- 5-0. 288-92.
324-33).
100. Fitzmycr. Luke. 1.486: Walther Zimmcrti nnd Joachim Jeremias.. ·nat~ 8EoU'. TDNT.
5.701-02. Sec the e-xtended argument in Jeffrc-)' A. Gibbs. · fund Standing with brad: The Baptism
of Jesus in ~tatthc-w's Gospel (Matt. 3. 13-17)'. CBQ64 (2002): 511- 26.
10 1. The servant song;; are. reAocted in many NT te.xts. including Matt 8.17: 12.18-21 (citing lsa.
42.1-4}: John 11.3&-41: Rom. 15.21: 2 Cor. 6.2 (ci1ing l~a. 49.8): along with other, k ss oe11ain.
allusions. Vincent Taylor. T1re Names ofJe.u u (london: Macmillan. 1953). 36.
102. The LXX uses na.i; to trunslatc -;;;;t 14 time:; in Isaiah 40- 55. including -41.8-9: 42. 1. 19a:
43.10: 44. 1-2. 21 (2 ). 26: 45.4: 49.6: 50.10: 52. 13. The six renu ining instance~ of •;t in these
chllp(ers arc translated by 6o U/.o ~ (48.20: 49.3. 5: 42.19b: 49.7)or 6ou/.t\Jo\•·w (53. 11 ). Luke also
applies aai~ to ls.ntd (Luke 1.54} and David (l uke 1 .69~ Acts 4.25). The only o1her thcologicaJiy
significant use of the te-nn in lhc NT is the c.itation of Isa. 42.1·4 in Matt 12. 18.-21. It is difficult to
sustain the argument of 0. L Jones that the usc: of sro:i~ in Ace:; has ·no particular reference to
Dcm«o-lsaiah'. Donald L. Jones. 'The Titlt-"S<rvant" in l uke-Acts'. in Luke-Acts: J'vho' Perspec-
Jil'es from the Society ofBiblical Lilerowre St:minar(e-d. Charles H. Talbert: New York: Cro~!>l'oad.
19&4). 157.Sce 1bc pen:uasi1·e case made by Dennis E. Johnson. ·Jesus Against the ldok The Use of
l ~aianic- Servant Songs in the ~fissi ology of Acts'. IITj 52 ( 1990): 344-45.
103. Additional allusion~ 10 1sa. 49.6 have also bcc:n suggested: l uke 1.79 by Strauss. Datidk
!ifessialt. 325: l uke 24.46-47 by Pao. Acts. 84-86: AC:Ili 28.28 by Willem C. van Unnik. 'lht-Hook
of Acts" - The Confirll13tion of the. Gospel'. in Sporsa Ccllec-1a: T11e Co/lean/ E.mu:.t of II: C. nm
Unnik. Part On~: Ewmgelia. Paulilw, Acto (No"TSup 29: Le-ickn: Brill. 1913). 364. 'Tbe re:;uhant
combination of the Son of Man aod the servant of God ... was of dcc.isi,·e :;igniticance for Jesu~·
sense of mission.' Zimmerli and Jere-mia~. TDNT. 5.688.
revelation to the Gentiles. and for glory to thy people Israel' .10J Simeon's words
echo a numbl!r oflsaianic texts. He.claims (v. 30) to be a patticipant in the-prom-
iseoflsa. 40.5 (quoted in Luke 3.6) that "all l esh will see the saJvation of God' .105
' light'. ·s.alvation.' and '!Jiory' are associated in n umerous .lsa.ianic !exts.106
Where lsmah has St~ 'P(O~ savrov (LXX). Luke (2.32) has lp(i)~ £1~ <XJtOK<XAiliJfi.V
£av&v'"' and adds KC<t M;av AC<Oii oou 'lopat\1•.10' It is unclear whether
OO~av is in parallel with cpO>:; or with CcnoK'UAuwtv. although the difference. in
meaning would not appear to be. great. More significantly. Simeon's speech
reverses the expected order: as he speaks of the salvation prepared by God 1\cttit
1tp6oronov ncivtrov tOOv Attli>v ('in the presence of all peoples'), he mentions
first the-light bringing reve.lation to the Ge.ntiles before he speaks of glory coming
to Israel, making a strong state-ment about the universal extent of the ministry o f
Jesus. 1c» Luke 2.32 thus links the lsaianic servant with blessing for Gentiles and
indic-ates that this is the purpose for which the servant has come.ll 0 'The allusion
to lsa. 49.6 .. . might well be regarded as a thematic statement of Luke's entire
narrative: the call o f the servant (pais) to restore the diaspora of Israel and to be a
light to the Gentiles to the end of the earth.' 11 '
104. Ru!:am observes that this is the first indic:uion of ksus· signific:mcc for the nations and that
'ksus wird as GClln)p I!:Fads ~lk 2.11 ) auch zum o-rot llPlov fur alk Heiden wcrdcn (l k 2. 29-32). ·
Dietrich Rusam. Das Alte Te.l'lament IH!i L~t!uu (BZNT 112: Bertin: de Gruyte-r. 2003). SO. Sl.
105. Cf. isa. 52.10. ·all the e.nds of the earth shall see the: salvation of our God'. Rusam notes that
Siftl('Oil testifies that his own eyt-!: have see-n God's salvation. Das A/Jt> Teswmem lwi Lukas. 80.
106. Light and sah·ation appc-111 in 49.6: 51.4·6 (L\;X): light and glory in lsa. 42.6. 8: 58..8; 59. 17·
19: 60.1-3; snh'ntion and £lory in 46.13: and all thtee in 60.18-2 1.In luk~Acts ·phas stands for the
Christ who act s like-the Father and is the: ~icssiah.... it also lool:s to lhe suffe-ring servant. salvation.
and eschatology'. Roben F. O'Toole. T11(' Christo!ogica/Ciinuu:ofPaul's lkfrm·e(AnBib 18: Rome:
Biblical Institute Pm.s. 1978). 64. l ight imagery appears e-lsewhere in the NT: ~illtt. 4. 14- 16 (citing
lsa. 9.1-6): John 8. 12: 95: 12.46. Jesus' discipbexpcrience nnd bocomc light: Matt. 5.14: Eph. 5.8:
I Thcss. 55: 1 Pet 2.9; Col. 1.12). In the: NT. as in lsaiah. ligtu is repe-atedly n melaphor for sah·ation
(Rom. 13.12: 2 Cor. 4.6; 6.14: Eph. 5.13-14: 1 John 2.8).
107. Plummc:rbd icves Lhat2.32 combine1 lsa. 49.6 nnd Ps. 98.2 (LXX Ps. 97 .2 . £yv<Upt otv ..:Upw~
-tO o o»~ptov aOtoU £vavtiov -tci)\' Eevav it:ttt.:ciAuvtv t ~v Ol.:atoo UvtJVaUtoU). Alfred
Plummer. A Clitical a11d E.tt/ jdical Commentary on tlw Gospel ae<(}rdingto S. Luke (5thedn.; ICC:
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1912), 69.
108. It has been su-ggested thnt this phrase depe-nds on ll'l. 46.13 (11~ lo-pcttJ/. tit; OO~O:OJ.ta}.
NA~ ' : Fit:anycr. L11ke. 1.428: Luke Timothy Johnson. Tile GospdofLul:c(SP3: College\·ilk. Minn.:
Liturgic-a] Press.. 1991). 55.
109. ~ioore suggests that the order ·mises the possibility that salvation may go to the Gentiles
before glory oomes fully to I!:tad'. Thomas S. Moore--. ·Luke's Use of Isaiah for lhc Ge-ntile Mission
and kwish Rejection rhcme in the Thin:l Gospe-l' (Ph.D. diss .. Dallas Theological Se-minary. 1995).
226. Plumn1cr. however. finds this doubtfuL Plummer. Utki'. 69.
110. As with Isaiah. sonle ha,·e argued that Sime.ononlysays thai Gentiles will ·scc' God's snlva 4
tion. notcxperiei:Ke it Green nnd Mnrshall attribute this \•icw to G. D. Kilpntrick. ').o:ot at Luke ii.JI
and AciS iv.25-2TJ71'n.s. 16( 1986). 127. Jod B. Gm-n. The Gospdofl.uke(NIC~T:Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. 1997). 148: Jan Howard Marshall. Tht> Gospel ofLukr: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(KIGTC~ Grand Rnpids: Ecrdmnns. 1978). 12 1. The usc ofl sa. 49.6: 42.6 in Acts 13.47: 26.22 argues
against this minimalist view. light bring:; rc.vdation. and consequently salvation. to Gentiles.
Ill . D.wid L Tiede. Proph«y<md History ill Utk.:-Acts (Philade-lphia: Fonms. 1980). 31.
The se.cond allusion appea1·s in Paul's de fence betb re Agrippa (Acts 26.22-
23) .112 where Paul testifies he is ·saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses
said \vould come to pass: that the Christ must sufl"er. and that. by being the first to
rise from the dead. he would proclaim light both to the people and to the.Gentiles'
(q>liY. ~iAAE< K<Xtci'(Ytllitvt{(l t t A<X{(l K<Xl t ot<; Eevt GtV). 'The pmphetsand
Moses' had announced the suffering a nd resurrection of Christ, with the conse-
quent proc lama tion of ' light' to Jews ('the people')1u and Gentiles. As in Isaiah,
the ministry to the. nations (49.6) follows struggle. or sutTering (cf. (sa. 49.4).
However. in lsa. 49.6; 42.6 the servant becomes a light to the nations. while here
Jesus proclaims light. TI1e sennonsof Acts spell out the content ofthis proclama-
tion: fo rgi"eness of sins (2.38; 5.3 1; I0.43 ; t 3.38). tlte gift of the Spirit (2.38:
10.44: 15.8). repentance (3.26: 5.3 1; 17.30: 20.21; 24.25), resurre.:tion (23.6:
24.15), grace for Gentiles ( 11.17- 18: 13.47; 15.13- 1&). and release from bondage
(26.18). The narrati\'e adds healing (3.1- 10: 4.10; 5.12-1 6: 8.6; 9.33-35; 14.8- 10;
19.11}. sight (9.12, 17- 19), resurrection (9.40-42; 14.19-20: possibly 20.9- 12),
and release from prison (5.18-19; 12.1-19a; 16.23-40). When Je.sus, on the basis
of his death aJld resurrection. proclaims light to the nations, he proclaims himself
as the one who brings these blessings. The.proclamation of light is the proclama-
tjon about the one who is light. 114
Some see an allusion to lsa. 49.6 in Paul's description of his call in Acts
26.18: ' to open their eyes, that they may n tm from darkness to light'.IIS Acts
26.18b speaks or-turning' people from darknessto light. while in lsa. 42. 16 God
•will make' darkness into light. Here. providing light is the function of Paul's
own minisny .1u; He has been sent to the Gentiles (26.1T) ' to open their eyes'
(t'<vot l;ctl orp&ctA~oU<;), echoing the mission of the servant in lsa. 42.7 (ttvot~<XI
O<j)&etA~Oil<; t ll<j)AcilV), so 'that they may turn from darkness to light' . echoing
I,sa. 42.16 and possibly 9.2,- ~he)' will !tlfn 'frot~lthe powe:of Satan toG"?' (ti\<;
E~OilGta.; tou aettavd tR I t ov &oov). poss1bly reflectmg the se~·vant s wo1·k
' to bring out the pl'isoners from the dungeon. from the prison those who sit in
Il l . Absent from the matgi.Il31notes and table of c~tations in NA:'. although it is noted in UBS'.
11 3. In Luke. ' the pcopk' rcfe-n> 10 Israel. Johnson. Acts. 26-1.
11 4. Paul is appoin1ed a scn •ant (U~ qpE·t T)\', 26J6)and wimeu.. but UmlPE·t q<; is nO! applied to
the lsaianic servant ond Acts 26 does not explicitly identify Paul with Isaiah's SCT\'ilnt ' Yet the light
that he brings them is Christ (Acts 16.23 - ls!l. 49.6}. and Paul is only on aposdc of Christ. If lhc
prophecy of Ls!liah is fulfilled in Paul. it muSI first hs"c been fulfilled in Christ. He-n._.e Paul's use of
this (CXI in connection with his own mis~i on prtSUpposes its prior usc for theological putposcs.'
DuponL ·Apologetic'. 146. O'Took writes of ' lhc task of the Suffering Servant begun by Christ
carried on b)' PauJ•. 'The resurTC.:Icd Christ has from the Fal.hcr a mi!>'Sion whjc.h Christ performs..
\Vhat Paul does can be predicated ofChti.st. So. the resurrected Christ cannot only be said lobe in
heaven: he is with and in Paul proclaiming the light.' O'Toole, Clima.Y. 69. 119.
11 5. Schnabel. Early Cllristia11 Mi.uion. 943.
116. Johnson sees allusions to the scrvnnt songs in Paul's accounts of his conversion and call.
Johnson. Me.f.Utge of.4crs. 116. In addi1ion to cchoe~ in Acts 26.18. r.ce also the acc-Ount in Acts 22:
ck ction (Acts 22. 15: lsa.42. 1: 49.2): 1he Righteous One(Ac.ts 22. 14: lsa. 53.11: cf. Aets3.14: i .52):
witness(AcH 22.15: Isa. 4 1.1·4: 43.8· 12: 44.8): ref usn] lo hear his testimony(A~':Is 21.1-1!: lsa. 53.1 ):
and salvation for Gentiles (Acts 22. 15. l l ).
darkness' (lsa. 42.1). The allusion is less to one panicular text than to the work
o f the servant gene.rally Ol' to promises of God's salvation.
Finally. some find an allusion to Isa. 49.6 in Ac.ts 1 .8~ where Jesus says that the
apostles will be his witnesses ' to the end of the earth· (rro; £axat(}l) t~; y~;). 111
The ex pre~~ion is fo und in the fi.'T only he.re and in the. citation in Acts 13.47.
Dennis Johnson finds further echoes of the. servant songs here in the promised
coming of the Spirit (I sa. 44. 1-S), the c.alling to bear witness (I sa. 41. I -4: 43.&-
12; 44.8). and the extension o f salvation to the nations.IIi The suggestjon that the
apostles are described1 even at this early point in Acts, in the language of the
Jsaianic servant is intriguing. The allusion (ifthe1'e is one). howevc-1·, is brief. and
the expression ('the end of the earth') oc.curs ofte n enough in the LXX that we
cannot assume that readers would have associated the. phrase specifica lly with
Isa. 49.6-"'
3.4 Acts 13.47

At the beginning of Acts 13. the setting shifts to Antioch. During a time ofwOI'-
ship and fasting, the leaders of the church there were directed by the Holy Spirit
to ' set apan tOr me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which ( have called them'
( I3.2). The two promptly set "'il for CypniS, Barnabas' home.(4.36). Tllere they
·proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews' ( 13.5), but Luke
says nothing about the response. The single recorded event is the convcnion o f
the proconsul, apparently a Gentile. l11l who had ' summoned Barnabas and Saul
and sought to hear the word o f God' ( 13.7). Theil· pre.aching was opposed by ·a
certain magician. a Jewish false prophet. named Bar-Jesus' ( 13.6) or ' Eiymas'
( 13.8). who was stmck blind for a time because of his opposition. ·Astonished at
the ceaching of the Lord '. the.proconsul believed ( 13. 12). The fii'St account in the
narra tive of the mission thus introduces the themes of Jewish opposition and
blindness. along \\'ith Gentile responsiveness to the gospel.
11 7. ·The <:xpa.nsion of Chtislianity '1o lhe ends of the.earth» is J\01 a merely geog:mphie move-
ment. but invoi\''CS 11 passage ool of the Je.wish worki into lhe Gmlilc- world. So Rome. as the e.apibl
of the pagan world. is really situated -at the ends or lhecatth.'' · Dupont. · salvation·. 19-M. See also
Frederick F. Bru<:r-. T11e AC't.s ojllu: ApoJt!e:>: Th!' Gmtk Text wit!J /JJtrodiiClioll and Commentary(3rd
tC'\' .edn.: Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1990). 315: Wilfried E<:key. Die Apostelgt:U'Ilicllle: Dr:r negder
Enmgt?liunu I'On Jent.m lem mrch Rm11 (2 vols.: Neukirohcn-VIuyn: Neukin:bcncr. 2000). 1.304~
Turner. Power. 300-1.
11 8.. Johnson. 'Idols'. 34<H-9. Johnson might also have ind udcd lsa. 55.3-5. None. of these refer-
ences appear in wfuu art usually consickn:d to be St'rvant sonw;. If. howe-ver. OIK' understands the $lOngs
to be integrally rdaled lo their eontext. rather lhan scp:uatd )' composed interpolations.. Johnson's
approach can be see-n as sound.
119. 11le ·end or 1hecarth. nppC".ars in lhc LXX of Ocut. 2 8A9~ I Mace. 3.9: Ps. 135.7: P.u . Sol 1.4~
8.15~ l sa. 8.9:45.22: 48.20:62.11: kr. 6.22: 10. 13: 1 6.1 9~ 27.4t: 28. 16: 32.32; 38.8. II OCCU!S with
iar; only in the four Isaiah te:tl5.: Pss. Sol. 1 .4 ~ 1 Mace. 3.9 (and apparcmly nowhere. d se-in Grce.k
literature). WilkmC. van Unnik. 'Otr Ausdruck ( ror; iaxo::rot~ tft~ yl)r; (Apostdgescbichle I. S}und
sc.in altl~stamendiohcr Hinlergrund·. in Spars" CfJIIecfa. 400.
120. Barrett.ArlS. 1.614.
From Cypi'Us, they sailed to Pamphylia and moved inland from Pe1·ga to
Antioch in Pisidia ( 13.13-14). There, they again went first to the S)'nagogue.
After the re.adjng of the scriptures~ they \vcre invited to speak ( 13.14-15). Paul
rose and addressed the assembly of ·men oflsnlel and ... Gentiles who worship
God' ( 13.1 6: cf. 26).121He began by surveying God's dealings with Israel. from
the election ofAbraham through the establishment ohhe kingdom under David,
from whose ' posterity God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised'
( 13.23). He lhen summ:uized the ministry of Jesus. from the ministry of John
( I3.24-25) to his rejection. death and resurrection (I 3.30-32). ' What God
promised to the father.<. this he has fulfilled.' not through David (I 3.33-37. citing
Ps. 2.7: 16.10: Jsa. 55.3)"' or Moses (13.39), but ' by raising Jesus' (13.32).
'T11rough this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to }rou. and by him every
one that believes is freed fi'Om everything from which you could not be freed by
the Jaw of Moses' (I 3.38-39). Paul concluded by warning ofjudgement on those
who reject this message ( I3.40-4 I, citing Hab. 1.5)"'
Many Je.ws and ' devout converu to Judaism followed Paul and Bamabas'
from the synagogue ( I3.42-43). On the next sabbath 'almost the whole. city
gathe-red ' ( 13.44). Jealous of the attention that the mis..o;ionaries rece-ived from the
Gentiles, ' the Jews' opposed the message ( 13.45).124 The missionaries declared
that it had been ' necessary that the word of God should be spoken first' to Jews.
Paul and Barnabas howe now fulfilled their obligation. Since their audience has
rejected their message, they are free to turn to a more fruitful field. 115 This is not
12 1. Dunn notes that the addrc--ss has from lhc bcginningincfuckdGcntiJcs.. Jame-s 0. G. Dunn, Tilt•
Acts q(the Apostles (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International. 1996). 178. Dunn effccti\'cly chal-
lenges Epp 's view that (apart from the distinctive readings in 0). cw.n.gclization ofGentilc.s does not
begin until13.47. Eldon Jay Epp. The Tireologi<al Tendency ofCodex Be: ae Camabrigi(!ll!>lf ill Am
{SNTS).fS 3: Cambridge: Cambridge Uni\·ersity Prru. 1966}. 83- 84. ThcseGentiks. howc\•er.are
alre-ady aswcioied with the synago~'Ue - lhe)' both 'worship' and ·fear' God.
122. Dunn (among olhcrs) has note-d similarities be1wecn Paul's first recorded address and Peter's
(Ac-ts 2). particuf:trly in the usc-of Da\·id and the or~'Uinc-nt concerning the rtSll!ft(tion. Dunn. Acts.
171.
123. 111is warning may seem unc-alled-for at t.his point in the-narrative. since no opposition has yet
been described in Antioch. Nc\•erthclcu. kws c l ~c-whcre had rejected the.message about ksus. a fact
e\·idcnt not only in the nmati\-c of Acts. but C\'Cn in this sermon ( 13.27-30). The ussumption that some
Jews will reject the Oles.s3!,'< docs not reflect badJy on all Jews. an)' more than the numerous stotc~
me-nts about the nations opposing God re-flect bodly on all Gcntiks.
124. 11lat is. ·some Jews·. Witherington.Acts. 41 4. 'No more did "all Gentlks'' believe than did all
'"the Jews" rejoct. · Dunn. Arls. 184. This jealousy may indicate that kwish efforts to exert spiritual
influence on their ne-ighbors had been k ss successful. 'The fear would be of an untried :md unte-sted
new se-ct upsetting and undcnnining the good standing and good relations which the-Jewish commu-
ni!)' h!ld estobli~hed for itself within the city (minoritic.s were-:tl\V3)'S an~i OU$about their legal and
social s1.anding since local and international politics were-so unpredictable). • Dunn. Acts. 183. Dunn
argues that their privileged position in the plan of God was threatened by the way Paul had from the
beginning addressed his message to the Gc-ntlks present. as wdl as to the Jews. S« also John B.
Polhill. .4t·ls (NAC 26: Na~h,·ille: Broodman. 1992). 306: David J. Williams. Acts (NIBCNT 5:
Pe-abody. Moss.: He-ndrickson. 1990}. 238.
125. Paul's obligation to preach first to Jews cchocs Peter's app!Kationof the promise loAbraham
surprising: Jesus had 1old the twelve to do this very thing.126 What is rc-mat·kable
is that Paul and Barnabas will now ' nmt to the Gentiles' ( 13.46) and appeal to
lsa. 49.6 as justification: 'For so the Lord has commanded us. saying. ··J have.set
you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttet·most
parts of the eM h"' (13.47. citing !sa. 49.6).
The citation is introduc-ed by the words, om~ yixp ivtitai.tat i1~1v o
cipto; ('For so the l ord has commanded us'}. It provides the rationale (ydp) for
the dramatic step in v. 46. T11is is not onl}' justified, but re.quired, by the proph-
ecy.117The frustration experienced by Paul and Barnabas in fulfilling their divinely
appointed mission forms a clear point of contact with the mission of1he servant.
Just as the servant suffered frustration in his initial calling to ministe-r to Israel. so
' the Jews' now reject the mes~ge ofPaul and Barnabas. Just as Yahweh expanded
the ·trifling' task of 'gathering Israel to himself', God expands the ministry of
Paul and Barnabas~ direc-ting them to preach to Gentile-~'\.
The-ir situation is ne\·enhelcss nnalogous to the posi1lonof the sc-mmt in Isa. 49.1-6. Ju!>i
as the sw-ant failed to bring back to God the whole-of Israel. so the apostle.s InC'« wi1h
opposition from ' the• Jews. Both 600 themsch•c-sindifficultcin:umSianc<s ond it is here
that lul:e octualizcs !he verse from Iso. 49.6d.ln the-greater mandate of the sm·am the-
preacher:; pe-rceive a divine command. explicitlyaddre!'Sed to thcmsclves(Evtita/.t O:l
fwl\•}.128
like the servant, they at•e to be 'light for the Gentiles' and 'bring salvation to the
unem1ost parts of the earth ' .129 For the citation to legitimate a Gentile mission,
Isa. 49.6 must mean that salvation in Jesus is actually to be extended to Gc-ntilc-.'1 :
the nations will not simply observe the glof)' and saJvation of Israel, but will share
in a salvation and glory that ts extended to all nations.
11te Gentile mission may be occasioned (in both Isaiah 49 and Acts 13) by Jew-
ish rejection of the \llork of the sen•ant. but thi-s is not its cause. The citation locates
the ol'igin ofthe mission in che prophe~'lied plan of God. Its prese-nt justification is
in Acts 3.26. 'God. ha\·ing raised up his servant scnt him to you fir!>!. to hies~ you' {l)1Jiv-:tp6to\'
civua t ~a a; 0 Ek(,;; ·tOv ~ai&u aUto\i it>ti a ·t nhE\' aUtOv E1>Aoyoi.wt« \:.IJ-ii~ ).
126. Following Je~us· instructions to the twelve (Luke 9.51 ~btL 10. 14: Mark 6.11) and the sev-
cnt)'(luke-10.11 ). The twd \•e were e.xplie:id)' forbidden to go to the Gentiles ore\'en the Sam:uitans
(Matt 10.5-6). olthough this prohibition doe~ not appear in luke.
127. So~ have contended that 0 l.'Upto; here is Jesus.. no1 Yahweh. who spoke through lhc
prophet and it is therefore Jesus wOO has commanded this turning to tbe Ge-ntile.s . Pao. Ac-ts. 101:
Martin Rcsc.•·Die-Funktion deralttcstamentlichen Zi1ateund Anspidungcn in den R«kn dcr Apostd·
gcschiohte·.in L1!s Act~s de.1· Ap8tres: Traditions, ridacrion. tMologie (cd.ltu:ob Krcrocr. BETL 48:
Leu\'en; le-uvcn Univcrsit)' P~. 1979). 18-79: Steyn.S<>ptuaginr Quo:atimu. 201. II isunJikelythot
Jewish opponc.niS would have recognized this association or found it persuasive. Appealing to a com-
mand from Yahweh would make much more srnsc in the circumstonccs.
12&. Sundt 'Quotations'. 54.
12CJ. Barrett charncterizesthe articular infiniti\·e toUdvo:l o t as epc.xe-getical. The ·light' and · sal
4
vation· represent the ~!lmc blessing. Barre-ll. ACIS. 1.657. Rusam note$ thallheccho of AciS 1.8. io~
Ea x&·t ou 'tfl ~ yi};. serves to pla« Paul's ministry here as p:~n of the mission of the eleven give-n
therr. Rusam. Das Alit- Testament bei LukQs. 414.
the coming of Christ as the. divine servant (Acts 3.13, 26; 4.27, 30). 1 ~ The cita-
tion justifies only ·turning to' Gentiles; it does not require 'turning from· Jews, as
the subsequent narrative will make plain.•-U
From this point the.Gentile mission becomes the primary focus of Luke's nar-
rath•e. Paul and Barnabas go next to lconitun . where they again preach first in the
synagogue. Many Jews and Gentiles believe, but Jewish opposition forces them
to leave tJ1e city ( 14. 1-7). In lystra. they speak to a pagan audic.nce. from which
they win ·a large numbe-r of disciples' ( 14.8-21 ). They then return to Antioch in
Syria~ "where they had been c.ommended to the grace of God for the work which
they had fulfilled' ( 14.26) and report 'all that God had done with them. and how he
had opened a door oftbith to the Gentiles· ( 14.27). This characterization clearly
indic-ates that the previously unspecified work to which God had called them
( 13.2) was to bring Gentiles to fajth in Jesus.
This pattem ('to the Jew first. but also to the G1eek'. Rom. 1.16) will be
repeated in each city as Paul speaks first to Jews. experiences substantial (though
not complete) rejection, and then focuses his ministry on Gentiles (e.g. 18.5-6;
19.8-9). Finally, arrested in Jerusalem on false charges (related to his association
with Gentiles. 21.27-36). Paul will preac.lt to govemors and kings (24-26). as God
had said to Ananias (9. 15). The narrative closes witl1Paul in Rome, where. again.
many Jews reject the message and Paul again declares (concluding the last speech
in the book), ' this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; a nd tl1ey will
listen· (28.28)."'
In Pisidian Antioch. d1e result ofPaul"s announcement was that ' the Gentiles ...
were glad and glorified the word of God' ( 13.48). As a result of the subseqnent
proclamation to Gentiles. ·as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. ll1e
word of the lord spread throughout all the region' ( 13.48-49). Many Gentiles
' saw the light' :.lJld, as a result of these events, salvation indeed came to those. in
distant parts of the earth.
It is difficult to overstate. how remarkable this turn of events is. Rackham
describes it as ·apostasy - for so the Jews would regard it' .1n In Acts 22. a crowd
in JeJUsalem liste.ned patiently as Paul preached about Jesus: the riot began only
when Paul claimed that God sent him to pre.ach to Gentiles (2 1.21 -22). Such a
dramatic change in perspective. must be based on clear direction from God. The
que.~tion is how Paul found that direc.tion in lsa. 49.6.
Isaiah 49.6 spoke ofan individual 'servant' who would be the light and bringer
o f salvation to the nations. The singular 'you· of Isa. 49.6 (~rr "l~~rq1, NT and
130. Jewish refusal i$ ·a contributory.thou,gfl not the primar)'(c.f. dlS 10-11). cause: of the.Gcnlile
mission'. 'The fac1 that the Geontik mission c.ould be ju.stifiod from the OJd Tcsumcnt does not
cxcJude either the prior prodamalion of the gos.pcl to the.Jews or the possibility that kwidt obdurncy
could b«ome an immediate cause of the Gentile mission.' Wilson. Gentile MiSJion. 112.
131. 'In the: very next city on his mi ~sionary itincr!lry. he would again begin his witness in lhC'
.synagogue: (J4.t).' Paul c.onlinued pre-aching in synagogues (Acts 17.1 . 10. 17: 18.4. 19: 19.8: cf.
16.13 (nol as Polhill has it. 16. 121). Polhill. Acts, 308. So also Bamtl Acts. 1.656.
132. The rcjoc(ion oftbe. me;wge by Jc.ws and the.subse.quc:nt lutning toGc:n!ilcs in I3.45-49and
2&.25-31 thus form 11 kind of inrbuio for this major section of Ad s.
133. Richard B. Rackham. T1re .4cts oflh(! t1po.rtles (WC: Grand Rapids: Baker. t978), 221.
LXX't£6eu:ci oe), which is applied to Jesus in Luke 2.29-32; Acts 26.23, is here
applied to ·us' (~J,ltV) and the-promise is understood as a command addressed to
Paul and Barnabas. How docs the. prophecy come to be applied in this way'?
First, some hold that the prophecy is applied to Christ and not to Paul and
Barnabas. Grelot states that ·En depit des apparenccs, ce texte n'est pas transfere
du Christ, Serviteur du Seigneur. ases deux cnvoyes. Paul et Barnabe ·, u.a because
the grammar o f Acts 13.47 and the singular addres.." {a e) in the.citation cannot be
understood as applying to (plural) Paul and Barnabas. for the same rea,son,
fitzmycr also ascribes the citation to Jesus:
Paul !le'cms to be upp1ying the Scl'\'!lllfs words to himself (_und Bamubas). The difficulty.
however. is that the words cited are uddrcsscd 10 ·you' (2nd person sin,b'lllat). wblch
makes thcm difficuh to apply to Puul und Bsmabus. So the quoted p:ttl of the Sen·ant
Song muy in rc-ulity rercrto Christ. who through Bumaba.s :md Puul is nu king known to
the Jews or Pisidian Antioch this ·tiglu of the Gentiles. and ·mc.ans or salvation to the-
ends or the eunh: i.< .. a light that will shine on Gentiles and bring sah·ution eve-ry-
whC1c~us
Grelot al.so argues that the application of the same text from Isaiah to Christ in
Acts 26.23 prohibits its applic--ation in Acts 13.47 to Paul and Barnabas. Instead.
we are to understand that Paul and Bamabas have.been called by God to preach
the Wo1'd - as they proclaim Christ as the light to the. nations, they bring
salvation to the- end of the eanh. Pete1· Bolt argues that the prophecy is a
conunission that Paul and Barnabas share ·indirectly' . l.'l6 This reading does not,
however. reflect what Acts 13.47 acntally says. and it is uncle-ar on what basis we
may privilege the singular oe and constrain the plural ~JitV to fit it.
Eric. Franklin argues that the citation is not about the servant, but about the
.salvation Jesus brings. 'The fact that [Luke] can apply this passage to Paul as
well as to Jesus sugges ts that he sees its e-mphasis as pointing in the first place,
not so much to the person of Jesus, as to the saving \VOrk: of God whic.h is accom-
plished through him. It is the salvation of God which is his first concem '.m Such
a subordination of Christ to God's salvation seems unlikely. howeve1'. given the
centrality of Chri.stology in most readings of Luke-Acts. It is unclear on this
reading how the prophecy become.'! a personal obligation for Paul and Bamabas.
James D UJl ll believes that the language of (sa. 49.6 is applied to Israel: · (srae.l
itself had been give-n the. task of being and bringing light and salvation to the
Gentiles (lsa. 49.6). So all Paul and Barnabas were doing was fulfilling Israel"s
mission. ·m Witherington writes that Paul and Barnabas ·are assuming the role and
134. PieJTC Grclo1. 'Note sur Aetcs.. XIJI. 4T. RB SS (1981): 370. Also Jacques Dupont. ·Je f ai
Ctabli lwni(re des nutiorcs (Ac 13. 14. 43- 52)'. in Nouwlles Etudes sur Ir-s Acres Jes Ap6rr;;r (Pilris:
Cerf. 1984). 343-49.
135. Fitzmycr. .4crs. 52 1.
136. P<ter G. BoiL·~iissi on and Witocss'. in U·i"mes.f to tile Gospel: Thf! Theology ofAct.f (e-d. Ian
Howard Mar~hull and Da,·id Peterson: Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans.. 1998). 211.
137. Eric Frnnklin. Chrisllhf! Lord: .4 Silf(/)' ill dw Petrpose <md T1reology fJ/Lltke- .4crs(Pbiludd -
phia: Westmin~ter. 1915). Ill.
138. Dunn. Act.f. 184. 'For so1nc reuson not entirdy cle-ar. Paul understood that with the death and
resurrectionofJesus. the time-and pos~i bi lityhad urrivcd for Israel's responsibility to be a light to the
tasks of the Servant of the Servant Songs. which is to say~ the tasks of Israel' . 1J9
Neither explains. however, how Paul derives a seemingly specific pe-rsonalcom-
mand from this commission to lsraeJ. 1oO
Others have found a double reference to Christ and the church. 'The double
use of the imagery is imponant ... Paul is a light of the Gentiles only in virnte of
the Christ he preaches; Christ is a light to the.Gentiles as he is preached to them
by his servants. ' 1" 1
The view that identillcs the: servant with lsrncl fails.lsmd tdonc was nm:rth< inslnlllt(OI
of the world's Kdcmption. Poul's use ofthis \'Cf'SC (AcLs. 13:47) rupports lhc identilic-.a·
tion of the servant us the ~kssinh and His people. When His people labor in ~lis Name-
as Paul and Burn:abas were doing. He wor\:s through them. U2
Unfortunately, these writers have genemlly not explained the nature of this con-
nection or the rationale by which this prophecy m.ay be interpreted in a twotbld
way while other prophetjc texts are given an exclusively Christo logical appli-
cation.
Finally. the prophecy may simply be applied to Paul and Barnabas here rather
than to Christ. t.:J But the question then is in what capacity: as individuals?t.u As
apostles? 1A5 Does it extend to others. such as all Christian ministers and/or
Gentiles to be fullilkd (GaL 1.15· 16: 3.13· 14. 23-29: 4. 1-7j! Dunn. Acts. 329 (commenting on
2&.16).
139. Withe-rington. Acf.\·. 416. "The prese-nt p:tssnge asserts thlltthc- mission of the Servant is olso
the !ask of the followers of Jesus. Thu~ the tusk oflsrnd . which she failed to carry out. has passed to
Jesu~ and then to his pcopk as the new Israel: i1is 1he 1ask of bringing the light of TC\'d ation and
salvotion to all the people-~ of the world (cf the d e-or allusion to Is. 49.6 in Lk. 2.29-32).' Ion How--ard
Marshall. T1u! Am oflh~ Apo.Hies: An hrtnxluction o11d Commemary(T NTC; Grand Rspi-ds: E<rd 4
man!'. 1980). 230. So afro Jacob Jerrell. n;E' Apostelgesclrichte (KEK: GOtting~:-.n: Vandcnhocc-k &
Ruprcc.hl. 1998). 364.
140. Apart from the-servant songs. no Ol texts ~est thatlsrad itselfwas to illumine the-nations.
One NT text. howe\·er. 1113)' ~uppon the icka that tsrod \\'as no1 only to bring light but to be- light
Ron1. 2.19 (':md if you arc sure th:11 you ore ll guide: to the blind. 3 light to those who are in durk 4
ness'}. Texts which spe-ak of Jesus· disciple$ (the nc:w lstnd?}as light (e.g. Mat!. 5.14)could p..-rhups
reflect this idea as wd l.
141. Barre-ll. Acis. 1.658. Sec also Bruct• .4cts (K\'. cdn.). 267: Rockham. Acts. 121: John R. W.
Stott. T1le Mn:sage ofACIS: Tire Spirii. 1lll! Cluur/1 o11d the World {Bible Spc-oks Toduy: Downer.;
Grove-. Ill.: lnterVarsity. 1994). 127.
142. Young. JsaioiJ . 3.276. 'The-present passage asserts l.hat the mission of the Servant is also the
task of the followe-r.> of ksus.· .\far~M JI. Acts. 320. S« also Suz:umc Wau~ He-nderson. ·The MC'S 4
sianic Community: The- ~fission of Jesus a~ Cofkc.tivc Christology•. paper presented at the AARI
SBL Annual Meeting. San Dii!'go. 2001.
143. Gerhard Sdmcickr. Die Apostdgescilidrte (HTKNT: Frciburg: Herder. 1980-82). 2.146.
144. Withi!'rington. Ads. 416.
145. Rackhrun. Acu. 221: Charles S. C. Willioms. A Commenttlr}" 011 the Acl.l ofrile Aposlles
(HNTC: New York: Harper & Brothers.. 1957). 167. Barnabas is appurcntlyrdcJTCd to us an apostle
in AciS 1-1. 14: c.f. 14.4. ahhou:£}1 the usc of the tem1 in l.his c.hapter has raised questions.. Fitzmyer.
Acts. 526: Witherington. A<ts. 419-20. S«' the litcmturc cited in Frederick F. Bruce. Paul: Apo.\·tiE'o[
1/u! Heart St'l Free (Grnnd Rapids: Ecrdmons. 1977). 155. n. 22.
missionaries.1-'6 or to all followers of Jesus and members o f his church? 1" 7 The
text provides little data on which to base a decision. although it seems to speak
only o f the actions o f Paul a nd Barnabas, and not chose of the church as a whole
(cf. similarly Acts I8.6). In Acts, proclamation appears to be a special respon-
sibility of the apostles (Acts 6.2. 5). and it is pl'imarily the.eleven who p1·each'"s
(prior to the minis.try of Paul). 1 ~ l11e role of ·witne.ss· to Jesus appe.ars to have
been limited to the.apostles and others who had seen the risen Jesus. (Luke 24.48;
Acts 1.8, 22; 2.32; 5.32; I 0.39, 41; 13.3 1).
A second question is by what rationale che prophecy is applied. Some scholars
believe-that first-century interpreters felt little need to be logical or consistent in
their use of the OT (beyond. say. mere. verbal correspondeJlces) 150 and conse--
quently assume there is no rationale fo r the. application of the prophecy. l11is
view is unfo11Unate.lyself-confim1ing: no rationale will be found if none is sought
and such a position should not be held until a thorough review o f possible ration-
ales has been conducted.
We saw that some interpreters regard the servant in Isaiah as a fluid concept,
sometimes Israel and sometimes distinguished from lsrae.l. It could 1hcn be that
luke regards the servant in a similar way. Jesus' actions in bringing sight to the
blind and freedom to the captives echo several lsaianic texts (e.g. 42.7) where
these sign s are associate.d with the servant. In Acts. we also find the apostles and
other divinely appointed representatives performing signs like those of Jesus:
healing the lame (3.7; 8.6: 14.8-1 0): healing the paralysed (8.6: 9.34-35); healing
other people and illnesses (5.15-16; 19.11 ; 28.8); resto•·ing sight (9. 17- 18):
casting out evil spirits (5.16; 8.7; 16.18; 19.11): raising tl1e dead (9.36-42; 20.9-
12?); along with unspecified signs, wonders and mimcles (2.43; 5.1 2: 6.8; 8. 13~
14.3: 15.12; 19.11 ).151 Although these are servant tasks~ servant language is not
particularly evident; the.only instances where servant-related language is explic-
itly applied to others are Acts 13.47; 26.18. There are reasons to question the
pre.~nce of a Huid understanding of the servant in Isaiah. however. and it is dif-
ficult to sec how a clear command fOI' the Gentile mission c.ould be addressed to
Paul and Barnabas on this basts.
The principle ofimitalio christi is evident throughout the NT. As Jesus was to
suffe1· and die, so believers must take up the.ir c.ross (Mark 8.3 1-38 and par.).
Believe1·s must patiently endure unjust suffering as Jesus did ( I Pe.t. 2.21). The.y
are to fo rgive one another and ' walk in love' as Jesus did (Eph. 4.32- 5.2). They
146. Coh•in. Aen U - 18. 391. S«' also Polhill. Ans. 307.
147. Bruct'. Acts (Greek Te.xt. 3rd edn.). 315: Acu (rev. cdn.). 267: Marshall. Acis. 230.
14&. Ahhough other bd icvtrs were t:Ua.y·{t:i.l~O~n'Ol as wdl: 8.4 (•those who were scattered·)~
Acts 8. 12. 40 (Philip): 11.20 (·me-n of Cyprus and Cyrcnc·)~ cr. 6.8-7.60 ( Stephen)~ 18.24-28
(Apollos).
149. Pnul·s f«tcrsabound withstatements reflecting hiscalling to preach (Rom. 1. 17: I Cor. 1 . 1 7~
2 Cor. 4.5: Gol 1.16: Eph. 3.8: 2 Tim. I.I I). ye1 his only e-Xhortation to an)·onc: dsc: to prc-.ach is to
Timothy ( l Tim. 4.2).
150. We- hll\'e llOICd krvcll's beliefthat ·obviously. oneta.nnol CXJX'C·l too mucfl Jogic in the U!'le or
Old TC$tamcnt quotations in New Tcstoment writings•. krvdl. 'Oi\•idcd People'. 52.
151. See alsoluke9. 1. 6: 10.9.18-19.
are to follow Jesus· example and wash one. another's feet (John 13.14- 15}. In
l uke-Acts. disciples are called to 'follow me • (luke 5.27; 9.23, 59; 18.22: see
also the implicit call to imitation in Luke 22.26-27; cf. I Cor. 1 1.1). NeveJ1he-
le."-S, belie.vers are not to be like Jesus in evc1y way. They do not offer their lives
redemptively for others. nor arc they all to be. like Jesus, itinerant preachers. The
principle of imitalio christi is ins.ufficient to explain the. rationale for the. appli-
cation of lsa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47.
Calvin argues that the prophecy applies specifica lly to ministers of the gospe.l
along witJ1 Christ: ·many things that Scripture applies to Christ. apply to His
ministers', but ·not evel)rthing, for certain descriptions are peculiar to the person
of Christ'. ' Since He acts through His ministers transferring His own functions to
them'~ Christ's ministers act on his behalf and with his authority, particularl}' in
the preaching of the gospel. It is in this way. Calvin believes , that the pl'Ophecy
may be appropriately applied to Paul and Bamabas.151 While this may be true, an
underlying rationale for the connection is not o ffered.
Such a rationale may lie in the Pauline doctrine of the union of Christ and the
chun:-h. Because of the fu ndamental connection between Christ and his church,
wha1 is true of Christ may also be applied to the church. J. A. Alexander sees here
' confirmation ... that the. person here. described is not the Messiah exclusive ly,
but tha1 his people. are included. •m
Commanded us is not an arbitrary uansfc:r or accommodation of the: passage. but a
faithful reproduc•ion of its original and proper import. !IS rdating both to the-Head and
the: Body. the Messiah and the Chu«h in th.:ir joint capac.it)'. as hemlds of suh•ation to
the: world.15:
This approach offers a theological explanation for the application of an appar-

ently Christological prophetic text to the mission of Paul and Barnabas. but it
may be questioned whether Luke employs this concept.
Robert f . O'Toole concludes that we simply cannot discover the rationale by
which Isa. 49.6 is applied to Paul and the Gentile mission.
l uke never fully elaborates in t.hi ~ chapter ot in the whole ofll:-Atts how Christ unit.:s
himself with Christians. But. if Christ be the Suvior. he: must re!lJiy c:ffiX't somt'thing in
the Christiuns: oth.:.rwisc.lukc:-writes nonsense. But since: luke: remains vague: on the
nature of this union. we haw no c'hoicc but to be \'ague outsti\'C$. IS)
There is a way in which to understand the applie3tion of lsa. 49.6 to both

Christ and the ministry of Paul and Barnabas that draws on dynamics indigenous
to l uke-Acts. One of the major conclusionsof Bock'sstudy on Luke's use of the
o r is that Luke's Christo logy is de.veloped not only fi•om explicit or prophecies.
but also from OT 'patterns'.
152. C:tJ,•in. Acu 14-18. 391.

153. Alcx:!lnder. /Jaiah. 2.228.
154. Josc:.ph Addi ~on Ak xanckt. Commemary on 1/rr Ads oflhe Apostles (Jnl c:dn.: New Vorl::
Scri ~r. Armstrong & Co .. ISiS: rc-pr.. Grnnd Rapids: Zonder\':ut. 1956). 504.
155. O'Toole:. Clima:t, 159.
3. The Serwmt and th~ Nations 5I
l uke. sees the Saipture as fulfilled in Jesus in terms of the fulfill me-n! of OT prophecy
and in terms of the reintroduction ond fulfillment of OT pauc-ms that pointlo the pres·
enoc of God's saving wor\:. ln referring topallc-ms. Wt' ref« to what is comroonly called
t)'pology ... 1»
Bock understands typology to refer to ·a J>.1ttern within events that is to culminate

in a final fulfillment in light of the passage's and the. OT's context of hope and
delivcrance'.19 Such patterns are sufficiently common that Bock calls "Luke's
use of the OT for Christology. ''pt·oclamation from prophecy and pattem"'.U11
This principle is clearly part ofl uke's hermeneutical strategy and c.an shed light
on the usc of Isa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47.
One of the most significant studies of typology{and one noted by Bock) is that
of Richard Davidson.t59Typolog.y deals with the fulfilment ofGod's pmposes in
history, with things that ·must nee.ds be ' 160 in the unfolding ofGod's redemptive
programme. Davidsondistinguishes three ·aspects' ot· phases ofl)')>Oiogical fulfil-
ment: fulfilment in Christ (inaugurated or Christo logical fulfilment); fulfilment in
the eschatological funtre (consummated or apocalyptic fulfilment_): and fulfilment
now in the life of the church (appropriated or ec.clesiological fltlfilment).1111
An example may help clarify matters. The tabernacle (later the temple) symbol-
ized God's presence \\~th his people. Even within the OT there are hilus of a greater
future prese-nce.of God (e.g.lsa. 7. 14). In the.NT. John indicates that the promise
o f I he tabemacle was fulfilled in the inc.amation ( 1.14; cf. 2.20-21). bul Paul
wrote that the church is now the.dwelling o f God by Christ's Spirit (I Cor. 3.16:
156. Bocl:. Prodam(lfion. 274.

157. Bocl:. Proclamation. 50.
158. Bock. Proclamation. 274. Book finds C\•idenec of Luke ·s usc ofar p.'lllerns in lhc- return from
the Babylonian exile (luke 3.4-6: 97-98). 1he ministries of Elijah and Elisha(lukc 4. 1j- 19: 110-11}.
Je-sus• onswcr to John (luke 1.22. 21: 114). tbc tr.m!>hguration (l uke 9.35: 116). e-tc. Since his focus
is on the role of the OT in the <kvd opmcnt of l uke: s ChristoiOJ:.'Y· Bock docs n01 explore whether
Christ might stand in typological rtlation to his followers. Likewise. Goppch's imponant study.
Typos. focuses. as the subtitle slates. on The Typologiclllfnlt'I]JI"eiUiion oflhf' Old Tcstmrumt in t/1~
New. Typological dc\•c-lopmentwilhin the-t-"T is beyond his scope. although Goppch notes thot ' the
NT types arc thc:msd\'CS open to a future su]valion' ( 195) and ' the NT l:no\VS itself to be •.. a
prophecy in type concerning the fu ture conrumma6on' (205').
159. Richard M. Davidson. Typol~'l' in Script11r~: A St1Kfy of Hermeneutirol rvtro; Structure:;
(Andrews Uni\·ersity Seminary Docton~J Oissenation Series 2: Bc.nien Springs. Mich.: Andrews
Univcr.;ity Pre~. 1981 ). See also Richanl M. Davidson. 'The Escltatologie-lll Structure of Biblit:al
Typology·. paper presented llt 1he annual mcding of 1he Evangdical Thcologic31Sociccy. 19 Nov-
ember 1999: "Is Biblicol Typology Re-aJly Predictive? SonlC Po~ibk Indicators of the-Ex.istcntcand
Predictive Quality of ar T)'pcs'. paper prtSCntcd at the midweste-m regional meeting oft.hc Ev.lngeli·
caJ Theological Society. SL Paul. Minn.. 26-27 February 1999: ·fsrnd Typology'. paper presented ot
the annual mtcting of the Evange-lical TheologicnJ Society. 16 November 2000.
160. l>.widson 'sexpression for an essential feature of typobgical fulfihnent. Davidson understands
typology not aso merely literatyeoncspondc.noc:. but as historical dt\•d opmcnt within !he histor)·of
redemption in which type-s ordained byGodn11u t be subscquendy fulfilk d luke often ex.ptcsses this
necessity with &d (used 40 rin~s in l uke-Aces. including instonc-es of rcdcmpti\·c-historical
necessity such us Luke 4.43; 9.22: 13.16. H : I i.15: 21.9: 22.37: 24.7. 26. 44: Acts 1. 16: 3.21: 4.12;
14.22: 17.3).
16 1. O.widson. Typolq._'l'. 390--97.
2 Cor. 6.16: Eph. 2.21-22: cf. Col. 1.27): and the immediacy of God's presence
with his people will eventually be such that no temple is necessary (Rev. 21.22).
Christ's incarnation does not exhaust the tabernacle pattern. but becomes the
basis for further fulfilment in the present age and the ese.haton. We can picture
the entire proc.ess like this: OT type- Christ (inaugurated)-. church (appi'Opri-
ated) - es.chaton (consummated).11le OT type anticipates Christ, but once Christ
has come. sub.'iequent fultilments in the church aJld the eschaton may also be
expected. Much as the OT presents types ofChrist, Christ himself becomes a type
of the.church and both are types of the eschaton. The patterning does not just run
from OTto NT (or to Christ). but also from Christ to the church in the present age
(and eventually to the eschaton).
This is the.reverse ofthe ·narrowing' many see in OT expec.tation. where, e.g.,
David's dynasty becomes focused in the one king who ·will reign over the house
of Jacob forever' (luke 1.33). Old Te.stament promises and types ·narrow' and
come to a focus in Christ, the one to whom all o f God's promises point and in
whom they all find their ;yes' (2 Cor. 1.20). But (Davidson argues) flowing out
of Christ. the type then expands as these things are fulfilled not only in Christ
himse.tf,. but also through him in his church and in tlle consummation.
This multi-layered fulfilment may sound like what is sometimes called the
'double fulfilment of pi'Ophecy'. but the dyna111ic is different. In double fulfil-
ment. some prophecies are undet·stood to have a multi-layered fulfilment (e.g. ful-
filled both in the retum from exile and in the coming of Christ. or both in Christ's
first and second comings), while most have only a straightforward single. fulfil-
ment ("this is that'), and there do not appear to be any criteria for determining in
advance whcthet· a panicular prophecy will have a double fulfilment. Davidson
offers a potentially richer underslanding of fulfilment: et,.er:v prophecy or type is
susceptible to a fulfilment in Christ which the-n anticipates further fulfilments in
the churc.h and in the consummation. Apparent iltstance.s of double fulfilment are
better unde-rstood as examples of this multi-layered typology.
Tilere is amplec\'idence ofa typological dynamic in Luke-Acts. We find rc.tlec-
tions in Je.sus' minisny of the 1ninistries of Elijah and Elisha162 and of Moses.163
We find that the-ministry o f Jesus is a pattem for that of his tbllowers: they. too,
' take up the cross' (luke 9.22; cf. 23): they go through sutTering (Lnke 9.22: cf.
Acts 9.16; I4.22 - Set appe.::trs in all three passages): they are empowe.red by the
Spirit (Acts 10.38: cf. 1.8); the apostles work 'signs and wonders' (Acts 2.22; cf.
2.43 ; 5. 12: 14.3: 15. I2). There are striking parallels as \Veil between the ministries
of Jesus and Slephen, t6.1 and Jesus and PauJ.l&t The contention is that these are not
162. E.g. Craig A. Evans. 'The Function af the ElijahiEiislta Narratives in Luke's Ethic of
Eloction'. inL11f ea11d Scripture: Tf1e FltiK'I ion ofSom.•d Tnrdilion illl.ltkt"-.4cts (od. C'raig A. E\'iiOS
and Jad : T. Sanders: Minneapolis: Fortress. 1993). 70-83.
163. E.g. ).foessne-r. Lord o[1ile Ba11que1. SeccspcciaJI)· Luke9J I. Sec oJso the-ddilxf;ltc pamlids
between the-ministries of ksus and Moses in Stcphcn•s speech. Tann(hill. Narrttlil'f' U11ily. 91- 92.
164. Tannehill. JVutrafil't? U11ity. S0-10 I.
165. See thc.ir divine.commissioning and reception of the Spirit in baptism (Luke- 3.21·22: Acts
9.17): their articulation of their commission in the words from h:ajah (luke- 4. 16-l l: Acts 13A647J;
merely literary devices. but reflect a divine nece.ssity that things which happened
in the ministry of Jesus must needs be' mirrored and fulfilled in his follo\vers.
1
Davidson's appropriated or ecclesiological typology offers a model for under-

standing Acts 13.47. Typology is a biblical-theological or redemptive-historical
category that is native to the demonstration of the fulfilling of'God's promises in
and through Chnst in Luke-Acts. Davidson offers us the oppornmity to have om·
cake and eat it too: we can affinn with Simeon (Luke 2.32) and with Paul (Acts
26.23) that Jesus is the servant who brings light to the nations. while at the same
time affirming with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13.47) that God ha.'i commanded
the-se missionaries to be light to the nations. We can hold both to be true bec-ause
of the typological relationship that exists between Christ and the. church. The
prophecy of the servant finds fulfilment first ofall in Jesus. but also through him
in his church - olJld particularly in those.of his churc.h entmsted with the respon-
sibility to take his message-to the. nations.
Because. the promise of the. servant's bringing light to the nations has been
fulfilled in Christ, it is thus incumbent on Paul and Barnabas to 1-etlect that light
on the-nations through their own preaching. By \~m1e ofthe church's relationship
to C hri st~ and because. the. promises fulfilled in him are. also fulfilled in and
through his church, when the servant-Messiah received Yahwe-h'scommission to
be light to the nations, so did the church.
3.5 Summmy
Acts 13 mm·ks a turning-point in the narrative of Acts. Up to t11is point in the
narrative the gospel has been proclaimed primarily to Jews, with Peter as the
primary spokesman. Beginning in Acts 1 3~ Peter disappe.ars f1'om sight (except
for Acts 15). Paul becomes the primary spokesman for the gospel, and he speaks
everywhere. to both Jews and Gentiles. The decisive change comes with the
citation oflsa. 49.6 in Acts 13.4 7. The summary of Paul's first journey in 14.27
foc uses exclusivc.ly on Ge.ntile response to the gospel. The account of Paul's
mission leads directly into the account of the council in Jerusalem that would
conclusively address questions relating to Gentiles and the church.
Isaiah's prophecy of the. ·servant' as ·a light to the nations' is echoed at least
three.times in Luke-Acts. The allusions in Luke 2.32 and Acts 26.23 are.applied
to Jesus and the salvation he brings to the Ge-ntiles. Jesus· universal minisny
arises in the context of opposition (Luke.2.32) and suffering (Acts 26.23)encoun-
te-I'Cd in his initial ministry to Israel. In the.explicit citation in Acts 13.47. the text
is applied to the ministry o f Paul and Barnabas. and through them to the church.
Although the initial point of contact between the servant and the apostolic
preache.rs is their common experience of fh tstration and failure in ministry to
Israel, the Ge-ntile mission is not me-rely a response to this rejection ofthe gospeL
but derives from the promise of God through Isaiah and is required by the
!heir rrjcction and nne-;t b)' kwish lca<krs in Jerusalem: theirbeing delivered b)' the kwish ofhcinJs
to Gentiks (luke 18.32: Acts 21.11).
fulfilment of that promise. in Jesus. (n light of the servant"s c.alling. Paul and
Barnabas cannot not p1·each Jesus to Gentiles. The.citation thus demonstmtes the
necessity of an intentional Gentile mis.sion.
3.5.1 Te.vt
The fonn of the citation is close enough to both the LXX and the.MT that it could
be de.rived from eithe-r. Luke exactly l'eproduce.s wording from the.LXX>but does
not follow it where it diverges (at least in some MSS) from the M T. There are no
substantive textual issues. however, in the portion cited. It is impossible to
determine. whethe1· the citation reflects a fres h rendering oftlte MT or an LXX .MS
closer to the MT than extant LXX MSS.
3.5.2 Hermeneutic
Although some have questioned whe-the1· Jsa. 49.6 envisions the extension of
God's saving work to Gentiles, we have seen that this is exactly what the text
indic-ates. l uke's citation of this text in Acts 13.47 to legitimate the. Gentile
mission is in keeping with the text"s ol'iginal contexn1al meaning.
Luke employs a Christocentric he.nneneutic in his interpretation and applica-
tion ofthe prophecy of the.servant and his work. Evidence from the rest of the.OT
leads us to expect that Yahweh's servant will be the object of Yahweh's special
regard and play a distinctive role in the accomplishment ofhis (saving) purposes.
In luke 2.32 and Acts 26.23. the prophecy is applied to Jesus, but in Acts 13.47
to Paul and Barnabas. In the former two ve-l'ses, we find the Christocentric he-1'-
meneutic of Luke 24.44 (•e.ve1yllting written about me in the Jaw of Moses and
the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled '). In Acts 13.47. the same henne.-
neutjc is employed, with the addition of a typological c.onnection between Christ
and his church (and particularly to the apostles as his official representatives).
Davidson's appropriated/ecclesiologic.al typology provides a conceptual frame-
work that illuminates 1he way that the text is applied.
3.5.3 Purpose
The citation oflsa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47 is employed to demonstrate the legitimacy
and necessity of an intentional Gentile mission. Paul appeals to this prophetic
text to justify his claim that Christ's messengers have been commissioned by the
lord to preach to Gentiles. While Peter had been directed to pre.ach in Comelius'
house (Acts 10-l l)and some had preached to 'Greeks' in Antioch (11.20), this
represents the first conscious decision by leaders of the church to preach to Gen-
tiles. at least as l'ecorded in the narrative of Acts. Such a significant and appm·-
ently unexpected step would not have. been taken apart from divine d irection. In
Acts 13.47. Paul claims he rec.eived just such direction, not through a vision like
Peter's (Acts I0)> but through the commission of Yahweh to his servant in Isaiah
49.6~ to be a light to the nations. Since Jesus had come in fulfilment of that com-
mission. the.church's (and particularly Paul's) active engageme.nt in the Gentile
mission is now an obligation. Paul (and Luke) uses the citation to de.monstrate this;
it functions as ·proof from prophecy· of the legitimacy of the Gentile mission.
The citation not only explains Paul's subsequen1 action in speaking again and
again to Gentiles. but it assures readers that this step is in keeping with the-plan
of God and required by that plan's fulfilment in Jesus. 111e appeal to scripture
legitimates this action both within the narrative and (thereby) for luke's readers.
The subsequent narrative. with the characterization of this missionary journeyas
one tl1rough which God 'had opened a door of f.1ith to the Gentiles' ( 14.27), sup-
pons the interpretation give-n to the cited text The citation, with the narrative of
the success of this initial Gentile mission. sets the stage for the-Jemsalem council
in Acts 15, where there.will be.a final decision on the basis on which Gentiles are
to be included among the people of God. That decision will also be. based on OT
prophecy. The c-areful crafting and evident focus of this section of Acts. includ-
ing these two important appeals to OT prophecy. indicate that the legitimacy o f
the Gentile mission and the basis ofGentHe. inclusion were matters of importance
for Luke and his intended audience.
4
THE K INGDOM AND T HE GENTILES (A~IOS 9. 11-12 IN ACTS 15.16-18)
The citation of Amos 9.11-12 in Acts 15.16.1 7 plays a c.entral role in the council
that settled a critical theological question: the basis upon which Gentiles were to
be admitted to the people ofGod.' Walte.r Kaiser has rightly called this impo11ant
passage a ' test passage for theological systems· .2 The-citation has anracted study,
but insufficient attention has been paid to the central argument, which is based on
the relationship between the.restoration of the-D<widic kingdom in Christ and the
Gentile mission.
4. 1 Text
Amru9.ll-I!JtT Amos 9.1/- J1 L..\.1' .4crs /5.16-l8(N.4-' 1)

163 IJE'Tix '!UC.ta
b Q:\t((CJ1'p6;to
n~l;:< 1"11 n:;~·r~.:; 0"!?15 b civaat~oro t~v cn : qvi}v C ).'Cit civott<000f.l ~O (l) t~V
.&uut&·t it\' nt:n-tmK t~iav OIOlvf)V Act tiib I!' ~V
JtCJ!' ,Ult; \i\ Cl\1
c Kal O:vot~~:o6op •lo ro -tix
>t£n·t uuc6t a a\af);
d Kttl 'lfx KCltEOICIXIJI.lf\'a d .:ct't .a .:cncaKo:iJp(vo:
aUt it; Ct\•aot l}a(l) aim)<; Uvot.:oOOIJQO(!)
< Kai O:von:o6op.~am a Oti}\• c ).'ct't O.vop&o)a maU.t q\'.
f .:aeci>; ai fu,tipm toil
aicfwo;
n·,x•-- !'t ;• , ... ,....,
.. y ..~ .. . ........ : : ., 11a O;ta~ (.:~tJ:n)amat\' oi 17a CY.tro; Ci\• (.:~q'T t)a (l)Ot\' oi
o:1t$ t.:a :t U/.OlltOI t li>V .:ctt til..otn01 ·t.Uv
O:vOpo)itav ci:\•9j)(lmmv t Ov .:-\iptov
x -:e~-~~ ~::<"':?'! b .-a·t1tU\•to: ·t U E&\'11· i;p' b .:cti ntivta <Tix i&Yll (tp'
c.y~~ ·~ oU; ( ;tt.:i.-.-l.q·ta• t OOvOf.lci o\)<; £c:tn:i.:/.1Fctl TO
J.lOIJ E1t. aUto~ 0\'o!J« IJOUi n' aOtoti;.
<: Airu .:Upto; 0 9E0; 0
1totc!w '!'a'U-t a.
I. 'For hc:rc.luke sa)'s. the problem of the Gentiles and lhc Gentile mission is once: and for aJI
dcci&d at a meeting in JentsaJe.m ofall the main figures in the earlychurch.· Wilson. Gt!mile Mi.tsion.
118.
2. Walter C. Kair.er. Jr.. 'The-Oavidic. Promise-and the l ndu~ion of the Gentiles (Amos 9.9 -IS
and Acts 15. 13-18}: A Test Passage for Theological Systems' . JETS 20 ( 19i7): 97- 111 .
4. Tlte Kingdom and the Gentiles 57
4.4.1 Amos 9. 11-12

The MT of Amos 9.11- 12 is well attested. BHS identifies no variant'! in the
Hebrew textual tradition ..i Two non-biblical texts from Qumran substin1te the
perfect "'rn:,·pm for the imperfect O'j?~· but this reflects the circumstances o f the
Qumran texts. not a different textual trndition.4 BHS proposes changing the.pro-
nominal suffixes in l ie (feminine pluraL10~~'1¥- 'their breaches') and l id (mas-
culine singular, 1'(it.~..:f1. 'his ruins') to feminine singular (as in l ie) to correspond
with the feminine ii~O in ' David 's f.11len hut'. (n both 11c and I Id the Greek text
(both the LXX and tl;e' NT) reads ctut~' (c.orresponding to the feminine OK11V~).
Commentators have ge~n erall}' followed the Greek and the BHS emendation.s But
not all commentators find it nece.ssary to emend the pronominal suffixes. Niehaus'
and NogalskF have independently o ffered convincing arguments against these
emendations, demonstrating plausible(constructio ad sensum) readings of the suf-
fixes as they stand and noting that other versions genemlly suppon the MT. Their
arguments. together with the principle o f accepting the more. difficult reading,
suppon retaining the suffixes as they stand in the MT.In any case, the suffixes will
not affect interpretation o f the citation.
The LXX text of Amos 9. 11-12 shows more variation. This includes transcrip-
tional or stylistic variants. such as £v tal~ ~.J.l£pctl~ £Kti\I<Xl~ for £v 1 fi ~j.lip~
t Kdvn (I I a), £.1cl;~·t tjoouoLV for 1\tt~rtt~oroo\V ( 12a). ttctttotp<XJ.lf.liva for
Katt<JKCXJJJ.liV. and the addition of tiv to Ott(i};.sThere are also minor differ-
ences from the MT of Amos 9.1 1-12. In addition to the feminine singular (aUti\~)
for the feminine. plural in 11c and masculine singular in 11d. two distjnct verbs
('1';,1!~! in l ie and ~~~q;1 in l le) are. translated by CtVOlKOSOJ,n )aro,9 and the
3. Amos 9. 11-12 is preserved in oni)· one of the biblic-al scrolls from Qumran (Mur. 88. col.
VIII) ond only in a fragmentory fom1. 11le only textual question on which lhe frnpnau is able to ~
any light is in''· lid. where the 1mscuJinc- singular pronominal suffix ckarlyappcllrs.. Picrtt Benoit et
al.. Lcs gro/lesde Murabbo "ai (2 vols.: 010 II: Oxford: Clarendon Press. 196 1). pl. LVIII.
4. 4Q174 (4Qf lor) ond co•. Bolh citation.-. arc pft'C(lled by on introductory fonnulo. : 1ro ~;:·x:.
(.fQ174 l l) or 1:Zl". 1:;1'0 (CO". VII, 16). In both ~: ·o is wriucn fully and. in 4Q 174. 1T'lond rb~~J.1
are written fu ll)'.
5. See lhc list in James D. Nogalski. ·r he Problematic Suffi:tcs of Amos IX 11 •. JT 43 ( 1993):
417. n. l.
6. Jclfcr)' Nithaus. 'Amos', in The J11iiUN Prophea: An E:regi"lical om/ E.tpOsilionol Comrmmtnry
(ed. 11lon1a.s Ed..,'ard McComiskcy: 3 \'ols.: Grand Rapids: Bal:e.r. 1992). 490.
1. Nogafski. 'Suflixcs•.
&. Stylistic. possibl)•:uchaizing. interests ma)' have prompted the addition of Uv. E:ul Richard.
'The Creotiw.Useof Anl0$bythc-Author of Acts·. NottT 24 ( 1982): 46: Ruslllll. D<ts Alte Te:itollwnt
bd Utkas. 426. The genernl trend is thot ·O.<to:; has largely lost its Uv in NT'. JomecS Hope Moulton
ct aL A Grnmmur rifi'v.E'II' Tes/amem Greek(4 vols.: Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark. 1996-99). 3.105. Stt
also BDF. §369(5).
9. Fruncis I. An~iersco and David Nod Freedmsn. Amos: A New Tmnslatio11 with tmrod1~1ion
111td Commelllary (AB 24A: New York: Doubleday. 1989). 890. Adno notC;S the repeated paltem
Uvucn ~O (l) . .. Uvot..:o&op~O(l) in I I b-e and l id--c. and :ugucs thot lhc re-ndering is stylisticoJI)'
moti,·attd. JoSlein Adn:t. ·James' Position ot the Summit Meetingoftbe.Apostle;s and Elders in Jm-
salcm (Ac.Js 15)'. in T11e Mission (Jfllll! Ear~v Clmrrlr UJ Jt!II'S and Gentiles (cd. Jostein ..-\dna and
Hans K,·oibein: Tiibingcn: Mohr Sicbcck. 2000), 129- 30.
singular ::N; is rendered as the plural 't<tiha-in 12c. 10 The exlemal evidence
favours the omission ofO 6t0~ (leaving Ai"(€1 K'\JptO; 0 1tO\(i)v teti>t<X) in 12c
and so contra Rahlfs. the GOttingen Septuagint rightly omits it. 11
Much more striking and sip:nific-.ant differences appear in 12a. where the LXX
reads oJtro:; tiC~llt~aroacv 01 KatoiA.otltOt t&v &vaproJtrov ("so that the rest of
mankind will seek' 11) for t:h~ :'i"'!~q-r;~ ~::i!O.: JX!1~7 ("that they may possess the
J'enmant of Edom '). While there are minor variants within the LXX tradition, no
extant ~tss are close1· to the r-.rr. Some MSS supply an object for iK'~fl1t\aroat..v
by inserting J.f£ after the verb or 't0v KUpwv follo\\~ng ttv6p<bnrov. These com-
peting ·solutions' suggest that the original lacked the object,l-l. a more difficult
reading that would readily explain the additions. While the-secure text of Acts
15.1 7 provides an additional witness to10v cipwv~ it seems most likely that the
LXX original lacked the object.
The larger question is wh}' the- LXX diverges in this way from the MT.I f, with
most scholars. we. view the LXX reading as derived from the MT. we can distin-
guish four changes: .:ij• became i te\'Jlt£ro: the object o'i"i;:.; ii"'!~·:;f-:i~ became the
.subj~ct; J:·i"i~ became.c-:t.~: an~ the singular ii"!~;;;i and o:l~ became lhe plurals oi
KtttaAotrrot and t<Ov avepronrov.u The Vulgate. n.~ding ul possideaut reli-
qttias ldumeae. follows the MT.
lvlost commentators begin with the verb.15 h is commonly thought that the
translator read t:;i;• ('possess', ' inherit' . 'dispossess') as :hi ('seek', 'enquire'),
mb'1akenly reading y6d in place of dt?!et, whether because of their similar
appearance 1~ or bec-ause of an unclear or damaged original (only here. have the
LXX translators rende.red d~ as EK\YJ't€:.00). The change-may also have.been made
intentionally by a translator who felt that the usual translation of :;.,- by
KAt1_POVOJ.liro was not appropriate here.17
10. 111is is noc uncommon. partlc.u lari)' with a b'Cneru.lizin:; sense. It appears in four of sevt'n
occ-umncc:-s of !i.~ in Aroos (2.11: 8.4. 8: 9. 11 ).
II . Jose-ph Ziegler. Det-Odn:im Proplretae (Scptuaginta: Vctus Tc:-stamentumGraecum 13: GOttin-
gen: Vandenllocck & Rupre-cht. 1984). 'God' coul-d be understood as impli-cit in the l·kbrcw ·:7"11. but
not in the Gre-ek Ctc~tltio. prompting Lhis ·filling in• of the Greek text. Sabine Niigcle.lAethhiittt>
D(wids mrd rl'o/kt>IUObn: eine atJSiegwrgsgescbiclllliche Studie Ztl Amos 9.11 in der jridi.u-he1111nd
chriJIIir'hen £fegese (AGJU24: Lcidc:n: Brill. 1995). 88.
12. 11le 11anslation 'men' ha.s been rctaiocd onlywt.cn explicitly citing R.SV. Otherwise. following
recent ' 'er.>ions (e.g. JB. rev. t:SV) it has b«n rendered a.s 'mankind'.
13. Ahhough i-~flt(ro may occur without ao object (e-.g. Oeul. 17.4: Josh. 2.22: Judg. 6.29: Ps.
9.25, 34). it normally (and much •no~- frequcnlly) tnkcs an object in tile accusatl\'e-.
14. Despite the usscrtion of de Waard. there-is no eYilknce that a distinctive l'or!ugt? of this
scc•ion of Amosc\'er circulated. Jan de- Waard. A Compomtin• Study<!(tM OldTt?stamem Te:rt ill tire
/karlSt•a Sc.rollsaml i111ire ."-r~w Te.ila!IWJit (STD.! -1: Lc:~den: Brill. 1965). 25. 78. Following de Waard
is Michael A. Braun. ' James' Use- ofAmos at the Jerusulem Council: Steps toward a Possibk Solu-
tion of !he Te~tualand 111eologic.uJ Problems' . JETS20 ( 1977): 116-11 7.
15. Bam.n.Arts. 2.727: Rlohard Baud:ham. ' James and the- Jerusalem Church'. in 71re Btwk of
Acts in ib· Paleslinitm Selting(e-.d. Richard Bauckham: Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1995). 4.455: Bruce.
Acts (rev. edn.). 2?4.
16. 'In t.hc history of the transmission of the OT there was a time when dandy '-''<C< \'inuaJly
indistinguishable.' Braun. 'lllme.s· Usc of Amos'. 117.
17. Karen H. Jobes and MoisC-s Sil\'a, bn'italion 10 1he St!pfl/(/gillt (Grand R.apids: Bak<r. 2000).
The object clause, o'l1~ n,!~:;f-~":!- then became the subject (f the text initially
became corrupt through nlisreadjng ·::i-1, as·::ii"i. 01tro~ h~~'lltt)oroO\V tOv K<t'tci-
i.Ol1t0\' ISou~cxia.~ would have been puzzling. The post-exilic community \Vould
not ·seek' the remnant ofEdom in the way it worships and ~;>rays to Yahweh. 111 (t
has been suggested that the translator may have read ;"!~ as "~-~~ read n~ instead
as iii~ ('him') or ·ijx ( 'mc.').10 ignored the-object marke.r2 1 o;· understoOd it djf.
ferently.12 However 1he change arose.• e-ither verb(~~'!': or ~;·n:) requires an
object: 'that the remnant of£dom will possesslseek' has no clear meaning.
Many c.ommentators assume. that o1"'7~ was misread as c;:;;, due to their sup-
posed identity in che consonantal text. The waw, however, normally appears in
' Edom' and should prevem reading Oi"'7* as C"i"i:;;.:n wbw is clearly present in
extant Hebrew MSS. including the fragmentmy copy of Amos among the Dead Se-a
Scrolls.~--~ It may be that the translator's text was defective. or was faded. soiled or
damaged, so that the wUh• was not visible, but this c.annot be proven. It is also pos-
sible that the translator interpreted the. text, believing that ' the remnant of man-
kind' in 12a was a more natural parallel to ·an tl1e nations' than 'the remnant o f
Edom'.25 or that Edom. as one o f Israel's most persistent enemies. was to be
195. ' Possessing·. i.e. "ruling ove-r'. might hll\'e seemed mote appropriate than 'inheriting' Edom in the
context of a revived O:tvidic. kingdom.
t 8.. The tcm1 is used in this sense in about u dozen of three dozen instances in the LX.Xof lhc
prophets. including Amos 5.4: lsu. 9. I 2 MT: Jcr. 10 .21: Hos. 5.6: Zc.:h. 8.2 I (the last two translating
=t; : rather than -.;""11). The: sc-nseof·sc-an:hing for something· (e. g. Ezd:. 3-4.8) is possibk. ifEdom is
viewed as. desltoycd in judgement ("look nnd see if you ean find anylhing k ft of Edom"). but it is
unlikely that this wauld apply to ·all the nations who are called by my name•.
19 . Braun. 'James' Use of A1nos~. 117: Rainer Riesncr. · l-arnes's Spocc.h. Simeon's l~ )'mn. and
Luke's SouKcs'. in Jl!sus (}/N(t:(treth: Lord tJIId Christ (cd. Joel B. G«"c-n !lnd Ma:t Tumc:r: Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994). 171. This m!ly m!lke bcttergrammatieuJ sense-. bu1the meaning would still
be unc1C3r:md we would not lind LXX missing the object or trying to compk tc.the thought by suppl)·-
ingiJE or·tOv ..-Uptov. Adna. · James'. 137. No LXX MS supplic-s ·tOv 9t0vas 11 missing direct objec-t
20. Archer und Chirichingo. 0 1' Quotwimts. I55. Some LXX MSS. \'ctsions. and fathers supply the
dircc.t object ·me', btu lhis uppeurs to be the resuh ofcopyist.; attempting to impnwe the sens.: by
supplying the object they c:tp«tcd to find (cf. the similar addition of tCw ..-Upto\• in Acts t 5.1711).
2 1. Jobes and Sih·a, Jn~'if(llioll. 194.
12. Somc grJmm:uiuns believe: thut n!:'ooc:uionally appc:us. noc :tS thc.JIO·/a aoc1uatil'i. but with
the subject (or as IU\ indicutor of cmph:uls}. making it possible that Ci1'i~ ::'1''1t-:::i-r~ w·as genuinely
understood to be the subjec-t by the--LXX trnnslator(s). H.4LOT. 101: G KC. §II i i- m: Christo \'lin der
~krwe e111L .4 Bib/ic(tl llehrew Rt;/i!rence Gnmmwr (Sheffie-ld: Sheffickt Acndc-mie P~. 1999).
247; Wahkc and O'Connor. Ji)'IIUlX. §10.3.1. For lhc contrary. S« Takomitsu Muraok!l. Emphatic
Words and SJruc/ttiY!.f in Biblical Hebn:n· {ktuSlkm: Magncs Press. 198;). 158.
23. · Defi-'Ctire spc-lling ofEdom is unknown in the MT (c:\:ccpt for the gentilic form). but it is pos-
sible that tim survivc.d to thc ~ime of the-LXX alongside of tlwm.' Anckrsc-n and Frecdmun, Amos.
890. The noun occurs four times c-urlier in the book {1.6. 9. II : 2.1). enc-h time appropriatd )' trans-
lated as IOoup.aia.
24. Mur. 88. Sce Bcnoil ct al.. Les groues. 188 and pl. LVIII.
25. Mc-Lay suggests that 1hc lranslution may huve bcc.n inRucnecd by the ' minor lhemc. of the
l\'IC'h·c prophets• that. following the: restomion of Israel. the Gcntiks would sec-k Yahweh {cf. Zcch.
8.10·23: Mic. 7.17). R. Timothy Mcl a)'. Th~ Uu- of tile Sepruagi11t in New Teswme11t Research
(Grand Rapids: Ee>rdmnns. 2003). The LXX translators frequently intc.rpretc.d und applied the texl.
Jobe-s and Silva. l11viwtio11. 2 I -22. 9 3- 10 1.
understood as a representative of them all.26

Once the object cii~ :~·!~;t-n:::; has become the subject and t:·ii~ has become
<iv6pumo-;, the change.· fro m singular to plural is the least difficult{(, explain. At
least 160 times (over onc-ct_UaJ1er o f all occurrenc.es). the LXX translates llle fre-
quently collective ·=:r~ as tt\J6p001tOt. Similarly. i'r")·~~· is translated more than
half the time. by a plural noun or participle (as here).
Bauckham. Adna and N5gele have recently argued that the LXXofv. J2a does
not depend on a now-lost Heb1·ew Vorlage or on tra.nsmissional errors. but must
be undetstood in the contc.xt of the exegetical practices of the day as an instance
o f 'al tiqre 'or 'implicit' midrash. Bauckham argues that those who think the.LXX
mist·eads the Hebrew
entirely mi!rundcrstand the '!>.'a)' in which Jewish cxco;csis of this pc.riod created «he-
biblic.aJ text as the. Dead Sea Scrolls in particular ha\'C- now made clear to us. A Jewish
Christian familiar both with the- Hebrew and the LXX of this \•erse would not regard tht-
laucr as a misreading of the He-brew ... . But in a case suc.h as ours. it is scarcely
pos::ible todistin!,,'Uish a \•ariant text which ha:s arisen accidentaJJy in lhC' lransmissioo of
the text from one which results from t.hc exegctic-.al practice ofdclibcr.ucl)' reading the
text differcntl)' by means of ::null changes (known as 'lll riqri- · in later rabbinic.
tem1inology). The ·misreading· of the He.brew text presupposed by the LXX of Aroos
9. 12 is quite-compamble with nuny e:umplcs of deliberate ·ahemati"e-rCilding:;• ( (t/
tiqr~ ·)in tbe-Qumran peshsrim. n
The argument. however, cuts both ways. If ' it is scarcely possible to distinguish a
variant text from one which resuJts from the exegetical practice known as "a/
tiqri! ... then it is equally possible that we m.ay have a misreading or an alterna-
tive original. Howeve-r. in the absenc.e of an extant Hebrew Vorlage that supports
the LXX. we must assume that the translators have deliberately inteq>rete.d the
text for Diaspora readers who might be more interested in a believing ·remnant'
26 . Kaiser. 'Oavidic. Promise'. 103.

27. Richard Bauckhmn. 'James and the Gentiles (Acts 15-.13-21)'.in HistoJJ', Litemtu1~. a11d Soci·
ety iJI the Book ofACis ted. Ben Witherington Ill: Cambridge: Cambridge Univer::ity Press. 1996).
160-61: Bauc.kham. ·James and the Jerusalem Churc.h•. 455- 56. S« also Jostcin Adn:t. 'Die Heiligc
Sc.htift als Zcuge <kr licidenmission: Die Re.zep(ion ' 'on Amos 9.11- 12 in Apg 15.16-18'. in £wm-
geliwn. Sc.hrijlauJ!t'gung, Kirc!Je (e-d. Jostein Adna et al.: GOuin~o.cn: Vande.nhocd & Ruprc-.:hL
1997). 1- 23: Adna. 'J-llmC$'. 131: Nigck. Loubhi1Jte lXwids. 104. ' Implicit midrosb• is from Elli$..
'Biblical Interpretation·. 70 3-06: Edw•ard Eark Ellis. 'Midrash. T:trgumand New Testament Quota-
tions·. in Neotestamemica et Sc-mitica (cd. Edw:ud E:trle Ellis and Mil~ Wilcox: Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark. 1969). 62. 'Many a variant of the LXX may indeed not go bad to 11 \'ariant in the Hebre-w
texLS whi' h was trandatcd. but mcrcl)· represent an interpretation of that text. yet it must be ques-
tioned whether this holds good ofall ' 'ariants and ofdisplacements of texts and pans of texts.' DoC\'e.
kwish Hrrmem-'lflics. 117. ·rn those instances in which the LXX differs from the m:c-ivcd or ~far.o
rc-tic Te-Xt. it may have b«n bce.lluse ofa different text. but it may a]so have.resulted from the transla-
tion style. or tendcnti31 cone<ms.. or the auempt to h~~tmonizc parolkl pawgcs.' Jacob Ncusncr.
What is Midnuh?(GHS; Philadelphia: fortress. 1987). 24.Others S«ing midrasfljc tendencies in the
L\;X include Johnson.Septll(lgintal Midrwh: Emanuel TO\'. 'The Septuagint'. in Mi'knr: Text. Tmru··
lati(JII, Rrodi11g and ln!erprcUllioll ofthe Hebmv Bible in Andelll Judaism and Ear~v ChJ'iJiirmity
(c-d. :O.f:utin Jan Mulder: CRINT 2. 1: Assc-n: Van Gorcum. 198.8), 177- 78.
from the. Gentiles than in the reassertion of political sovereignty over Edom.2"
Still. it is unclear why an inte-rpreter. having already exercised some freedom in
rendering the text. would not go ahead and supply the direct object that £K~f}
tftaroatv requires. Ne.ve11heless, despite minor variants in the LXX MS tradition.
the rendering 'that the rest of mankind may seek' mus.t be regarded as the e~"tab
lished LXX text.
4 .1.2 Acts 15. 16-18

Although the citntion in Acts 15.16-18 appears to follow the LXX, especially in
reading 01!</J, &v tlt~~tftaromv oi KCit<XAol1tOt t&v av6poittrov (adding the
object. tOv KUplOv). it also differs fronl the LXX at a numberofpoints.29
We can first dispe.nse with several minor variants. In 16b. only Dreads S.nt.-
atp£'1fc.> for avaatp£'1fc.>.» The alternative readings for KtXt£0KlXIt~£va ( 16<1)
follow those in the.LXX.31 The evidence for 6 before ttot6)v in J7c is divided, but
the difference is of little. consequence. Acts adds &vaatpio/OO (and Kctl, J6b}.
substitutes avotltOOO!I~Oro for avaot~aro ( 16c.. d)" andsubstitutes avop66laro
for <ivonwSo~~aro in 16e (cf. Amos 9.11e},lJ but none o f these alters the sense.
The omission of Amos 9. 11 f, Ka6ro' a i ~~£pat toil ailiivo,, may be due. to
conscious adaptation. James does not appeal to the prophecy merely to indicate
the restoration o f things ·as in days o f old ', but to demonstrate-that God is doing
something new.lJ
28. The L'X Xreading 'chi•ne$ in with the hope of man)' Jews of the-dispersion tlllt Gemib would
.sed: and lind the true-God'. Fn:dcrid; F. Bn•«. 'Prophc:ctc lnterprclation in the Septuagint~. 8/0SCS
12 (1979): 17.
29. Hohz notes that ,.. li adheres c-lose-ly to the L'\X ('e-in ganz genaues Zilat'}. while,.. 16
departs significantly from iL Holt..:. Umi!rsuchungell. 23-25. Ellis has noted that oJJ nine of the Nf
quotations that include-I.Eyu .:Upto; ·,·nry. to one extent or another. both from lhc LXX and dlC
M.T.' Edward Enrle Ellis. · Ai·(E I K\ipto~ Quotations in the NewTestamcnt'. in Propileq and J/er-
mertt'llfic in £or~1~ Chrisliani(l' (Grand Ropids: Eerdmans. 1978). 182.
30. The ,·erbi&u npi!p(f) is more common. occurring: IS times in luke-Acts and 18 more in the
rest of the-NT. while O:vacnpi;pcl) occurs only twice in Ac.ts and seven times in the rtSt of the NT.
31. 11lis is the judgement oft.hc- editors of NA!T and UBS•. However. the differen t ooncfusionof
Tischc:ndorf. WJ-1 and NAJ$ nce<ssitates a measure of humility.
32. This lll3)' reftcc-t Luke's desire to ~"~mrve Ctvionuu for the resutroction of Christ Richard
notc.s th!lt the verb is used intr;ansitivcly nine times in Aci.S. six with reference to the: resurrection of
Christ !lnd thm" with reference to Ocut. 18. 15. Ricltard. 'Crtative usc·. 47: ' Divine: Putpo!iC'. 206. n.
38.. Baud:ham :ugucs th!lt 1he substitu1ion of U\-ot.:oOop~aro for itvuan}a cn he.re c.learly ~hows
that Amos 9. 11 is 1101 employed hc.re as a prophecy of Christ's re~urrcction (cmttra Haenchcn).
Bauckham. ·James and the Gentiles'. 157. The verb li\•OtKoOO).U}acn !lppears to be-bo~rowcd from
Amos 9. 11c. which is omitted in Acts toyidd achi!lsm. lndoingso.Acts breaks the symn'ICU)'ofthc:
LXX (0:\•ctan\om . .. O:voucoOOJl ~O m .. . Q:\•ctcm\a m . .. 0:\•ou.:oOoJ.n\o (l)). (Bauckham bclic\'CS
9.llc isomit1edbccat.tSe it'suggests more strongly the walls ofacitythan those of n temple.' . although
this a-ssumes that LXX is nol the basis of the c:it:1tion. Bauckham. ·James !lnd t.hc Gc.ntiks'. 160.)
33. If Uvot ..-oOO~ti,ao W'as substituted for Uvuo·tlloro for thcologicaJ reasons.a diffe-rent word
may hsYe been sought in 16c-for stylistic rta!:Ons. Mcl ay's suggestion thai ci\•op&Oa rc.flects the
promise regarding David's ' house' in 2 Sam. 7.13. 16(0:\•op&ci)ocn tOvep.Ovo\' aU.toU)eannot be
substantiated. t>.klay. Use, 26-21.
34. Mclay argues thai.. ·sinoe the new situation brou.g,ht about through Christ could not ha\'C
Some have claimed that the indefinite pluralnpoq>t)tOOv indicates conflation

o f words from more than one prophet.JSHowever, the plurnl1tpOc:p11.'t(i)v appears
in citation fommlas in Acts 7.42 (trov ttpOq>l)trov, c iting Amos 5.25-27) and
13.41 (EVtot~ ttpo'P1\tctt~. citing Hab. 1.5). where there is no evidence of con-
flation with other texts. lake and Cad bury rightly uude1·stand Acts 15.1 5 to refer
to "the roll of the Twelve Prophets'.J.6
Nevertheless, a number of scholars have claimed that portions of the citation
are taken from other prophetic texts)' Verse. 16a has pe'ttt tctirtet in place of the
more common tv 'tfi ·wi~ £Ktivn (straightforwardly representing MT o~··;
X)i1i:;).l:i Verse 16b (itvaotp£\ffro) is an addition to Joel. One pi'Oposed source is
Hos. 3.5a. which has ~ua tail1a and 8etutS (although both occur elsewhere.).
irn.atpto/OUOt\1 (not the less common &vaa1pi'tfO>. which differs in person
and number), and E1tt~l)t~ooootv (not the more common tite~tlt~C!01lC!tV).In
Hosea. it is the people who return. not Yahweh. Jeremiah 12.15-16 is concerned
with the eschatological incorporation of the nations in the people of God; it
includes ~£tel (but not tttiita), intatpeiJiro (not c'tvaotpeiJI~l), and (42 words
later) oiKo50J..1tl&~oovtcu (not the active and le.ss common ttvotKOOOJ.li(l)).J<J
Holtz has suggested there may be a reflection ofZech. I. J6,.co which speaks of the
t'estoration of the temple. but again £1tt.Ot pi'Vro is not <ivaotpi'f'OO and other
texts also share the word <ivoa:oOo!Jtro.-H These similarities are too slight to
make a convincing case-for borrowing Ot' contlation.J2 Barrett and Richard have
existed in a fom~r time .. . lhc reference to lite days ofold would not ha\"e conllibutcd to l.he point
being made'. ).tcLoy. U.w. 29.
35. Adm. 'Jame~'. 133: Withc.rington. Am . 459.
36. Frr<krick J. Foakc~ Jack~on and Kirsopp Lake. cds.. The Beginnings ofC/wUticmily, Pon 1:
Thf! Ac-1s ofthe Apostles(.S \'ok: London: ).facmillan. 1920-33: rcpr., Grand Rapid~: Baker. 1979).
4 .1 76. Sec also Johnson. At'ts. 264: Marshall Aci.S. 252. The only citation from lhc Twelve that is
more precisd)· introduced isthe.loogthycitation from Jod (Acts2.16-2l ). Like ol.hcr quolntious luke
.sharC$ with tht-synoptic.s. the quol!ltion of ).fal. 3. 1 (Luke 7.27 1 Mark 1.2) docs not indicate the
source.
31. Adm. ·oie H tili gcSchrift'.S~: ·James'. 133- 34: Baockhmn. ' James and the Gentiles•. 163-
64: Clarke. ·usc'. 2.94.
38.. The expression N.i11;:1 o·•; occurs O\'er 100 times in the prophcts(.Lranslated ohnost always by
iv-ttl ~~fpq: i .:Ei\•n or a closc variant). The expression Jit:tCt t a\lta i~ used only fout timcs in the
LXX of lhc prophets for thc.esdtatological future. each time !IS a tr.LttSlation of -.(>~ or t;.- Y.!~ (Hos.
3.5: 1ocl 3. 1: !sa. 1.26: k r. 21:1: cf. Gen. 15.14}. ltappC'ars fout tin~s in t.he t-'T (Acts 7.7: Heb. 4.8.: I
Pe-l. 1.11: Rev. 20.3).
39. MeLoy finds ·no demonsltllblc-lexKal dependence of t.hc quote. in AcH on the quote in Jere-
miah'- andj udges :my connection to be based upon ·extremely tenuou~ rcosoning'. Mclay. Use. 18.
40. Hohz. Unt~nuclumgen. 25.
41. .\falachi 1.4 also has i matpiv ro. civou.:o60f.t(0 and /.EyEt l.'l)pta.;. but there wflat 'God
S<I)'S' is that he will PfC\'at l the Edomitc~ from succocding in their plans to rcutm and ((build. Jert>-
miah 1.10 shores a. .ot.:o6opio and t>«:ta<n:O Jt t(:!l with Acts 15.16-IS. but thissimply('$tablishes
that these two verbs arc.natur.dly associated (as opposites). There is no indic ation in Acts IS ofbor-
rowing or the conll!ltion of e-ither with Amo~ 9. 11· 12.
42. Thus N3ge!c•s c.onclusion that · t~re arc no litcrul quotations of olhcr Scripture~· . Niig<lc.
Laubh1itte Dcn·id.s, 81- 81. 229.
observed that the substin1tion in 16a is reversed in 2. 17. where Acts reads Ka't
t otttt £v tttl~ £oxcmxt~ ~~epttt~ in plac.e of~ua tttiittt (Joel 3. 1 LXX) ."
suggestjng that there was some interchangeability in these expressions..u Once
we have recognized the likelihood of other stylistic adaptations in the citation.
there is no need to explain these differences by strained connections to additional
texts. As Richard concludes (in rejecting an allusion to Jer. 12.15), ' Luke'scom-
positional techniques and thematic concems provide sufficient explanation for
this modification.'JS And the relevance of the text for the argument in Acts 15
does not depend on these particular words.
The concluding words, t aUtet yvroatix.&.n' eti&vo~, arc somewhat problem-
atic. There are numerous varinnts.-'6 The editors of NA- 7 and UBS.! have wisely
chosen the shorter re.ndingas the original tcxt.HThe words do not appear in Amos
9 in any known MT or LXX MS. It has been suggested that they may be an edito-
rial comment to the effect that 'this has been God's intention all along' .48 Many
fi nd a reference to Isa. 45.21 ," but btoit)O£V t etiittt aJt· apxi\' (Jsa. 45.21) is
not a pa11icularly close paralle.l and there is no clear reason for its addition here.50
Others suggest that the phrnse is a free adaptation of the.otherwise omitted. .:a.O<i>~
a \ ilJ.t£pat:t oi> cd(i)vo~ from Amos 9. 1 1t~St No entirely satjsfactory explanation
has been offered.
It has been argued that Acts 15.16 independently reproduces a n alternative
Hebrew Vorlage, evident in the citations of Amos 9.1 I at Qumran (4Q 174 I I
and co• VH. 16}. 'The text fonn of the Amos quotation in Acts d iffers from that
of the MT and the LXX. but it is exactly identic.al \\ith that of 4QF1or. '" In fact.
43. Barrett. Acts. 2.125: Richard. ·crcati\'t-Usc·. 47. Sct-alsothesubstilution oft.~n ix tct\Jta in
7.7 for iv t4> i~ayaydv at :rOv Aa6v JlOU Et; Ai'{U:n ou fro m Exod. 3.11 .
44. ·rhe two temporal c-lements sc.:m to hrwt-b«'n interchanged according to the author's nt.:ds.'
Richard. ·creati\·t Usc·. 47. n. 23.
45. Richard. ·crc.atiw Usc:'. 48. n. 27.
46. Rcub.:n Swnnson, td.. T11e Acu (}fthe Apostles. in New Tt·sramem G1W!k Mamtscriprs: l'ari-
ant RrodingJ Anrmgetfin Hori.:.onral Li11es Agaiml Cotfe·x ralicanus(Shcffield: Sheffield Ac-ackmic
Pres!>. 1998).162.
47. ·rhc: rc-11d.ing ... is so dlipti~al an c:tpl'r$.Sion that copyisiSmade variousauc-lllp(s to recast lhc
phtose. rounding: it out as an independent stat<mc:nt' ).f'-'1zgcr. Te.rtual C.ommemory. 379.
48.. ·s ince the.quotation from Am 9. 12 ends witfl ·taUt«. the concluding words nrc James's
comment' Mecz.gcr. Te.~rual Commelllt.IIJ'. 379.
49. Huub ''an de Sandt. ·An Expl-anation of Acts 15.6·1 1 in the: Lig}u of Dc:utaonomy 4.20-JS
(LXX)'.JS.VT46 (t992): 8t- 84.
;o. ·Thc:re is liulecontnct bclweenour quo1ation and Is 45.21 in the LXX.· George:-0. Kilpatrid .•
·somc:-Quo!ations in Acts'. in l.es ..fetes des .4p61N's: Trodiri(}IU. ridoC'fion, t/re(}logie(ed. J. Kremer.
BETL 48: lett\'<n: J. Ouculot. 1979). 84. So nJso Bam.n. ~1cts. 1. 728: Mclay. UJe: Niigek
Laubh1ittt> Dtwids. 88-89.
51. Toy. Q11ottdiolls. 122. · In free. scripru~ quotation (and that ' 't -r.>c: of Amos has b«"n frody
quoted inn. 16) lukt and presumably othcn; often tmnsfcra phrase: from one part ofa quotalion to
another. The: He-brew paraJklism knt i1sdf to such transfe-r of phrn.ses.' Fookes Jackson and l ake:.
cds.• Beginnings. 4.1 76- 77. Sec. also Jacques Dupont. ...Je rcb:i1irai Ia cabone de Da,·Ki qui est
1ombCe" (Ac-15.16 - Am 9. 11 )'. in Glaube und Esdratol(}gii' (cd. Erich Gr'.issc:r and Otto Me:ric
Tiibingcn: J. C. B. Mohr. 1985). 25: Niig:clc. Umblttittt' Da~ids. 85.
52. Waard. Compamtiw Siudy. 25. cf. 78. Set also George J. Brool:e. Exegesis at Qumra11:
the differences are less than are claimed.5) The introductol)' formulas difter in the
two Qumran fexts5" and are employed commonly enough in l uke-Acts in any
case. The adaptation of~ttiiYp-ii(whw plus perfect) in place.ofthe impe-rfec-t O'lf.'~
would only be evident in the ~cxi in Acts 15.16c, which is requil\."<1 in any case by
the addition o f <ivcxo:t pi\Vro at the beginning of the quotation (and already
pre$ent in Koi ftvotK'OSOJ.n]aco in the LXX of Amos 9.11c. which is otherwise
omitted from Acts 15.16)."
With the exception ofv. 18. then. the text of the citation in Acts IS is relatively
secure. The rextual form of the citarion appears closer to the. LXX than che MT.
The amendment a1the beginning (~t-tix. taUta). the addition at the end (yvroo:·t ix
&.n' airovo-;). and the alterations in v. 16 suggest that the autho1· is citing freely.
possibly without a copy of Amos 9 before him.56
4.2 Amos 9.11- 11

The prophecy of Amos is set in the.first half of the eighth ce-nnuy BCE, during the
reigns of Jeroboam II of Israel and U:aiah of Judah. the :Silver Age.of Israelite
histot·y' '' The advances of the Assyrian king Adad-nirari Ill (8 11- 784) had
serio-usly \Veakcned the Ammaean power to Israel's north. Although Israel became
tributary to Assyria. neither Adad-nirari nor his successors were able to consoli-
date their authority over Syro-Palestine. With the weakening of Damascus, both
Israel and Judah enjoyed almost unprecedented political and economic pi'Ospcr-
ity.:.s The period, however, was also one of advanced moral and spirimal bank-
ruptcy. Amos and his contemporary. Hosea. condemned the nonhern kingdom for
murder (Hos. 4.2). adultety (Hos. 4.2. 12-1 5: Amos 2.7-8). theft and deceit (Hos.
4.2: Amos 5.10), oppression and injustice (Hos. 10.13: Amos 2.6-7; 4. 1; 5.11; 8.4-
6), bribery (Amos 5.12). drunkenness (Hos. 4. 11: Amos 2.8; 4.1: 6.6), superficial
spirintality (Hos. 6.6; Amos 4.4-5; 5.21 -27). faith in military power (Hos. 10.13).
.fQFioril~ium ill i t.f Ji"wi.\·/r Comett (JSOTSup 19: Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1985}. 210-11: Riesncr.
·James's Spc«h' . 271 .
53. F. F. Bmc-C' argue$ that ·it lakes more than the omission of "in thai day" and the insertion of
"and'' before ..J will (re)build" to provide nn adequate basis for such a C<()llclusion: Bruce. Acts (Greek
Text. 3rd edn.). 340. See also Chaim Rabin. The Zadokili! Dommt'Fit.'i (2nd n:v. ed:n.: Oxford: Clar-
endon Pres!>. 1958). 29: Mnnin Stowas.-.c-r. ·Am 5.25-27: 9.11 f. in dcr Qumraniibcrllefcrung und in
dcr Apostd gcsohichtc'. ZNW 92 (2001): 47- 63.
54. The introduc.tor)' formula ·as it is wrinen' (prcse.nt in 4QI 74. but ·as he said' in CD") is
common cnou£h. The-re is no need to hypothcsile that a text with this fonnula must lie behind Acts
15.16.
55. Adna argues for an ahcrnati,·e Hebrew rorluge behind Acts 15.17_but conocdes that 'on irs
own' the case is ·very specul-ative'. and isrcndcrcd ·more likely' only in light ofthc suwoscd J'orlage
lying behind I5. 16 (view«l a.s established,>. Adn!l. ·Jarnc:s'. 138.
56. B:urc.tt believes this is 'probably a simple gloss rathe-r than an additional quotati-on'. B:mctL
Acts. 2.128.
51. Shalom M. Paul. .4mos: A Comme11tory o11rlte Book ofAmo.f (Hcrmc-ncia: Minru:apolis: For-
tress. 1991). L
58. John Bright. A Hi:i(O(I' offsrael (Philadelphia: Wcstminsler. t 972). 253- 55.
idolatry (Hos. 4. 17; 8.4: 10.5-6: 11.2; 13.2: Amos 2.4). and Baal worship (Hos.
2.8; 7.16: 13.1). After announcingjudgement on surrounding nations (Damascus.
Gaza, Tyre. Edom. Ammon>Moab) in 1.3-2.3. Amos announces God·s judge-
ment on Judah and then. at gt-eater length, on lsrael for its many sins. ' Thus says
the LORD: ''For three tmnsgres.~io n.s of Israel, and for four.l will not revoke the
punishment""' (2.6; ct: 7.8-9: 8.9- 10; 9. I, 9- 10).
Many have questioned whethe.r Amos 9. 11- 15 is the work of the prophet
whose words are recorded in the rest of the book. Although linguistic and other
arguments have been advanced.59 there are two fundamental objections.
First, the hopeful lone of these vet•ses is seen as incompatible with Amos's
message- "Rose.n und Lwendel statt Blut und Eisen· as Wellhausen fa mously
declal\.~.00 Tl1is change o f tone~ however, is not unusual.
The mc:ssage-of hopeand rmoration following repeated oracle-s of doom may bcstanling
to some:. but the typical pauc:m of orucks in the othcu·ighth-century B.C. prophe~s is
that of hope for salvation following orad es ofjudgmem.61
The fact that throughout the bool:. Amos speaks ofdoom and j udgment. and in the epi-
logue, of restor-ation and n brigtu funtrc. did not en--ate a literary problem for the Rabbis.
On the contrury. that was to them ehamctc:ristic of all the prophets who followed the:
example of Moses by inaugumting their prophetic uucranocs with wor-d-. of reproach and
c.losing the-m with words of comfort.102
If not prominent, the message of hope is not absent from Amos. Yahweh twice
averts planned de.struction (7 .3. 6).t...~ Despite warnings that ·not one of them shall
escape' (9. 1). a few will be saved ·as the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the
lion two legs. or a piece-o f an ear' (3.12). Although "everyone' dies, those who
come.to dispose of the bodies find one still alive (6.9-1 0). Yahweh promises that
he will ' not utterl}' destroy the house o f Jacob' (9.8). TI1e message of hope in
9. 11-15 is not a lien to Amos's message and therefore need not be a late.r addi-
tion.r.t
59. Shalom Paul conte-nds that 'the arguments for the: fotc.nes$ of the pericope arc based on
linguistic and ideological grounds. all of which. however, art seriously open to question' and that
·almost all ofthcal"£uments for- later interpolations :md redactions. includings Ocutcronomistic one.
arc shown to be:-based on fragile foundations :md incondusivc evide-nce·. Paul. Amos. 288. 6.
60. 'lch glaubc nic.ht. dass 9.8--15 \·on Amos herriihrt.· Julius Wellhauscn. Die kleiJW Proplteten
iiberset=t tmd erklii11 (4th c:dn.: Berlin: V:mdcnho('("k & Ruprecht. 1963). 96. Sec the rc.fcrtnce-s in
Gerhard F. Haul. The Renuwm: The fliswry and Thrology oftht> Remnu11t !dea}ivm Genesis to
/.faia/1 (Be-rrien Sprinp. Mic-h.: Andrews Uni\'er~i ty Press. 1972). 207- 08. n. 300.
6 1. Billy K. Smith. ·Amos·. in Amos. Obadioii.Jollah(ed. Bll1y K. Smith nnd Fnnk S. Page: NAC
1 9U~ Nashville: Broadman & Holm:uL 1995). 164. Smilhnotcs the: mc:ssagc.s ofOOpe foUowingji.Klge-
menl in Hos. 1.10- 2.1: t>.·lic. 2.12- 13: 4.1-5: and the ahcmating messages of judge-ment and hope in
Isaiah 1- 5 as e-xample-s. S« also Ronald E. Clements. Proplr('CJ' and Corvmant (SBT 43: l ondon:
SCM Press. 1965). 110- 14. Andersen and Frtedman obscn •c that ·1hc hope ofsah•a1ion in the neat
future was given up eonlpk tdy. but not all hope for- the: future'. Andersen and Freedman. Amos. 8.
62. Hyman J. Roottenbe11;. Amos (!/"Tt•koa: .4 St11dy in Jnteq>tt'Wii<HI (New York: Vantage. 197 1).
169.
63. William Sanford l aSor-et al.. Old Test<mtent S~trn'' (Grond Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1982). 325.
64. Benson points also to 3.2:4. 11: 5.3. 4-6. 14-15. Alphonsus Be-nson.· ··... From the Mouth of
Second. some have argued that the conditions in these verses did not yet exicst
in Amos's day. The Davidic kingdom had not ' fallen· and the walls of Jerusalem
had not been breached.65 But this reasoning tb.ils to understand the prophetic per-
spective. Amos has already announced Israel's defeat; now he promises that ajh!r
the Davidic kingdom has fallen into disrepair. God will restOI'C n.widic rule and
Israel's pros.perity.u 'The argument that ''abn1ptness oftransition" to a picture.of
l'estoration unaccompanied by an announcement of destruction points to a later
dating complete-ly misinterprets the purport of the prophetic announcements.'67
But. then again,· Amos need not have to look dtat far into the future to see a n tined
Davidic dynasty. •t.S lts division had already diminished the gloty of David's king-
dom.m There are no arguments that compel us to deny the. authenticity of these
verses.10
There are also connections between 9. 11-1 5 and earlier ponjons of Amos: ' in
that day' (9.11 a. cf. 8.3. 9, 13); David's ·fallen' hut (l ib) and ' fallen .. . virgin
Israel' (5.2; see also 7.17: 8.1 4) as well as David's hut ( l i b); the repeated use
o f the hip<iJofe.1r·; 71 the infrequent r~~ ('breaches·. 4.3; l 1c);n references to
Edom: 13 and the. 'remnants' of the Philistines ( 1.8). Joseph (5.15) and E.dom
{ 12a). Although the. Davidic kingdom is not usually seen as prominent in Amos.
one scholar has recently argued that che division of the kingdom is the. northem
kingdom's centml sin for Amos and its reunification the prophet's goal.u h is not
unreasonable to view 9.11 -1 2 as the words of Amos. In any case-. first-cenntry
interpreters would have read them in light of the book.
the l ion": The Messianism of Amo,::.', CBQ 19 ( 1957): 199-212. On ' Moos' FuiUtc Hope-and Escha·
tolo~y' . se>c Gerhard F. 1-l!lsd. UnJersra11ding the Book q(Amos: &tsic b·sues in Cunl'tlt ftttf!I]Jil'-
IOiicms (Gmnd: Rnpids: Bnker, 1991). 105- 20.
65. Nogalski. ·suffixes·, 416--1 7.
66. 1-lamme-rshaimb argues that the same issues arise in the prophe>ci<s of 1·1ollt'a. Isaiah. ~ficah
and Jeremiah. ·weeannot therefore conclude from this e-xpression thut the prophet lives in orafter d~
c:\ile.' Erfing l·lmnmcrshaimb. The Book ofAmes: .4 Commemory (trnns. John Sturdy~ Oxford: Basil
Blnckwdl. 1970). 137- 38.
67. Paul. Amos. 289.
68. Benson. ···.. . From the Mouth of the lion"·. 2 10.
69. Ckmcntsnrgucs forane:ulydate for the book onjust this basis. Clements. Prophecy. 111- 12.
Sec also the argument of Ma). E. Polley, Amos <md rlre Dal·idic Kingdom: A Sodo·J/islorirof
Approach (New York: Oxford University Pre-ss. 1989).
10. Roberts ·ts not con,·inc«< the gcll(«tl skC1)tic.ism (re-garding an e-ighth-century dnte.J is
wnrronted.' Jimmy J. ~( . Robcns. 'ThcOidTcstnment's Contribution to Messianic Expectation'. in
The 11/eui<th: Di!~"('lopments ill £arlies1 Judaism a11d Cltristi(lnity (ed. James 1-1. Charlesworth: Min-
neapolis: fortress. 1992). 44. So also Ge-rlurd von Rad. Old Tes!OIIWIII T1u'O/ogy(lrnns. D. ~f. Starker:
London: Oliver & Boyd. 1965}. 2. I 38. For olhcr scholars who support the.audxnticity of these verses.
sec Benson. ···. .. From the-Mouth of the l ion": The Me-ssianism of Amos'. 108. n. 37.
71. Amos uscs the hip'ilof Cl? fi,•c tintes in his brief book. as mnny times as Ezekid and one
fewer than 1sainh.
12. Only Isaiah. Eze-kiel and Amos use this noun. c.adt of them twice.
13. Amos ntentions Edom llve times (I .6. 9. I I: 2.1: 9. 12a). Edom is mentioned on!)· 28 times in
the prophe-tic. bool:s: by baiah (4). Je-re-miah (8). Ezekiel (7). Joel ( I). Amos (5). Obadiah ( 1) and
Malachi (I}.
74. Polle)'. Amos.
4.2.1 The Booth ojDm•id (.4mos 9.11)

Amos 9.ll anticipate$ ~i:'l;:i oi~·;, a standard prophetic term for the fun1re.1s here
following the judgement Amos has announced. ·rn that day' God will ' raise up
the booth of David that is fallen'. The i"'!1 n~. the 'booth of David', has been
variously interpreted. At Qumran, its raising was interpreted as tlle fulfilment o f
the Torah by the conununity (CD VII. 12- 21) and the appearance of the 'branch
o f David'. who was expected to arise with the. ' lnteq>re.tel' ofTorah' (4Q 174 1
I. 10-1 3).76 The rabbis generally understood it as the restoration of Davidic
111le. national sovereignty. the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the rebuilding o f the
tcmple;n Bar Nafle, ·son of the f.1llen\ was even taken as a title tOr the rvtes-
siah.ill Early Christian interpreters saw botJl an historic-al application ofthe. text to
Israel's return fronl exile and a Christo logical reading in \Vhich the ;tent of David'
referred to the body of Christ (i.e. the church}. Nicholas of lyra applied the text
to the restoration of the purity of the churc-h (i.e. true WOI'Ship without idols) and
luther to the · preaching the Gospel of faith'.~ Othe-r proposals have included the
tents of David's military campaign.s.s6 the cities of the Davidic kingdom.st the city
o fS uccoth.82 and a royal or bridal c-anopy that signifies God's ' covering· his peo-
ple." the te.nt David pitched for the ark (2 Sam. 6.17)" orthe celebration of the
feast of tabernacles in Jerusalem.ll) Most recent commentators have unde1·stood
15. 11lec-xpres.sion(with m c:c-xccplions) rd c:rs1oa fu1ruc: (often eschatological)evc:nL BOB. s.v.

cr . 7.g. Robcnson doubts an eschatological re-ference here. 0. Palmer Robertson. 'Henll(netuicsof
Cominuity'. in CoJitinui(l' tmd Discolltimtity: Perspe<tiw!s Olllile RclatioJis!Jip Belll'een the Old and
JVt!l,. Te.rtaments (c-d. JohnS. Feinberg: WC'Stchestcr. Ill.: Crosswa)'. 1988). 89.
16. Florentino Garda ~ianitizand Eib1cn J. C. Tigche1or. The fA~ad Sea Scro/lo; St11dy Edition (2
''ok : Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1997-98). S61. 3SJ: Nagele. Luubhliw: Da\·ids. 225--26.
1i. N3gdc. J..oubh1itte Dtwids. 226- 28.
18. b. Sanlt 96b-97a: Rouue-nbcrg. Amos. 127.
19. For a thorough survey of the interpretation of the- text sinoc Qumran. ):(e N3gc-k La11bhiirte
Dtnids.
80. Andersen and Freedman. AmoJ. 915.
81. The argument is. based on the application of lhe tenn 11fC to Jerusalem in lsa. 1.8. Nw~lski .
·suffixes·. 416-17.
82. Reading ;;"~;:o for ,,;o. a city that. alt.hoogh in ruins by Amos's cimc. Richardson bcl iC\•e~: to
h.wc held a strategiC rok in' oa,•id's occupation of TflUlSjordan. H. Neil Ric-hardson. 'SKT (Amos.
9.11): " Uooth'' or "Succolh.... JBL 92 (1973): 377- 79. He has been followed by othas. including
Douglas L Stuart Hos~a-Jmrafl (WBC 31: Waco: Word. 19&7). Howc-,•er.lhc evidence offered
scemsc-xocc<lingly 1hinand 'it is notlik<l)' that the passage in Amos 9. 11 has. in mind the restoration
and rebuilding of Succoth'. Andersen an-d Frttdman. Amos. 915.
83. John Mauchlinc. ·Implicit Signs of a Persistent Be]~ fi n the Davidic Empirc•. J720(19i0):
2~9 1 .
&4. Philip r..·lauro. 'Building the Tabc:made of Oavid',bQ9 ( 193i): 39S-413.11le te-rm in 2 Sam.
6.17. howeve-r. is ;;:-Knot;;~.
8.5. Niigde.associate-s t!K- feast of tabernacles. with the tempk (and u1tim:udy Jerusalem) and
understands the 1.:-~t bolh as warning Judah that the temple would not pi'O(cct them from God's
judgclllC'-nland as promising 3 han•cst fro mall nations for Yahweh. Niigck. l.tmb!Jiilt~ Dat•ids, 23-6-
38. l~ owe.vc:r. thae is. no evidence-that the temple was ever referred to by;,~ ( 193). nor of a link
betwee-n the-feast of booths and the temple ( 194-95). Motyer believes the king played a prominent
an ironic reference co David's "house· (i.e. f.·unily. dynasty, kingdom). although

they have different views of the occasion of its ·fall', inc.luding the division fb i-
lowing the death of Solomon, Joash 's conquest o f Judah. or the exile.86
A;;~~ is a temporary shelte1·. Jacob built ' booths' for his cattle (at Succoth.
Gen. 33.17) and Jonah waited in a "booth• to see Nine\•eh 's judgement (4.5). A
' booth· was temporary, like che tents of milita1y campaigns (2 Sam. I I. I I: I
Kgs. 20.12, 16). It was also vulnerable. and fragile: the. house. of the wicked is
'like a spider's we b~ like a booth which a watchman makes' (Job 27. 18): ' the
daughter of Zion is left like a booth ln a vineyard~ like a lodge (;-;~;7,-;)111 in a
cucumber field. like a besieged city' (lsa. 1.8). It may refer generally to sheller
( lsa. 4.6; Ps. 3 1.20) and (probably in this geneml sense) to God's heavenly
dwelling(2 Sam. 22.1 2 11 Ps. 18.1 1: Job 36.29). Thineen of the 31occurrences of
the term refer to the "booths' in which Israel was to live during the feast o f
booths (it~~;:; ;v). although ii~ alone never refers co the festjvat."8 The tenn
never refers to the tabernacle. which is unifonn ly represented by 7o~ or t~~i;'.s9
Neither the tabernacle nor the feast ofbooths were associated with David ('booth
of f\•foses' would be more apt for e ither). David pitched a tent for the ark in
Jemsalem (2 Sam. 6. 17: I Chr. 15. I: 16.1)~ but the. tenn is ~~N. not ii~~- and
there. is no other indication that this tent played a last ing role in Israel's thinking
or expectation. Neitller the.tabemacle nor temple are ever described as 'ofDavid'
(or even Solomon). It is therefore unlikely that the teml in Amos 9.1 1 refers to
the tbstival, tabernacle or temple.
There is an analogous expres.,ion referring to Davidic n1le. that ha.<i recei\•ed
too little attention. Isaiah 16.5 speaks of a ' tent of David' ("i11 S;:tX, LXX OKt)Vi)
~autO as here): ' then a throne.will be.established in steadf.1.st love and on it will
sit in faithfl1lnes.s in the-tent of David one who judges and seeks justice and is
swift to do righteousness'. Admittedly. this is an ~;:;X. not a :.;~. but the se-mantic
fields of the two overlap.90 The conte.xt (Isaiah 15-16) is an orac le conceming
Moab.91 In distress. f\•foab appeals to Judah for assistance. God promises that
role ttl the fea!ttand sc:e-!1 here 11 hope of tile coming of tile perfeel roy11J and prieslly me-diator. J. Alec
Motyer. 71ft' Day ~[Ihe Lion (Downers Grov(. Ill.: Inter· Varsit)'. 19i5). 101- 0.l
86. Niigde. Laubhlitte {)(wids. 231-33. 155- 57.
87. Used only here and lit fsa. 24.20. where 1he e.anh 'is \'iolcntlyshakcn' (N.I9) and 'sways like
a hut·. BDB glosses as ·sim. of fmi l. insccut( slructure'.
88. For the: festival: Lev. 23.34: lkuL 16.1 3. 16: 31. 10: Ezra 3.4: 2 Chr. 8. 13: Zcc.h. 14. 16. 18. 19:
cf. Nc:h. 8. 14 (·the people ofl!tmd AAoold dw·cll in booths during the fea:s1 of the !ltn:nlh month'}. For
1he booths 1hemsdves: Lev. 23.42 (2 ). 43: Ezr.t 3.4: Neh. 8.15. 16, 17 (2 ).
89. 11 is unlikely th11i the re.llued 10 in Ps. 76.3 refers to tile tabcnt3c-le or temple. 11hbough the
te-mple is in view in ,0 {for 1C liS BOB su,ggcsts?} in L:un. 1 .6. Nelthe.r of these. howe\•e-r. is ,,~.
90. In 11bout two-thirds of occurrences. ~;::i<. rcfcrs to the •tabemlld e' or ·tent of meeling'. In the
rcm11ining third. it simply refers to 11 tau (e.g_ 1he tempomy sltchcrs of soldiers in the field. as in
Judg. 6.5: 7.8. 13: 2 Kgs. 7.7. 8. 10: Jcr. 6.3), 11lthough it was app:uentl)· used for ·home•. e,·en 11fter
lsr.tdbcg:mto live insettle.dcommuniti<s(q;. l Sllln.4J O: 13.2:2Sam. 18.7: 19.8: 20.1.22: I Kgs.
8.66: 12.16: 2 Kgs. 8.21: 14. 12: 2 Chr. 7.10: 25.22). The: tem1appean; to be ll$Cd for a city on onJy
two occllsions(Jcn• ~alem in ls11. 3320: and as p.lralle-1to ·dwdlings'. 'city' 11nd ' p11l11ce• in kr. 30.18).
9 1. Scholars diffe.r on the precise ein:um!-"lances ond date of chis oracle. Su e.g. John Bright.
Moab's oppression \\~II cease and that a good king ·will sit in the tent of David'
and dispense 'justice and righteousness'. No human king of Israel ruled from the
tabernacle or temple and Jerusalem is never described as the seat ofjustice and
righteousness. The reference must then refer to one. who mles (sits) in David's
place. on David's throne. and is of David's line.'n
The 'booth' is therefore the ·house"H or dynasty God promised to build for
David (2 Sam. 7.11). The expression is ironic. The fomterly great ' house.' has
become a rundown s h ack .~ h has e.ithcr already fallen from its earlier g l ory~.s. or
will soon do so.911 In any case, it will have f.·lllen before God raises it up aga in.
While 'fallen' 'virgin Israel' (5.2: cf. 7.17: 8.14) had ' none to mise he.r up'.
Yahweh \viii ·raise up the. booth of David that is tb.llen' and 'its ruins'.~1 1t will
no longer be ' tb.llen'. but ·as in the days of old' ( I I t). While the division of the
kingdom is not the primary focus, its reunification is implied: ·David and his
promises relate to the entire nation of chosen peo ple~ not one part of it.")~>
4 .2.2 The Remnant ofEdom (Amos 9.12)

In v. 12. the purpose or result (JP~7> o ftltis restoration is expressly stated: 'that
they may possess the remnant ofEdom aJtd all the nations who are called by my
name.' .<n A number of questions have challenged interpreters: why Edom is sin-
gled out; what 'the remnant of Edom' means: who will ·possess' it and in what
sense; how ' the remnant of Edom' is related to ' all the nati ons·~ what i1 means
that God's ·name is c--alled upon them·.
'lsaiah- 1'. in Pe(lkt> 's CollllfU!IIIOI)'Oiflh~ Bib!~(cd. Matthew Black:Sunbury-on·Thamc-s: Thomns

Nelson. 1962). 501: Ronald E. Ckmrnts. /r(tia/1 1- J9(NCB: Grand Rapids: E<rdmam:. 1980). IS0-
51: John Oswah. The Boo-k. oflmiall: Clropters /- J9(NICOT: Gr.tnd Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1986). 336.
92. Bright 'Isaiah'. 501: Clements. lmiall 1- 19. 154: Motycr. Prophecy, 149. 152- 53: Oswalt.
b·oialt. 343.
93. Hammershaimb.Amcr. 140: Cnrt F. Kc-il. .\finm· PropheJs(traRS. James Mnnin: Grand Rapids:
Ecrdma.n.s.. 1973}. 32:9: Simon M. Lehtnun. ·Amos\ in The Tu't'lt\~ Prophets: Hebrew T~:a. £11glish
Translatioll a11d Comme111ory (c.d. Abraham Cohen: Soncino Books of the Bible: Boume-mouth:
Soncino. 1948). 123.
94. For the ·booth' as representing a diminished or di~honoun."ti ~ta te. S« !sa. 1.8. 'And lhc
daughter of Zion is left like a booth in a \·incyard. like a lodge in a cuc-umbe-r lldd, like a besieged
city.' However. :qo llCed not indicate a humble slate. ~incc the te-nn i~ applied to ' the-Lord'~ heav-
enly pavilion· . Nie~aus. ·Amos·. 490. Cf. 2 Sum. 12.22 !I Ps. 18. 11 : Job 36.29.
95. ·After thedclllh ofDa,·id. lsracl'ssoverrignty dedined fo~L · Hammershaimb. .4moJ. 14 1. ·1n
our vic.w whal hnd fallt'n was the <:mpirr~ ond thnt had hnppencd a long lime ago! Andtrsen and
Freedman. .4mos. 9 16. Others stt a reference ~pcc.i licall y to the division after Solon1on's death.
CfcJllettls. Propilec;r. 111- 12: Nogal$ki. ·suffix.<:s'. 4 16-17: Polky..4mos.
96. 11le participlt may be trnnslatcd ' f!llling' or ·fallen'. The LXX tran~lates with the perf«t
~En"TIDK \Iiav. Benson notes that ' the Qal participle nopilelct could mean eithe-r. but tbc context
fa vours ..which has fallen'" . Benson. '" .. . From the Mouth oflhc Lion"'. 210.
91. For ~imilar language of·ruins· with reference to the ddc-atcd kingdom. ~«' Pss. 80. 12 (80.13
:0.0': 79.13LXX): 89.40(&9A1 M'f: S8.41LXX).
98. Gary V . Smith. At~IO.( (rev. edn.: R~Shirc.: Christian Fot:us. 1998). 379.
99. The e..xpres~ion 'implie-s an order both in putpO$<: and time'. Robertson. ' Henncncutics'. 91.
Interpretations fall into two major camps. One understands the prophecy to
refer to the reestablishment of the Israelite kingdom politically as it had been
under David and Solomon. "The remnant ofEdom' is ' that paJt ofEdom which is
still independent' (not under Davidic rule). 100 'They' are Davidic kings who will
reassert control over Edom as David had done (2 Sam. 8.13-14) in the tina I phMe
of the c-ampaign that secured peace for (srael a nd established his rule. 'They'
would ' posse~~· "the remnant of Edom ' as Israel ·possessed' the. nations of
Canaan under Joshua, by d ispossession and destmction. 1The conquest ofEdom
in panicular would be understood to be either the final step in the l'eestablishmc-nt
of the Davidic kingdom' 101 or an exe-rcise of its restored powe1·. 'All the nations
upon which my name is called ' are the. natjons God ruled through David at the
height of his power, i.e. Moab. Ammon. Philistia and Syria.102
There arc at least three ditliculties with this view. First. the consistent use of
re-mnant language> and of n~,x~ in particular, suggests that the ' remnant of
Edom' refers to 'what is left' 'after the reduction ofEdom at some future date', 10_.
rathe1· than an unconquered portion of Edom. Second. when 'dispossess· is the
intended sense. di~ most often appears in the hip<i/with a personal object (e.g.
·nations' or ' them').10-1 It appears here in the qat, which only rarely has 'nations·
or "them' as the object in the. sense of 'dispossess', tru. but nearly I00 times has
' land' or · it' as the object with the sense of' possess' . 106 The qat generally focuses
simpl}' on possessing and enjoying the. land (e.g. Ps. 25.1 3, ' his children shall
possess the l::tnd').107 Third, the. nations do not bear the name of an ea11hly
monarch (see 2 Sam. 12.28). but of God. The grammatic.al ,·elationship bcnveen
the remnant o f Edom and the nations is not clear: 'all the.nations' may be parallel
to 're.mnant ofEdom· as a second object of'::f!"': (i.e. 'they will possess the rem-
nant of Edom and possess all the nations')10~ or a second genitive parallel to
100. Hasel. Rermwm. 2 14: Nichous. •Amo~'. 491. It has. b«n suggested l.hat !he pon of EJat is
particularly in view. Kiigdc. LaubM'ue Dan'd.f. 214-1 5. 238. Hammeuhoimb's su~.estion 'Edom
down to iiS la~t fragment' (inferred from Amo~ 1.8) seems unlikdy and does noc appear to ha\'C
attracted many adherents. Hammcrshaimb. Amos. 141.
10 1. And('rscn and Frcedrnan. AmoJ. 918.
102. Bammcrshaimb •.4mos. 141: HoseI. Remllalll. 2 1 ~. Sec-aJso Polky. Amos. 55-82.
103. As in Aroos 1.11 12: Obad. 18-19. ~forgcn~tcm . 'Nali on~· . 215-31: Nlc:hau~. ' Amos'. 4? 1.
4
104. Of the 66 instnnccs of._,,. in the (111/l il. only nine b c.ka personol objce1 (Num. 14.14: 33.53:
Josh. 8.7: 17.12:: Judg. ll.24?: Job 1326: 20.15: E:ua 9. 12: 2 Chr. 10. 11 ).
105. Only nine of the 162 instances ofthe qal: Deut. 9. 1: 11.23: 12.2. 29: 18..14: 19.1: 31.3; !sa.
54.3; Ezd:. 35.10: ~cc also Ps-. 105.4-l.
106. Both fom1~ oppeor in Jo~h. 135: o~;~4n.:; cr.;:·n q:·~~7!i c.~~ d' "?"il: ( Yahweh ·will . ..
drive lhc-m out of your sight {hl;t.r'Uwith personal object): and you shall posses~ their land (qal..-vilh
land a~ object)').
107. Sec also Ge-n. 15.7: Dc.ut. I.S; Isa. 57. 13: Jcr. 30.3: Ps. 37 .II. 22. 34:60.21:6 U : 65.9: 69.35).
In a few cases 1.he contc:..t refers to those who fonncrly po~scssed the land (e.g. Num. 21.35: Judg.
11 .21: Ps. 37.34: 105.44}.
lOlL One might c:..pect 11 s«ond object mar\:cr in thiHasc.os in, "C:.g. Hos. 2.22 (MT 24): 35: Joel
4.8.
'Edom• (i.e. "the. remnant of both Edom and all the nations'). 100 (Either is more
likely than that :all the natjons' is the subject of the-verb ~1-r·:.no)
The nations are those. ·who are called by my name• ( RSV) or, nlore precisely,
'upon whom my name is c--alled'. The. nip~1/ of N';~? with c¥ denotes naming,
particularly in the se-Jtse of possession or dominion.Ill as in 2 Sam. 12.28. where
Joab wams chat David must lead the conquest ofRabbah, ·test it be called by my
name' . 11:: With St. 11 ~ the expression of\en denotes Y-ahweh ·s assertion ofowner-
ship 'over or relationship to his people (Deut. 28. I0; Jet·. 14.9: Dan. 9. I9; 2 Chr.
7. 14; cf. Jsa. 43.7; 48. 1),1" Solomon's temple (I Kgs. 8.43; 2 Chr. 6.33: Jer.
7. I0. I L I 4. 30; 32.34; 34. 15).115 his prophet (Jer. I 5. 16), and the city of Jerusa-
lem (Jer. 25.29: Dan. 9.18-19). where his name was to dwell (cf. I Kgs. 8. 16:
I 1.36; I4.2 I: 2 Kgs. 23.27; 2 Chr. 6.5; I2.13). Isaiah 63. I 9 equates this naming
with rule: ·we. have become like those over whom thou hast never ruled. like
those who are-not called b)' thy name.' 116 Yahweh ·s possession entails .a relation
that brings blessing (cf. Num6.27: ·so [with the Aaronic blessing] shall they put
my name upon the people of IsraeL and I will bless them .. o;':R~ ~~~1 S~-:;t;
·g-~p ';;~-r~~ li'J~1). 111 Belonging to God in this way reflects the covenantal
109. Ebenezer Henderson. T11e Book oflire Twdw, .1/inor PropiJels (Boston: Drnp<"r. 1859}. IS 1:
Paul R. Raabe. ObodiaiJ: A New Tmnslalion n'ilh lnlrod!Kiion wuf Commeniat)' (AB 140: New
York: Doubleday. 199; ), 4 1: Wilhctm Rudolph. JlX'I-Amos-0/xrdia-Jona (KAT 13.2: Giitcrs.loh:
Gcrd Mohn, 197 1). 279. lnsuppon. Raabe c-ites Paul JoUon. A GrammarofBiblirol 1/ebrell'{tr.t.ns.T.
Muraoka: SubBi 14: Rome-: Pontifict~l BibliCIII Institute. 1991 ).111c.ex.prcssion a:'oi..J rl):;-::iis pamlkl
to Edom in El.ck 363. as lsrod' s cn~mit$ (C1i~--;.;:? c:U.J n·-~g-:,q). Ultimate-ly. howc:ver. the
differcntt in meaning between a s«ond objec.t nnd a second genitive may be fairly minor.
110. ·That they- aU the nations who ate called by my nmnc- might possess the. remnant of Edom.•
Andersen and Free-dman. Amos. 918. Lchnnan had e-arlie-r argued !iimilarfy.although fonbc.differcnt
rca!iOl\ that he believed that God's name is oni)· called over lsrnel. the: temple and Jc.msalem.
Lchm1an. ·rwdve Propbet.s'. 123. None of the early ,·ersions n:-ad the-text in this way.
Ill . Sundt. "Explanation'. 89.
112. See also Gen. 46.18. where Jacob took Manassehand Ephraimas his own sons,sa)·ing. ·and
let my nn.me-be called in the.m' (m)' transla1ion). and 11'3. 4.1. ·And seven women shall take hold of
one man in that day. sa)'ing...We will eat our own bread and wc:u out O\\lt cl01hcs. only kt us k
called by yout name: 1ake away our rt'proach." '
11 3. Thec-xpr<-ssionoccurs 19 times in the :..rr. It is reprcsentc.d in the LXX !IShere with inu:al.iro
.. . (h'OI.lct . .. i:ni .. .• except for four instances: OcuL18. 10 lacksbri: 2 Sam. 12.28and 11'3. 4. 1have
KaAiro for (:~u:al.iro: and Jcr. 25.29 (31.29 LX.X) has iwo~.tci~ro for En-u: u)-.((1). This Gn:<:k
expression is used only one other lime. mmslating m-:.::s ~~ Cl)l:~~ ~:q~ (the qal of K-l~) in Ps..
49.11.
11 4. ·A spc-eia) relationship is implied. a n:la1ionship 1hat ,·irtuallppells out nn ide-ntity.' David
Allan Hubbard. Joel cmd Amos: An lmroduclion tmd Comm4'11lllfJ' (TOTC: Downers Grove. Ill.:
Inter-Varsity. 1989). 241.
II ;. See also 1 ).bee. 7.37: Bar. 2.26. Since the: expression is also applied to other things. its appli·
c:uion to the temple is not sufficient to e-stablish Niigclc: s assenion that it is hc:re ·taken from temple
tenninology'. Niigde. Lcmblriifl~ Din·id.o;. 230.
116. Amos 9.12 appears 10 be the onl)' tc:xi in the MT in which God's name is caJied over !.he
Gentiles. Jacques Dupon1. ·un peupled'cntte k-s t131ions {Ac.lc-.s 15. 14)'. NTS 31 ( 1985): 324. Dupont
understands the idiom diffcrenlly. as ·conseeration• mther than ·owne-rship': 1hc in\•oeation of l.hc
divine name consecrates to the lon-1 the people of lsrncl. the-ark of the-covenant ctc.
11 7. ·This idiom as nn e:tprcssion of ownership c-an have bolh a negative nnd a positive colouri ng~
fomtula, · J will be your God and you will be. my people.' (e.g. Gen. 17.7-8; Lev.
26.12: Jer. 31.33; Rev. 21.3).
Other interpreters have.proposed a second view. Amos is not here promising
merely a restoration of the political kingdom as ·o f old' .1ts but one in which the
nations will be called by God's name in blessing and cove.nantal fe.llowship and
the ·possession· ofthe nations is not 'dispossession\ but incorporation forbless-
ing.11' Edom (or ' the remnant ofEdom')stands in apposition to ·at I the nations',
as a symbol for them all t!O or simply as 'one typical nation whose name and loca-
tion evoke its own fate. and that of other nations'. 111 When associated 'with all
nations seen as an undifferentiated whole. Edom both re.presents itself and serves
as a special illusrmtion of all nations·. m 'Edom·then functions here as do Egypt
i .~. it not only addresses cases of subjugation and dominion. bllt also, tyJ.rticularly when it is relntcd to
God's name, can mean ownership in the sense ofcarcnnd protee1ion.' Adna. 'James'. 1 ~6. Howcv~r.
only in 2 Sam. 12.28 is lhereany hint of a ncgativeconooution. 'When YahY.'Ch 's name. is the.subjocL
it also oonnotcsa pri\'ilegc<l.status.. In the Hebrew Bible. only Israelite entities ha\•e Yah\\\:'h's name
ptonouocc.d upon them .. . That Edom nnd the nations would be gi\·en such a slatus is quite striking
and brings to mind the idea cxprcssc.d in IJ:n. 19.24-25.' Raabe. Obodial•. 42.
11 8.. "As indays ofold' need not refer to identity inewrydctnil. The reference may rdcr to parti·
culnr nsp«:ts of the fom1e-r kingdom. such as its authority. glory. and!or rule by one of Dnvid's line.
and must be detem1iocd b)· the.contc.x.L
119. Moty~rcontends that 'po.tte.u signiliC"S a conquest'. but argues that "the conqueSI is followed
by an c.quality ofci tizen~hi p in that it is not their nnn1e but the nan1e of their God b)' wt.ic.b the Gen·
tiks :ue called'. The c hurch'~ misJ:ionary e.xpnnsion 'invol\'e.S a submission fo11o'A'Cd byan equnJity'.
Mot)'er. Day. 204-05. Raabe bclie.ves the. verb here 'means ''to possess'' in the sense of incorporate or
own: the stntemc:m~xpre~cs more t.hc idea ofJsrad eontrollinga.nd ruling the survivors ofthe nations
than !.hat of ocropying their lands'. Theocc.upation is 1norc religious or spiritun1 than military. Ranbe.
Olxtdia/J. 40. 'The taking possession referred to here will be of a very different character from l.hc
.subjugation of Edom and oth« nations to David. It will make the nations into citi7.ens ofthe kingdom
of God. to whom the l ord mani fest~ Himselfas their God. pouring upon them n.JI the blessings ofH iJ:
CO\"cnant of grace (stt Isa. hi 6·8).' Keil. Mi11or Proplrets. 331.
120. ·Edom was used symbolically by the prophe.ts as an~mbod iltl(nt ofthe hostility of the. worfd
to the kingdom ofGod. This was in keeping with its attitude from lhc first (cf. N"u. 20.14) to the last
kf. Am. 1. 11 ). The ovcnbrowof Edom therefore speaks of n re..al and complete end ofall opposition.•
Motyer. /)(ty. 204. So also Kai:sc.r, · Davidic. Promise·. 103: Wahtr C. Kaiser. Jr.. Tlte Mes.si(lh i11 1/re
OM Teswmenr(Studi~s in Old Testament Biblic-al Theology: Grand Rapids: Zondc-r..,an, 1995). 147:
K~il. Mi11or Prophets. 331: Smith. Amru. 380: Stuart. Howa-Jonah. 398. Robertson hns suggested
that Amos intended to !lJiudc: to the prophccyof Balnam in Num. 24.18. Robertson. "Hem1eocuti<s'.
9 1-92. Whik RSV renders Num. 24.18as ·Edom shall be: dispossessed' .the-MTre...adsn;?-r_ ~~ :~:;:~1-
rende.rtd more ncutra.lly by the. LX.X aJ: ..:ai Eo tat E6cnp Ki.t1po"oJ1ia. The noun ~?1: occurs only
here. but the rd ntcd form. :I;? :f.. refers to ·possession'. not 'dispossession'. BOB. s.v. :I~T• ,11?z::
HALOT. S.\". :1~1': i1?~:. Note also t.hc promise that Yahweh would prosp« Esnu because he. too. IS
Abra.ham's 'seed' (Gen. 21.13. 18).
121. ~foab i S<mploy~d as rcprc.!O('ntntiw of the nations in lsa. 25.10· 12. Raabe. Obadiah. 33.
Raabe specifiC~~ II)' refers to Isaiah 34: Ezektcl35-36and points to 11 pattern of movement bc.I\VC~Cn l.hc
univen;al and partic.ular injudgcnx nt omcks. 'By particul:uizing universalj udgement the prophets
grounde-d the fate of one place ot group of people in a more all-inclusive phenomenon.' Paul R.
Raabe. 'The Particularizing of UnivcrsaJ Judgment in Prophetic Discourse·. CBQ 64 (2002): 671.
122. Raabe. Ohadiail. 45. d . 36, 39.
and Assyria in Isa. 19.23-25-"' Egypt in Zech. 14. 18-19. and ' Rahab', Babylon,
Philistia, Tyre and Ethiopia in Psalm 87. The focus is no1on Edom. but on 'all
the nations.' and Amos 9.1 2 thus repeats the promise that Yah\\•eh will rule over
all nations (Ps. 22.8: 2 Chr. 20.6: lsa. 14.26; 40.15-17)12' ·The remnant ofEdom
and the nations are 10 be God's own people, just as the elect of Israel had been in
the pas-t. ' 125 This reading is supported in at least one (later) Jewish source. Gen.
Rab. 88.
' In thlll day wllll roisc. up the tabcrt13Cie of Dll"id.· thlll the-wholc wotfd sh11ll bocofll(
one-brotherhood. as it is :mid. For then I will tum to l.hc peoples a pure 1-angu~~ge.
th11t !.hey 1na1,· all C-1111 upon tbc. name or the Lord. to scn •e Him with one cooscnt'
(Zcph. 3.9).116-
The text concludes with a solemn ·says Yahweh, who does this', cenifying both
that this missionary wonder will be all of grace-and that, as a word spoken by
Yahweh. it will not faii.IH
4.3 The Expecred Kingdom

The Davidic kingdom was not only a political reality for hundl'eds of years. but
an important part ofeschatological expectation. Aocording to the-scriptural narra-
tive, God had announced the c.oming kingdom long before its establishment under
Saul and (mot·e firmly) David. Abraham was not only promised that he would be
·father ofa multitude ofn.ations', but that 'kings shall c.ome for1h from you· (Gen.
17.4-6, 16: cf. Gen. 17.20: 36.31; 35.11). Despite.the difficult m-~ ('to whom it
belongs'). refet·ence.s to staff' and sceptre indic-ate an expectation of royal author-
ity (Gen. 49.10).m The third and fomth Balaam oracles promise that Israel's
' king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted' (Num. 24.7).
IS« him. but not now: I behold him. bU1 no1 nigh: a stilt sh11ll come fonh out or Jacob.
and a sccpt« sh11ll rise out or Israel: it shall crush the roo:head of Moab. !lnd breakdown
all !.he rons or Sheth. Edom shall be disposscs$Cd. Se:ir also. his cncmit's. shall be
dispoSSCS$Cd. while lsmd docs Vll1illntf)·. By J-acob shall dominion be exercised. and the-
survivors ofcities be-destroyed! (Num. 24. 17-19)
123. Benson. · ·· .. . From the Mouth or lht' Lion,. •. 2 11 : 1fot)·cr. Propl!ec·y . 110. n. 1: OswaiL
b·oialt. 381.
124. ·The whole world ("llll lhc nations') will c.ornc undc.r the role of Yahweh.' Niehaus.·Amos'.
4 91.
125. Robcnson. 'Hennc:nrutics·. 93. 'Tbc. rcstomtion will not be rorthe benefi t of the house or
D11vid alone. The restored kingdom will consist of Gentiles as wdl !IS the cho$Cn poople (9.12).'
Benson. ·-. .. From the Mouth oftbe lion"'. 210. "Amos is noc announcing lhc doom of Edom so
much as a positive promisc-orbkssing on Edom 11nd all the nations (Gen. 12.3: 28.14) oommiucd to
Y11hweh(cf. Orut. 18.9·10: Jer. 14.9). The)' will enjoy the blessings of this rt:>torcd kingdomjust like
the remnant or lsnd : Smith. Amos, 380.
126. Routtcnberg. Amm.l17.
127. ·notanc.brd nVJt y/n.·/t • A1llkrsc-n and Fr«dm11n. Amos. 9 18.
128. Vi\.'!lor P. Hamilton. T11e BooliofGelli!Sis(2 \X>Is.: Grand Rapids: Ecn:lmans. 1990-95). 1.658-
62: Gerhard von Rad. G~llf!Jis (Lrans. John H. ~fllrks: OTl: Philadelphia: Westminster. 196 1). 425.
Tl1e Mosaic law explicitl}' provided regulations for the kingship (Deut. 17.14-
20). Yet. for many years. there was no king and ·eve-l'y man did what was right in
his own eyes' (Judg. 17.6: 21.25).
When Israel aske.d for ·a king to govern us like all the nations' (I Sam. 8.5). it
be.trayed a rejection of God as king ( I Sam. 8.7). Nevenheless. God directe-d
Samuel to anoint Saul as Israel's first king ( I Sam. 9) and. after Saul's failure.
David. the ·man after [God's] own heart' (I Sam. 13.14; 16). who became the
foref.·lther o f and model tbr the kings of the d}rnasty to come.m God's covenaJlt
with David (2 Sam. 7.9- 16 11 2 Chr. I 7.8-14; cf. 2 Sam. 23. I -7: Ps. 89.3-4, I9-37:
132.11 -12. 17-1 8) bec.ame the basis for late-r kingdom expectation. WaJter Kaiser
has noted the. significant pamllels between God's covenant with David and
the earl ier one with Abraham - a name (2 Sam. 7.9: Gen. 12.2). a secure home (2
Sam. 7. I 0: Gen. 12.1: I 5.7. I 8-21), descendants (particularly a son, 2 Sam. 7. 12;
Gen. I 5.4; 17.4-2 1), and 'everlasting ' dumtion (2 Sam. 7. I 3, 16; Gen. 17.7)-
and has argued that the Davidic covenant is simply a development of the foun-
dational covenant wit11 Abraham and the means to its realization.l.l0 Language
describing the ideal king o f Psalm 72 ('all nations will be blessed through him.
and the.y will call him blessed' . 17b NIV) echoe~'i the. promise. to .A. braham and
makes him the means to its fulfilment.
The prophets promised a restoration o f the Davidic kingdom following the
judgement they announced.DI A new king will n1le on David 's throne (I sa. 9 . 7~
cf. Jer. 17.25; 22.4; 33.17, 21) in righteousness and mercy (cf. lsa. 16.5: Je,·.
23.5: 33.15; Ps. 72.2. 4, I2-14), mling in conceit with Yahweh himself (Jcr. 30.9:
Hos. 3.5). He will be from the line of David and his reign will never end (lsa.
22.15: Jer. 33. 17: cf. Ps. II 0.4): several texts even call him 'David' (Jer. 30.9;
Ezek. 34.23-24: 37.24-25; Hos. 3.5). Even the natural world will be transformed
in t•esponse to his reign (lsa. 11.6-9: Ps. 72.3, 7, 16). While he will rule over Israel
(a reunited twelve tribes. Ezekiel 37), his reign is universal: ·from sea to sea. to
the ends of the earih' (Ps. 72.8; cf. Ps. 2.8), over 'all kings and all nations' (Ps.
72. 1I; Isa. I 1.10: 55.3-5). and ·as long asthe sun· (Ps. 72 .S. 17; Isa. 9.7). All tl1is
fits in with the more.general expectation, not only ofjudgement. but ofblessing
129. For David as Lhc mock) king. see Jcr. 30.9: Ezek. 34.23-24: 37.24-25: Hos. 3.5. For Da\'idic
descent sec !sa. II. I: 55.3: k r. 23.5: 33.15. 17. 21-22.26: Zoeh. 12.7-8. 10, 12: 13.1: Ps. 89.28. 36-
37: 132. 11 . 17. For David's nmne applied to the drn.ast)'. see-!sa. 9.7: 165: kr. 17.25: 22.4: Amos
9.11.
130. Walter C. Kaiser. Jr.. ·ne Blessing of D.wid: The Charter for l~ umanity'. in Tlw /.a wand t/1~
Proplum (ed. John H. Skillon: Nutky. NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed. 1914}. 309. S<ealso M. Wein-
feld. ·covenant 0..\'idlc'. !DBSup. \'OI.: 188-92: Po lie~·. Amos. 46. 48. By(onltnsLCkmtnlS bdi<"cs
that the account of Lhc Abrahamic ( 0\'mant has been ·moulded' in light of the Oa\·idic (0\'enant ·as
pan ofa ( Onsc.ious atte-mpt to rdate lhc two·. Ronald E. Clements. .4brolrom a11d [)(nid: Gt>nesis XI'
tJJtd lu Mro11ing itl lsmelitt> Truditic11(SBT 2o'5: l ondon: SCM Prcs.s.. 1967). 55.
131. For additional ltcaunent of Davidi<: c:tp~tation in the OT and prc.Chrisrian Judaism. sec
Eduard Sc.hweiz(r, "The Conce--pt of the Da"idic "Son of God" in Acts and its Old Teslamcnt Buck·
ground'. in Swdies in Luke-Ans (td. leander E. K~k and lllmcs l ouis Martyn: Nash\·ilk : Abing-
don. 1966: n:.pr.. Miffiinlown. Pa.: Siglar Pless, 1999). 186--93: Strauss. [)(f\'idic Messiah, c.h. 2.
for the nations (e.g. lsa. 2.2-4 11 Mic. 4. 1-3; lsa. 19.23-25: Psalm 87). It is in
keeping with these promises that in lsa. 42 .6 and 49.6 Yahweh promises to send
his royal servant to bring light to the nations.
Apart from ch. 9, there is no explicit kingdom expectation in Amos. The
mention of David in 6.5 is a music.al reference. Other referenc.es to kings. king-
doms and mlers are c.o ntemporaJy, not eschatological. However. Amos's criti-
cism of social injustice is an implied criticism of both king and kingdom. (f the
ideal king was to dispense.justjce (contrast Jer. 22.13-17). the appalling injustice
in Israel under Jeroboam II was an indictment ofhis n1le and must have aroused
hope for a true king who would 111le with justice.
Expectation regarding the Davidic kingdom grew during the.Second Temple
period.m Sirach 45.25 and I Mace. 2.57 refer to the promise of David's descen-
dants ruling on his throne. In 2 Esd. 12.32, we read of ·the Messiah whom the
Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of
David'. Fourth Ezra speaks of'the Messiah who will arise. from the posterity of
David'. who 'will deliver in mercy the remnant of my people' (12.32. 34). Echo-
ing canonical OT texts. Pss. Sol. describes at te.ngth how the. ·son of David' ~Ln
' the lord tvfessiah ·. will bringjudgement and justice to his people Israel ( 17.2 1-
44) and the subjection of the GentHes ( 17.30). Among the Qumran materials,
4Q l74 contains an extendedpe-sher on portions of2 Sam. 7. 10- 14 (with refer-
ences to Exod. 15. 17-18 and Amos 9.1 1). 4Q252 joins the blessing on Judah
(Gen. 49. 10) with the ·branch ofDavid.. 4Q 161conunents on (sa. 11.1 -5. CD VII
joins Amos 5.26-27 with Amos 9.11 and Nmn 24.13. 4Q285 reters to the ·shoot
from the stump of Jesse'. and 4Q504 speaks of·your covenant with David '.
All lhe foundational c-lcn1<ntsoftbc promise tradition arc present - God's f-aithfulness lo
his covenant promises. the rlising up of Dlvid's 'seed'. the reign of this Dnvidtc heir
forc\'er on the Davidic throne. his domimuion of the-pagan nations. and a father-son
relationship with God.UJ
Strauss has reviewed the rabbinic literature and finds that ' its descriptions agree
in genera] with the portraits of the coming Davidic king found in the writings of
the Second Temple period. and especially the Psalms ofSolomon·. ns Although the
focus is usually on Messiah's 111le over Israel. T. Jud. combines allusions to several
prophetic texts and asserts that 'the Shoot o f God Most High is the tb untain for
132. Joue11c- M. Bassler.· A Man for All Seasons: Da"id in Rabbinic and New Tcstamenl litera-
ture •.lnt 40 ( ICJ86): 156-6CJ: John J. Collins. Tlte Scepli'r a11d theStar: Tht• Me.uialrsG[tile DeodSea
Scrolls a11d O!lter A11cielll Litmuure (ABRl: N<w York: Doubk.day. 1995): DeMis C. Duling. The
Promises to Dlvid and Tttc-ir Entmncc-into C't.risaianity: N-11iling Down 3likdy Hypothesis'. NTS20
(1973): 55- 77: Clcon L Rogers. Jr.. 'The Promis(";S to David in Earl)' Judaism·. BSac ISO (1993):
285- 302: Str-auss. f)(widic MeJJiult. 38-57.
133. Pss. Sol. 17.11 appcars to be1hecarlics1 witness to this Messianic titI<. Strnuss. Drntidic Mel··
siail. 42.
134. Sl1nuss. Daridic Jlessiail. 44. 1n some of these te:\IS we.lind dual (roynland prie.stly) mc:ssiahs.
Duling. ·Promises'. 64-67.
135. Suauss. Daridic Me:s.sialt. 53.
the life of all humanity' and ' the rod of righteousness for the nations, to judge
and save all that call on the l ord' (T. Jud. 24.4, 6: cf. 22.2-3).
Expectations of the restomtion of the Davidic kingdom are evident from the
beginning ofLuke.'s gospei.136 The angel Gabriel is sent 'to a virgin betrothed to
... Joseph, of the house of David' ( I .27). 'The lord God will give [her son] the
throne of his father David. and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and
of his kingdom there will be no end' (1.32-33).u1 At John's birth, Zechariah
praises God because
he h3s mise.d up a hom of salvntion focus in the house of his SC-f\'ant Oa\'id. as he spoke-
by the-mouth of his holy prophe(s from of old ... to pe-rform the mcrcy promi!itd to our
father.>. and to remember his holy CO\'manL lhc ooth which he swore to our father
Abraham. ( 1.68-75)
Angels announced to the shepherds that ·to you is born this day in the city of
David a Savior, who is Christ [Messiah] the lord' (2.1I. cf. 2.4). He preached
about the kingdom (4.43: 8. 1: 9.1I), and directed the apostles to do so (9.2. 60,
62; 10.9, 11). He.cast out demons as a sign chat the kingdom had come (I 1.20).
He taught his disciples to pray for (1 1.2) and to look forward to his kingdom
(6.20: I 2.32: 2 I .3 1). On his final journey to Jerusalem he answered to 'Son o f
David' ( 18.35-43: cf. 20.4 1-45). On the night he was betrayed. he spoke to his
disciples about the kingdom (22.16, 18. 29-30). The thiefon tl>e cross asked to be
remembere.d when Jesus came into his kingdom (23.42). JO-seph of Arimathea
was 'looking for the kingdom' (23.51 ). luke I 3.28-29 suggests that Gentiles will
pm1icipate in the eschatologic-.al kingdom.m Jesus found a believing Roman cen-
turion (7.9] and a thankful Samaritan ( I7. 18). He directed the apostles that ·repen-
tance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations'
(24.46).
In Acts. the. risen Jesus continues to teach about the kingdom ( 1.3). In 1.6-8,
the disciples ask about the restoration o f the kingdom to Israel. Jesus does not
change the subject. 139 dismiss the ques tion.tJO or point to the distant future.ut He
answers directly: the coming o f the Spirit and their own subsequent testimony to
the risen (Lord) Jesus are the means by which the kingdom will be restored. 1 ~ 2
The apostles continue to preach about the kingdom (8. 12; 14.22; 19.8; 20.25;
136. In the mid 1980$. Bo\"on noted tha1 "No one to our knowkdge has analyzed the figurt-of
4
David in the writings of l uke.· Bovon. LltJ:t? 11Je 11reolq;iall. 93. Bo,·onculls attention to the follow-
ing texts: luke-1.27. 32.69: 2.4. This deficiency ha.o; now bc:c.n remedied in Strauss.. /Xwidic Mt?ssialr.
137. These promises parallel those mack to David in 2 Sam. 7. FiiZm)'er. Luke. 1.338.
138.. Wilson. Oenrilt:> Mi.uion. 33.
139. Ckon L. Rogers. Jr.• ·l'he Davidic Covenant in Acts-Re\'clation'. BSa< 151 (1994): H -84.
140. Jesus' answ<r is not ·a substitute for the disciples· hope.s '. but ·a ple-dge of the re.tum of ksus
aod of Lhe n:storo.tion of Israel of whieh Ihe)' nre the fi rst-fruits. lsrnd is oow being restored and awaits
the gift of the kingdom: fnmklin. Cluislth~ LoJ·d. 95--%. Sl">C' also. e.g. Fitzmycr.Acrs. 205: Johnson.
Acrs. 29.
141. John A. Mcle-an. ·oid Jesus Correct the- Disciples' View of the King-domT.BSuc 151 ( 1994):
2 t 5- 27.
142. Jacques Dupont ' La portCc- christolog~uc: de l'<' 'anb..Cfis.ation des nations'. in J'll(mwllt>s
ElUdes .u1r /es Actt•s des Ap61re.f (Paris: Cerf. 1984). 49.
28.23, 31). David's words anticipated Judas' betrayal ( 1.16-20, citing Ps. 69.25:
109.8). the opposition ofGentiles (4.24-28, citing Ps. 2. 1-2), and (especially) the
resurrection (2.25-32: 13.35-37, citing Ps. 16.8- 11 ; 132.11) and ascension of
Christ (2.34-36, citing Ps. II 0.1). David was the model king ' afler God's heart'
and the ancestor of Jesus ( 13.22-23). Both are identified as God's servant (4.25.
27. 30; 3.13, 36). 'God had sworn with an oath to [David] that he would set one
of his descendants upon his throne' (2.30). By rnisingJesus from the dead. ·what
God promised to the fathers. this he has fulfilled to us their children'. to ·give
you the holy and sure blessings of David' (13.34-36, citing lsa. 55.3). David
Ravens has argued that kingdom expectation is central to Luke's purpose.
With his pastornl purpose-in mind (i.e. com•incing kwish bdie\'CfS th:u they have not
forsake-n the pcopk of God and asruring Gcntik bdie\·erslhatthe)' do in fact belong to
the people of God~ luk<: h:c; devised the-fo1lowing strategy. The first step is to show
that Israe-l remains the pe-ople ofGod and that he-has alwa)'S planned to restore lsrnd to
its prc Davidic unit)'... . The second step is to remind his t-c.adcrs that the prophets look
4
forward to the: time of the incoming Gentiles. The Gentile mis:>ion is dlctefort lsrad's
mission and the route to the fulfillment of fsrad 's dcstin)'. 1d
Similarly, lvfax Turner has argued that ·Jsrnel's restoration or salvation is a

cardinal theme of l uke. Acts' and that Luke understands this to be ' largely
4
complete by Acts 15 ·. w
4.4 Acts 15.16- 18

Acts 15 marks a critic-al point in both the book and the. lite of the.e-arly church.tJ>
It has been called 'ihe stntctural and theological centre of Acts'. 1 ~6 The gospel
had spre.ad from Jerusalem and Judaea. through Samaria, and on toward "the e.nd
of the eanh•. (n doing so. it penetrnted communities ofDiaspora Jews. a nd even
overflowed these communities so that many Gentiles on the fringes of the syna-
gogue had come to believe. But when many Diaspom Jews rejected their mes-
sage, Paul and Barnabas be.gan pre.aching mot•e widely to Gentiles. supporting
this radical step by appe.aling to (sa. 49.6 as a command addressed to them (Acts
13.47).
The resulting success of this Gentile mission ( 14.27: I 5.3-4) Jed to sharp dis-
agreements regarding the way in \\>'hich Gentile belie.vers were to be admitted to
the church, and pat·ticularly on circumcision. the Mosaic law. and table
143. D.wid Ra\•cns. f.uke and lire RcJtorolion of lmrel (JSNTSup 119: Shefticld: Sheffield
Academic Press. 1995). 250.
144. Tumcr. PokV!r,4 19.
145. II is not neoc:ssaryto review thecomple.x discussion of the.re-lationship between ActsandGala-
lia.ns on the maucr of Paul's visits to Jcru~km . On this. see e.g. Bruce, Acu {rcY. <dn.): Fitzmytr.
Acts: Witherington• .4(·ts.
146. Strauss. D<nidic Mesl·iah. 180. Wilson has written thai ·ch. 1S forms a wat~rshc:d in the book
of A~ts. h is a. if not the, wming poin1 of !he whole narrntivc:! Witson. Oenrili! Mission, 192- 93.
Dupont speaks of the ·centre du livre cc pivot du rCc.it des Actcs'. DuponL ·un p¢t~plc' . 311. This text
'occupc unc place ccntrnle dans k s Actcs des ap6trcs·. Taylor. Commemaire. 4.197.
fellowship between believers of Jewish and Gentile backgrounds (Gal. 2. 11-14).

Some came to Antioc.h from Judaea teaching. ·Unless you are circumcised accord-
ing to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved ' ( 15. 1). Implicit in the require-
ment of circumcision was the obligation :to keep the law of Moses' ( 15.5; cf.
Gal. 5.3). The ·yoke· mentioned in 15.10 was ' the yoke of the commandments'
(m. Ber. 2.2).147 What is in view, however, is not the moral obligations of the Jaw
(to love God and neighbour, o r to refrain from nmrdet·, thef\, adulte•y, etc.) but
its distinctive ceremonial provisions. I-'S After ·Paul :.lJld Barnabas had no small
dissension and debate with them', a de legation was sent to consult with ' the
apo..~t l es
and elders in Jerusalem· ( 15.2). On their way to Jems.alem, and once
they arrived 1here. they ·gave great joy to all the brethren· as they reponed the
conversion o f the. Gentiles ( 15.3-4).
Luke's report of the council's deliberations can be divided into tJuee pm1s.
First. following ·much debate,~ Peter recounted his own role in the initial intro-
duction o f the gospel to the Gentiles ( 15.7-1 1: cf. cbs 10- 11). He ascribed the
leading I'Oie in those events to God ( 15.7) and drew the following oonclusions. 1J9
1. By giving the Holy SpiJ·it. God showed his ac.ceptance of Gentile
believers.
2. In cleansing their heans by fai th, 150 God demonstrated that he made no
distinction between Jewish and Gentile believers.
3. Circumcision and the f\~tosaic law were a burden that Jews had never
been able to bear. To require this burden of Gentile believers would be
to test God.
4. Salvation. for both Jew and Gentile, is by grac.e (not by circumcision or
the law).
Second. Barnabas and Paul (Barnabas regains top billing during the account ofthe
council151 ) recounted for the fourth time in the narrative ( 15.12: cf. 14.27: 15.3. 4)
what God had done among the Gentiles. specifically ·signs and wonders· God had
147. Brucc. Acrs (Gree~ TexL 3rd e-dn.). 290-91.

148. Luke 10.25-28: 18. 18-20: Matt 5.17-18: Rom. 13.8-10: Gal. 5.22-23: Eph. 6. 1·3. ' Morn)
rules. such as the Ten Commandments. were already nssumed. AI/ Christians. Jew and Gentile-. live-d
by them .. . Morality was nol the: issue: at the krosnJem Conference.· Polhjll. Arts. 33 1- 32. For qucs·
tions and disputes about cttcmonial provisions. see Luke 6.1· 11: 11.37-4 1: I3.10· I 7: 14.1-6: Acts
6.14: 10.9- 16: 11.2· 18: 21.21: d. Gal. 4.8· 11: Rom. 14.2-6: Col. 2.16· 17.
149. Van <k Sundt's nssertion l.hat ' the beginning of (Peter's} speec-h is not connec-ted with whnt
went before:>is surprising. Sandt. 'E:tplnnation'. 75. It O\'erlooks the re-le\·nn« ofthe m.-cption ofthi:
Spirit the nbolition of distinction. and the c.le.ansing ofthe: heart to the question of cil'\.-umcision and
the law. In fact. both circumcision (Gen. 11.10· 14) and the law were ck :uly tutdcl":'tood to be
dis1inguishing marks of the people of God (O.:ut. 4.6·8: Eph. 2.14-16). The symbolism of
cin:-un1cis.ion was of ckan~i ng. True c'ircumcision was thus a de.ansing of the heart (Deut. 30.6: k r.
4.4: 9.25: cf. Rom. 2.28-29). J. P. Hyatt. 'CircullK'ision'. !DB. 1: 629- 31.
150. Purification figures prominently in Acts 10-11 ( 10.15. 28: 11 .9). Dupont. ·un peuplc:-'. 329.
151. It is 'Bnnt3bas and Saulfltaul' from Acts 11.25 to 13. 7. hut becomes ' Paul and Barnabas' ontt
the Gentile mission begins. The.scquenec: rc"ertsbriefl y in 14. 12. 14 (wllc:n BamnbasgC'Is top billing
as "Zeus' to Paul's ' Hc:m1c:s' in Lystra) and in 15.12. 22. 15 in krusakm. where Bamabns had n
longe-r history nnd/or wns perhnps better rc:-garde.d than P-aul.
done.152 echoing the ;signs and wonders' associated with the exodus.•H the signs
and wonders prophe~"ied by Joel (Acts 2.19-20). and the ' mighty works and won-
ders and signs which God did through' Jesus (Acts 2.22). Finally. James spoke.
James characterized the events Peter had descl'ibed1.4 as 'God taking from
among the Gentiles a people for his name' (O 6toc; tnea~£1(/ttto )..a~etv ~
£6v&v /,aov tl(l ovo~an ttutoli), anticipating the language of Amos 9. 12b
(cited later in Acts 15.17b), IS.S and echoing language from the exodus (0 aeO;
tiat>.6rov Att~ttv routl(l t 6voc;, Deut. 4.34).'%With this interpretation of these
events. James asserted. ' the words of the prophets agree·. citing the text from
Amos 9.1 1-1 2.157 As Paul's and Bamabas' decision in Pisidian Antioch was
sealed with the citation of Isa. 49.6, the decision of the council here would be
settled by James's appeal to Amos 9. ·James' address is the climactic and decid-
ing section of the.na1·rative ofch. 15' and ' the citation of Amos 9. 11 -12 fornu the
crux of James' argument' .1s.s James concluded that the oouncil should not 'trouble·
(1ta.pevoxA.etv) the Gentiles who are ·n1rning to God' 15¥ by requiring them to be
circ umcised and keep the law ( 15.1. 4). Instead. he proposed several limited obli-
gations. commonly designated the ' apostolic decree' ( 15.20, 29: 21.25).
152. In the N1". 'sign~> and wondcu' validate the gospel and its mcssengers(cxcept in Acts 7.36: stt
Acts2. 19. 22. 43: ~.30: 5.12:6.8: 14.3: 15.12: Rom. 15. 19: 2 Cot. 2.11; HC"b. 2.4: cf. John 4.-JS and
counterfe its in Matt. 24.24: ~fntk 13.12: 2 Thess. 2.9}.
153. Exod us 7.4. 9: 11.9-10: Dcut. 4.34: 6.22: 7.19: 11.3: 26.8: 29.3: 34.11: Ps. 7&.43: 105.27:
135.9: Jcr. 32.20-2 1. 'When in the LXX the phrase ..signs and wonders" is used. lhc re-ference is us~
ally to the emancipation of b:rnd from Eg)'pt .. . From the allusion to Ex:od. 7.3 in Ac.ts 7.36 (and
maybe from 2.19 as \VCII) it is obviou.-.l.hat l uke was acquainted with its r<fcrencc to the Exodus.·
Sandi. ·E.:'I planation'. 91. See also Karl Heinrich Rengstorf. ' o llJlE:Iov'. TDNT 1.242.
I54. I! has b~Xn questioned whether ! UJ.tto'>v hc.n: refers to Simon Peter. Peter is nc\'C·t called
Lu~EWv in Luke- Aci.S (only in 2 P<ter 2.1. where Lhc tc-:tt is in doubt). In Acts he is caJkd ! ipwv
only in I 0.5. 18. 31: I I.B. where he is 'Simon callcd {i::m:ctAEro) Peter. Two ahcmativcs hll\'C-b«n
proposed. bascd on a statcmc.nt of Chrysostom (the. text of which is in doubc). The shorte-r text
identifies this I ~J~EWv with the ·righte.ous and devout' man in luke 1.25-35. Ricsncr klic-\'CS that
the Nw•c Dimittis is in \'ic.w. Riesncr. ·James's Spe«h'. This view is me-ntioned. but alrcad)'
discounted, by Foo.kcs Jackson and Lokc. e.ds.. BeginninJP·. 4.175. ihc longer text sugge$ts thatlhis
! Q~E<Dv was a third person. SonX' ha\·e suggested Simon Nige-r. who rna)' have represented the
church in Antioch at the council. Fitzmycr.Act.s. 552- 53. Howt\'Cf. •the logic ofthe entire narrative
demands that we take it as re-fe-rring to Simon Peter'. Johnson. Act::. 264.
I SS. Adna. ·James'. 149: Bauckham. 'J~~mCs nnd the.Gentiles'. 171. Dupont has persuasi\•cly argued
that this anticipatory- framing of theeitalian dcmonsltates thut the Aroos citation is nota later addition.
Jacque-s Dupont. 'AAOI ..E ~ 'E9NQN (Act. xv. 14)', NTS 3 ( 1956): 47- 50. Dupont partic.u latl)'
has in mind the ar~'U nt<ntsof J. N. Sanders. 'Peter and Paul in the Acts•. NTS 2 (1955/56). 133-43.
I 56. Sondt, 'Explanntion•. SS.
151. The starting-point is the events that haw been described. whieharcthcn intcrprc1cd in light of
scripturt-. 'Most testimonia in the New Test3mcnt follow the sequence ..Current Event - Scripture"
tathc.r than "'Scrip(urc-Current Event" Edw3rd Earle Ellis. 'Midtashic Features in the Specd x:sof
Acts'. in Prophecy a11d Nermem'lltic ill Early ChristiuniJy (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans... 1978). 204.
This runs c.onttoryto the approach ofboth cvangd icaJs who seek to maintain the priority of scriprurol
authority and critical scholars who believe that scriptural 113rratives have been shaped orc.vc:nereate.d
to conform to carlic.r scripture.
158. SLTIIUSS. Daridic .1./essia/1. 182.
159. The present paniciplc.. suggesting that this is ongoing and cxpwed to con 1inue~
SO Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts
The assembly agreed. drafted a letter to the church in Syria (15.23-29). and
sent it by a delegation of le.ade.rs from the Jerusalem church accompanied by
Barnabas and Paul. The Jeuer d isavowed those who had disturbed the church in
Antioch with their teaching, affirmed the apostles· fellowship with Barnabas and
PauL introduced the delegates Judas and Silas. and outlined the obligations James
had proposed.
Acts 1S presents a multilayered argument for the legitimacy of the Gentile
mission. (Recall Stanley's observation [section 1.3 above] that Paul does not rest
his arguments on the appeal to scripture alone. but also provides other lines o f
reasoning.) First. there are the arguments advanced in the council as Luke has
reponed them.16tl including the climactic appeal by James to the. prophecy o f
Amos 9. The nan·ative o f the counC-il itself. with its unanimous decision ( I 5.22)
and the. favourable reception of that decision by the church in Antioch (15.30-
34). underscore$ the claim that the council's decision had 'seemed good to the
Holy Spirit' as we.ll as to the church ·s leaders (15.28). Finally~ Acts 15 is set in
the context of the larger narrative of Acts. which supports the Gentile mission
throughout with the commisioning of the apostles as witnesses to Jesus "in Jeru-
salem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the.end of the earth' ( 1.8). the account
of Paul's conversion (with God's stated intention that Paul would 'cany my
name. before the Gentiles· , 9. 1S)~ the accounts of Gentile conversions (Acts 8:
I 0- 1I; 13- 14; 16-21; se.e especially 14.27; 15.3-4; cf. also I0.44: I 1. 17-18,20-
2 I; 16.9. 14; 18.10), and its conclusion with Paul preaching in Rome.
4.4.1 .~.< /tis Wrillen

The citation from Amos 9.11 -1 2 is mariced as a quotation by the introductory for-
mula .:a60>; yeypwttat." ' The expression oi Myot t&v 7tpoql~·t6lv does not
indic-ate that the citation is a c.omposite~ not· is the reference indefinite (see the
discussion on p. 62, above). t6l
Commentators have noted that .A.c,ts also contains the only other explicit cita-
tion from Amos in the NT. the citation o f5.25-27 in Acts 7.42b-43. Portions o f
both Amos 9. 11 band 5.26-27a are also cited (somewhat freely) in CD Vll. 14-
17, although the interpre-tation there is quite different. Earl Richard has argued
that the citations in Acts are related by the common themes o f exile and
160. 11le accoun1is ccrtainJy abridg-ed. The-re had already bee-n ·much discussion' before the lirst
of luke's reootded comments ( 15.7}. Any llT!,'Uments 1hat may ha\'Cbeen offen:d b)· lheothcrside arc
omitted entirely.
16 1. In Luke- Acts. rirpa:nat introduces a quotation in 12ofl4 occurrcnccs(the-exccptions arc
Luke 10.26: 24.46) ond in only one ofthosc 12 is the-source not mentioned (23.35).Six ore uni-que to
Luke- Acts (luke 2.23; 4. 17: Acts 1.20: 7..12: 13.33: 15. 15). one is distinc-tive (on!)· Luke-continues
the ci1:uion in 3.4-6 to include Isa. 40.4·5}; and five 11re shared with the other gospds (luke 4.4. 8.
10: 7.27: 19.46).
162. As Calvin proposes. Acts J.l-18. 46. Again. sec 7A2: 13.41. Mauro incom:ctlydc.duccs from
the ~ubsti tuti on of pnCt '!a {Ita for iv t fi fu,tipq. Et>tl\'1l that ·Ja•ne~ did not purport to give lhc
exact l:mgtUgc of Amo~. or of any prophet'. but ·to declare the substance of ..thc voices of lhc
prophets" (not of Amos only) touc-hing IlK: matt« under consideration·. Mouro. ·Tabc-mack ·. 401.
tabernacle, t6J but the contexts are dissimilar. the ' tent' in Amos 9 is not the taber-
nacle.(see sec.tions 4.2. 1. 4.4.3 ). and il l'eference to the-exile is not enough to claim
a connection. These citations. togcthe1·with those from Joel 3.1-5 MT (Acts 2 . 16-
21) and Hab. 1.5 (Acts 13.40-41 ). show that tlle Book ofd1e Twelve was t1uniliar
to Luke.
J. W. Bowker has analysed the. speech in light of recognized Jewish homily
forms and concluded that James's a rgument is ·a genuine yelanunedenu
response 'lw that ·derives from a request f(>l' inst111c.tion. yelammedenu rabbenu.
let our teacher instruct us' . 165 Tlte matter befo re the council is an halakic question
(note <i1ttt\pt6~. 'answered' . in 15.13). ' James bases his decision on two grounds.
what is known to have happened in the.past and on scripture. Those are the two
classic grounds for establishing ha/akah .. . James issues his decision, using the
strong fOI'mula, £yro tCpivro. His dec ision comes closest to what might tech-
nically be. called a taqqanah. ·lOIS
4.4.2 / Will Rerum (/6b)

Acts 15.16b inserts ci:vc((:npt\VCI) (which does not appear in the MT or LXX)
before Ctvoti<'080J.n}a ro. It has been suggested that civaatp£wc~ reflects the
idiomatic use of : ;c' as 'again·. in which · ( will retunt and .. .' should be
translated as ' I will again . .. '. 161 While the Hebrew ::~i may convey that sense.
ci.vaat piq>ro does not in the LXX or in any other NT text. 1M In Mal. 1.4, Edom
·will return (€·n tot p€'VOOJJ£V, :1ci~1)and rebuild (C!votK000).1tlarof.1EV, ;-;~;n) the
waste places' (the citation is from the ASV, because more recent English transla-
tions subsume the-forme1·verb into the latter).169 E.dom has been destroyed and its
people have bee.n forced into e.xile. so they ·rentm ' in order to rebuild. 1jl) In Zech.
163. ·Luke seems to write-in a cumulati\'e way so that later mrrati\'es and spttthc-; d::\•elop earlicr
1hcmcs.' Richard. ·creative Usc'. 49.
164. J. W. Bowker. ·spoedtcs in Ac.ts: A Study in Proem and Ydamrncdenu Fonn'. /I."TS 14
( 1967): t08.
165. Bowker. ·s~«bes·. 99.
166. Bowker. 'Spe« be.s•. 107-08.
167. Claude- E. Hayward. 'A Study in Acts XV. 16-18'. £\'Q 8 (1936}: 165. Huyward argues
against the dispcnsu!ionaJ "icwthal ·return' here refers to 1M re(um of Christ as hc.Jd. e.g. by Willard
M. Aldrich. ·r he Interpretation of AclS 15.1J.- 18'. BSac Ill (1954): J.22. Fora condusi,·e-argumcnt
against the. latter "icw. soc Suauss. /Ja~idic MeJsiah. IS6.
16&. BOB. s.v. ~~. Qttl 8: GKC. §120d; TWOT. s.v. :.1;;. The more common i ntot piqxu may.
e.g. kr. 12.15: Hos. 2.9: 14.8: Mic. 7.19. but 1hcrr is no de:u if1;Stance of this in the t-.T. Thc-rr is ccr-
lainly a sense of ' n:.slorcJbuild Up again • in the ttpctition of c(V<i (civao:;pi1¥CO . .. civou:o5ot.t ~G (l)
. .. civoucoO~ ~o m . .. O:vop&o)o (l)). Walte.r F. Burn.sid¢. Tire ActsoftiJe Aposlles: T11e Greek EdiJcd
v.ith Jntrod•t<1i011 tllld NotesfOr J!Je 1.;:\·e ofSr/Jools (Cambridge: Cambridge-Unive-rsity Pres;. 1916).
Kaiser argues that the repe-aled ci.\•ct would nukc- civao tpi ~¥W in the scnseof 'again' unnecessary.
Kaiser. ·o a,•idie Promise'. 105.
169. This p:ISS:t!.,'t" appears to have been overlooked in the disc:ussion of the meaning of ci\'ClG·
-tp(ll'm in Acts 15. 16n.
170. Joyce Baldwin. Haggtli, Zocharialr, /11(1/ttdri: An /nJroductioll atUI Commenf({J)" (TOTC:
Downers Grove. Ill.: lnlcr-Varsity. 1972). 213: Eli Cashd:m. 'Malaehi". in 71•~ Tht>ln• Proplrds:
Hebrt<w Te~;t, £11gliJ!I Transla1im•and Comt~II'IIW(I' (ed. Abraham Cohen: Soncino Books of the.Bibk:
1. 16, Yahweh promises that ·J will return (iJt tatpi'tfOO, 'i;q~) to Jerusalem with
compassion and my house will be built in it' (0.voucoSopt}6~Ge'tcu. :t~;:). The
active E1tt.Ot p£'VCt> with the passive &votKOOO~'l}6~ouat prevents reading this
as the idiomatic constn~ctio n fo r ' again·. God's ' return · is relational, reflecting a
change of heart, in this case re~"toring his compassion fo r Jerusalem.' 1' Rebuild-
ing the-temple. is a subsequent event that is dependent on this prior restoration o f
God's favour. In Acts I 5. 16b. civao~ptljlro merely highlights the restoration of
God's favour that is already implicit in Amos's prophecy and will result in the
rebuilding of ' David 's fallen tent' .
4.4.3 The Tent ojD m•id (16c)

As with the i""!1 rQO in Amos 9.11 . there is considerable. diversity of opinion
regarding 1i1v OICllVIlv dttu iS in Acts 15.1 6. Haenchen argued that the reston.~
' booth of David' is a reference to the resurrection o f Christ. but few have fol-
lowed him. 111 Many have understood the ' tent ofDavid' as the d}'flasty and king-
dom of David. Rece-ntly, Richa1·d Bauckham a nd others have argued that the
expression refers to the e1·e ction of the eschatological temple. m
Bauckham argues that · "the dwelling of David" ... [is) the plac.e of God's
dwelling in the messianic age when Davidic rule is restored to Israel. He will
build this new temple so that all the. Gentile nations may seek his presence
there. ' " 4 He claims support for this identification in Tobit 13.11; lam. 2.6~ Ps.
42.5.115 He believes Amos 9. 11-12 has been conflated with Hos. 3.5; Je-r. 12.15-
16: Isa. 45.21 and that these toget11er 'put the main quotation from Amos .. . in a
context ofprophecies which associate the eschatological conversion ofthe Gentile
nations \\~th the restorntion o f the Temple in the. messianic age· .nt. Finally, he
notes that this reading fits with the early chmch·s understanding of itself as the
Boumcmouth: Soncino. 1948). 338: Douglas L Stuart. ·Malnchi'. in The-Minor Propllet.f (cd. Thomns
Edwnrd ~fc.Comi s.kc)': 3 \'OI!:.: Grund Rapids: & ke-t. 1998). 1287- 89.
I i I . Of l.hc texts cited by BOll for this sense of the tc-tm. the following :ue most relevant: lsn.
63.17: Jer. 12.15: Joel 1. 14: Z<ch. 1.3: Mal. 3.7: Ps. 65: 80. 1S: 90. 13: 2 Cbr. 30.6. BOB. s.\'. ~ti.
Qal 6.g. This rd atiotl31sense of ~Oj appears most ofl..:nof pcoplc (rt)tuming to God. TII'OT. s. v. : 1:.'.
1i2. Hacnchen. Acrs. 448. Sec- the response: of Baucl:ham. · Jarncs and che Ge-ntiles·. !57.
Ii 3. Bauckham. · Jnmes and the Gentiles'; ·James and the Jerusalem ChUich ·: Niigd e. Ltmbhliue
Darids. N:igck nppnrentlycame to this conclusion independently ofBauckham. Adna depends on both
Bnuc.kham and Ni;gek. Adna. ·o ie Hcilige Schril1'. 1- 23: ·Jnnles'. 125-6 1. ~c :also Edwnrd E:arle
Ellis. 'Isaiah nnd the Eschatologicnl Tcmpk' . In Chris/ ur.rltlle F11rure i11.\h •Tesumlf!m HistOJJ' (cd.
Edwnt<l Earle E-llis: NovTSup 97: Le-iden: Brill. 2000). 60: Ellis. · AE·{E' K'l}pto; •. 183: Edwnt<l Earle
Ellis. Paul"s Use uf tlre Old Tn f(lnli!Jit (Grnnd Rapids: Eerdmnns. 195i). 107- 13: Allan J. McNiool.
' Rebuilding the Hmtse.ofOavid: The f unction of the Bcne-dictus in l ul:o-Acts'. ResQ 40( 1998): 25-
38. For on <artier expression of this \'icw. S« Racl:ham. Acts. 253- 54.
Ii 4. B:auckhan1. · Jame;s and the-Jerusalem Chun:.h'. 453-54. S« also Baud :ham. •Jatncs and lhc
Gcn!ilcs· . 158- 59.
I i S. Lamcntntions 2.6. howe\'er. « nploys diffcrtnt words in both dlC MT (lhe ltapax 1t,.) nnd the
LXX (oX~ V(I)pa). Psulm ·U.S has the admitte-dly ' obfo(ore' w;, which is rwdcrt.das a.:l}\'ft.;_ by l.hc
LXX.
1i 6. Bouckhom. ·James and the.Jc-rusnfem Church·. 455. Sc< also Bauckham. "Jamc:s and the Gen-
tiles'. 165.
eschatological ten1plc.1n \Vhile this last is ce-rtainly true. it does not establish that
the present text shares that unde.J'S-tanding, nor does the claim that similar views
were he-ld at Qumran. (N5gele notes lhat at Qummn the nations were to be
destroyed. while here they are included_li''$) Even if the evidence fOI' conflation
were stronger. neither Hos. 3.5 nor Jer. 12. 15-16 refer to the eschatologic.al temple
and, as Barreu notes, 'the slight verbal echoes ofJer. 12.15; lsa. 45.21 C3n hardly
count as prophetic sayings that agree or disagree with anything' .1'N Thus in Acts
15 there is no ·context of prophecies which associate the eschatological convel'-
sion of the Gentile nations with the restoration of the Temple in the messianic
age' .1s->Nordoes the frequent association of<ivOli('OSopiro in the LXX with Jeru-
salem and the temple establish Nagele's claim that these are in view here. parti-
cularly as she conc.edes that the tenn is also used in connection with the kingdom
oflsrael.181 A convincing argument that · D:.wid's tent' refers to the eschatologi-
cal temple has yet to be made.
Rather, 'the tent of David' must be understood as the (restored, eschatological)
Davidic kingdom. 1S2 Dupont notes that in the NT only Luke employs the phrase
' house of David' (luke 1.27. 69: 2.4). 133 We ha\re noted the prominence ofDavidic
and kingdom themes in l uke-Acts. While the physical te-mple is prominent in
luke, references to theeschatologie3l temple are ah.~nt and the ch.arge that Jesus
threatened to destroy and rebuild the temple (Matt. 26.6 t II Mark t4.58: Matt.
27.40 II Marl< 15.29) is omitted. For Luke, the kingdom is restored in tl1e ascen-
sion ofChriS1 (Acts 2.34). 1"
4 .4.4 The Rest ofMankind (lla)

Verse 17 expt·esses the purpose (Onro~ iiv) 1k5 for which God restored ·David's
fallen tent'. The restoration of the kingdom is not an end in itse.lf. but is intended to
have an effect on 'the rest of mankind'. They are connected. not parallel or sepa-
rate, events. 1St. Those who 'seek the lord' are ' the rest of mankind ... and all the
171. Bauekhom cites 1 Cor. 3. 16-17:2 Cor. 6. 16: Eph. 2.20·22: He-h. 13.15· 16: I Pet 2.5: 4. 17:
Re--v. 3.12: II .1·2.(Some purponcdcxamples from the Apos-tolic Falhers refer to tbe individual r.uher
1han the church corporatd y as lhc dwelling of God.) Bauckham. · James and the G<n1ilcs'. 165- 67:
·Jmncs and the Jerusalem Church' . .f57.
178.. N3gck. Laubhlitte f)(wids. 90- 91.
179. Bamtt. Aris.2.725.
180. Bauckham. 'James and the Jerusalem Church·. 455. Sec also Bauc.klum. 'lames and the
Gentiles', 165.
18 1. Niigde. Laubhiitte Da~'ids. 89.
I82. See e.g. Bruce. Acts(rev. cdn.), 293: Johnson. Acts. 265: Polhili.AC'Is. 330. Strauss's Jistinc.·
tion be-tween the kingdom and the Oa\'idic dyna!>ly is a distinction without a difference. There is no
rule wi1hou! a realm and no realm wi1hou! ruk. Suauss. Dovidic Messialr. 190.
18 3. Duponl. ·Ac 15. 16' . 30.
184. Dupon!. 'Ac 15.16'. 30.
1&5. BDAG. sx. Onro.;: BOF. §369(5)~ Mouhon et nL Grammar. 3. 105.
186. Nagele h3sargucd lhatOnro<; (iy is de-pendent onQ\l((atPfiwm. so that two e\X:llt.s resuh from
God's return: lhe restomtion ofDavid's tent nnd mankind seeking the lord. Niigclc. Louhhiiitr Da~·ids.
96-9i. There are. however. no grounds in I5.16 for privileging imxa"tpbvro abow the other indi·
eativc- vcrlls. It is 1no1T likely l.hat CmxotpE-vro functi ons here in lieu of a !n!ppkmc-nt:ary or
&4 Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts
Gentiles who are called by my name' ( 17a-b). 'The rest of mankind' are those
who are not participaJltS in the. initial phase of the restoration of the kingdom. If
the restoration of the kingdom begins with Jews (as ir did in 1he ministry of Jesus
and the earlie~<~ t minb1ry of the church). the ·rest of mankind' would most natu-
rally be Gentiles. In In Amos 9.12, it is difficult to be certain whether 'all the
nations' is in opposition to 'Edom' onl}' or 'the remnant of Edom ·.but che case
fomts in the Greek text clearly identify ' the. res-t of mankind ' and ·au the Gen-
tiles' as parallel expressions.IllS
Braun has claimed that ·remnant' is a technical temt which is never 'applied
to Gentiles in any soteriological or e.schatological sense'. 1 ~ Even ifthis is so, it is
up to Braun to make the. case that the te11n must be seen in this technic--al sense
here. h is. of course. also possible that chis text malts a dramatic theological
development, as in ls.a. 19.25, where other terms normally reserved to Israel are
applied to Gentiles: ' Blessed be Egypt my people. and Assyria the work of my
hands, and Israel my heritage.· Braun seeks to maintain a dispensational
d istinction betw·een Jew and Gentile. but is unnecessarily concerned that ethnic
Jews who believe in Jesus are.absent from the text. Exegetically and historically
they comprise the. core of the reestablished ' tent ofDavid' . lt is difficult to see
how 'the rest of mankind' could possibly refer to ethnic Jews (whether or not
they believe in Jesus) in light of the underlying MT 'the rest o[Edom'.
The distinctive LXX reading in Ihe citation has prompted some to question the
historicity of the account and the appropriateness oflhe citation.
The Hebrew tc~t would bt usdess for James's argument. and would e\·cn conttndiet it
Ne-arly e\'Ct)' expositor concede.<> that the Jewish Christian James would not in Jc-fUS;lkm
have used a Septuagint text. differing from the Hebrew original. as !leripturnl proof. It is
not James but Luke who is spc-.aking hcre.IOO
cin:.unlstantial participle (for the. consiJUC~ion. l(Ce BDF. §471(4)}. Aldrich's claim thnl the text
cn\'isions two distinct events. the inclusion ofthe Gc:milcs nnd the: future restorntionof !he kingdom.
is prompted by the dispensational commitment to mainlllina sharp distinction be!wcen Jsraelnnd the
church. Aldrich. "Acts 15.13- 18'. 317. 322. It cannot be supponed by grammatical or any othc.r
aspeciS of the te:tt itself. Cok has rightlyargued thnt the restonuion of David's hut is either the oce-
cssnry condition of the.ing:llhe.ringofthe nations or syoonymous with it. Allin Cole.. The- New Temple:
A Study in tlr(· Origins of11Je Careclu!liool 'Form· oflh£' ChmY'Ir ill !Ire Ne11· Teswment (London:
Tyndak Press. 1950). 47.
187. Ot. lt:$Siikdy.nJI who arc not bclic\'ing Jews (i.e. unbeli-eving Je.ws plus the unbtl~ving
Gentiles). Nib><lc-. Lrmbluitrr Dtwids. 90- 91.
I8!. 'Theconjuoction"and" be-fore -ou theGtntiles.. (\'. I7)iscpcxegetic ... Tht ''residue ofmen"
who nrc to "seck the.lord'' are identic-Ill with "all the Gentiles. upon whom my nanl'C is called'' - i.t:'.
the el«t from<:\'C-1)' nation: Frederick F. Bruot. CommeJttary on 1he Book <?ftlre .4cts: Tire E11glish
Te.tt wit/J fmrwluclion. Exposition and h'otr.f (NICNT: Gm.nd Rapids: Eerdmnns. 1954). 310. (The
stateme-nt does not nppear in the 19SS edition.) So also Barrett. Acts. 2.727: Nligde. Loubhiitte [)(JI'idf.
10 1. Sande-rs nrgues that the· ··remainder of people-" :md "all the: Gentilcs.. m. ofcoursc.aparollel-
ismus membrontm an-d synonymous·. S..1nders. 'PTophccic- Usc'. 195.
189. Bmun. 'Jame.s' Usc of Amos'. 120. 'Doctrinally. the word "remnant" applie.s stric-tly to lsr:ad.•
Braun. 'James' Usc of Amos'. 119.
190. Hamc-hcn• .4cts. 448.
James' argum¢ntation would crumble if it rested on the Hebn:-.w text of Amos 9. The
uni\·crsali$m that the brothe-r of the lord I'C\:'omrnends in his speech. can only find
Scriptural suppon in the Greek version of the OT. and it is high!)' unlikdy that J:unes
spoke: Greek !It the ronferc:ncc: of Jerusalcm.19t
However. othe-rs have res.ponded that it \vould have been entirely appropriate for
James to use the OT in Greek in a meeting with represe-ntatives of the church in
Antioch. 1~ (f the letter attributed to James is from the same church leader. that
letter may be seen as e-vidence that James \ll<lS familiar with Greek.19l Still others
have argued that James has deliberately employed a texn•al variant (or ambi-
guity) to find ·mankind' here instead of ·fdom'. and thus to make his ca."e by
midrashic me1hods. 1w Although he-concludes that James's speech in its current
form is a Lukan composition. Bauckham believes that its source ' coheres well
with what we know of the. JemsaJem church under the leadership o f James and
his circle'. 111'
Still others believe that the a.·gument C-illl in f.1.ct be. made. from the MT.
But even our .\illSOfc:tic Hebrew would have-S(rvod the present pufPO$e admimbly. sioce
it predicted that 'the tabernad e of ))avid.· i.e. the church of the Mc:ssi11h. would 'gain
possession of nil the nations which arc called by the name (of the God of Israel).· Cf. vs.
1 ~. where we arc told what this quotation was c~tcd to prove: 0 9t0; i1tEOKi~¥CltO
l.o:Ptiv E~ ievciw /.aOv tc? 0v6)Jan u:i»oU.1
Polhill has observed that ' the rest o f mankind' is not the expression that bears the
weight oftJle argument: ;the key phrase ...nations [Gentiles] called by my name"
occurs in both the Hebrew and Greek texts. and either would have suited James'
argument'. 197
Tbc te~t is cited in the LXX version ruthcrthan the Ht:"brew. although. since: Jame--s was
speaking Alamaic-. he: need not have re-ndered either \·crsion c:~actl y. In either version
the Ge-ntiles will be brought within the orbit of the new Davidic kingdom. Pra"Kalf)'all
19 1. Bovon. Luke tit~ Theologian. 85.

192. Adna. ·Jan1es'. 117~ Withe-rington. Acts. 457.
193. Joseph B. ~fayor. The Epistle ofSt. James (3rd c-dn.: New York: Mac-millan. 1912). i- lxv.
cclx-cdwii. Witherington urges that ·more attmtion should be paid to the various verbal similarirKs
bct\\~C-n what we lind in this spe« h (and in the. leiter of\'\'. 23·29) and the Epistle of James' nnd calls
p;~nKul:u 11Uc:ntion to Mayor's work Witherington. Acu. 451- 58. For 11 rc:ccnt nssessmmt of the
Greek of t.hc: letter. see Luke: Timoth)' Johnson. Tfte Letter ofJames: A ,\'("111 Trmrslalion witlllntro-
ductioll and ComnumtOIJ' (AB 37A: New York: Doubleday. 199-1). 1 ~ 1 21 . S« also the succinct
.wmmnry in Cadbury. 'Spe:«h~-s· . 5.4 1L
194. Ad03. ·James'. 137: Bauckham. · Jamesand the Gentiles'. 160-62: · Jarncs nnd the-Jerusak m
Church•. 457: Johnson. Acr.f. 265: l'iigde. lAtibhiiil~ Dmidf, 86. Bowker has argued that the yt!lam·
mede1111 fonn of the spcxclt indicates a Palestinian origin. Bowl:er. ·speeches'. 182.
195. Bauckham. ·Jame-s and the-Gentiks'. 18'2..
196. Tone.y. Composition. 39.
197. Polhill. .4crs. 329. n. 93. Similarly. BJ:uckham notes talso with rdcn:--oce to 15.1 7b) that ·Even
the ~iT could cll.Sil)' ha\~ been understood b)' a Jewish Christian as predicting tbe-e xtension of
lsmd's covenant status and pri\·ilc:ges lo the Gentile nations. The LXX fll('fl:'.ly mnkcs this -ckare-r.·
Bauckham. ·James and the Gentiles•. 169.
NT comme-ntatorsagret" tlutSt. James correctly understands this prop}te(y when he sees

iLs ful611mcnt in the colwcrsion of the Gentilcs.IIJ8
Neither the language nor fonn of the citation prevents us from holding that Luke·s
account represe.ntssubstantially what James said at the.counciL And the c-omplex
text1.1al questions raised by J7a turn out to be of relatively little importance as we
seek to follow the argument.
4.4.5 Allth" Gentiles upon whom My Name Is Called (llb)

The expression in v. 17b ('all the nations upon whom my name is c.alled' (my
translation], navtet tit 1'av11 t.p' o~ inud.K/.l]tet<10 ovo~a ~ou in' etlitou')
is awk\vard, 199 but it represents the Hebrew accurately and its meaning is clear.
As noted earlier, the-Hebrew idiom expresses ownership and dominion200 and is
applied in the or to the cemple. to Jems.alem a nd to lsrael. Barrett observes that
the relative clause could be read either as 'over all tllose particular Gentiles (not
all) over whom my name has bee-n called'. or ·au the Gentiles. in that my name
has been c--alled over all of them·. 11le course of the narrative will indic-ate the
author's intent. As it became apparent in Acts 13.48-50 that some Gentiles
believed (and some did not). so here it will become apparent that some bear God's
name. and some do not.W1 ·All' here should therefore be understood as distribu-
tive. rather than inclusive (~ evc1y individual Gentile'). (Note also I 5.14: ' to take
on/ of them a people for his name', l.et~dv ~ o\av&v ).o:ov 1<\) ov6,tet1t
autou.)
Bauckham believes that the calling of God's name over the. Gentiles (Acts
15.17b: Amos 9.1 2b) is the decisive point in James's argument. ·The nations qrw
Gentile nations belong to YHWH .... precisely as ''all nations" they are included
in the covenant relationship. It is doubtful whether any other OT text could have
been used to make this point so clearl)'· ' 200 h is not clear. however. in what way
Amos 9 asserts that Gentiles belong to Yahweh 'as Gentiles' or 'without becom-
ing Jews', or how it does so any more aptly than other prophetic te.xts that envi-
sion inclusion of<:Jentiles amo~g the pe<!J>Ie of G?<!· Bauck~am. su.s.sests tltat the
language here, as 111 l as. 2.7 (to .cetl.ov ovo~et 10 £1ttt<Al)aev e<p Wl~). refer.<
to Christian baptism;20J James's argument would ll1en be that Gentiles are to be
198. Benson. ··' ... From the Mouth of the Lion·" . 210- 11.
199. The nll!S('Uiine plurals. oU; and a UtoU;(whenonc wouldexp«t the IWJtcr). should beundt.f·
stood as aetmJtrltC'tioad Jensmtr. ' ''the Gentiks" signifies 11 multiplic-ity ofindi\·idual hunun beings'.
Barrc11. Acrs. 2.717. See-also Moulton et al.. Grammar. 3AO.
200. Dupont undeutands the idiom here somewhat differcn dy: it is the in\·ocation of the di\·inc
m1oc that conscl'4atc-.s to the Lord che people-of Israel. the ark of the CO\'Cn!lnt. etc. This understand~
ing ennb]e$ him toconn« t thc consecration involved in the-Spirit's d ennsing of the-Gcmiks' hearts
( w . 8-9) wilh that indic-ated by the in\'ocation of the divine name. DuponL ·un pcupk '. 324. See l.hc
discussion of Amos 9. 12 above.
20 1. Barrctt.Aru .2.727.
202. Bnuckham. ·James and the Gcntilc.s'. 169. Adnn conc-urs thnt ·these Gentiles shall be c-alled
into 1hc people of God quu Gentiles' . Adna. •JanlC$.. 150.
203. A baplisma) rtfercne-c in Jas. 23 is support«~. by Peter H. 0 <1\'ids. T11e Epi:ille of.lomeJ: A
Commentary o111/re Greek Te-cr fN IGTC: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 113: Mayor.J(/11/i'S. 89.
admiued simply on the basis of baptism, without circumcision or the obligation

ofthe law)O.:
Rusam connects the expression here with that in Acts 2.21 (Joel 3.5) and
argues that the citation indicates that circumcision and keeping the law no longer
matter, but only fuith ('calling on the name of the Lord').10S However. Wall notes
that the use.of the passive in v. 17 reverses the usual form of the verb in Acts (as
in 2.21). shifting the focus from the believer's c-all to God to :God 's effective
calling of a people into Jsrael'.266
4.4.6 The Ar!,7rlllelll

Bauckham has, howeve.r, correctly identified the is.s-ue before the council. The
issue. was not whether Gentiles could be. accepted into the people of God - that
had been setlled1 certainly by the end of Acis I I - but whethe-r they could do so
without ' becoming Jews'.207 i.e. without circumcision and keeping the. law of
Moses. The question was not whether1 but how - on what 'condition' (van de
Sandt) Ol' in what ' manner' (Robertson).108
James had characterized Peter's account as how 'God first visited the Gentiles,
o
to take out of them a people tbr his name.' (ltp6l1ov &to~ Elt£<!Ktlj!Cl10 l.aPttv
£~ £6v(i')V AaOv t<!) OvOJ.lat L ttUtoU).100 This characterization squa1·ely attributes
these events to the activity of God. The terminology James employs is astound-
ing: 'the term laos ('people') is used by Luke almost e.xclush•ely in reference to
Israel as the ·•people ofGod.'" 210 It is OT language that nonnaHy refers to God's
choice of (srae.l to be uniquely his own in distinction from the nations.m Yet
James applies this language to Gentiles, Gentiles who have not become Jews by
204. Bnuckham. ·James and the Gentiks'. 169-70. Scc also Eekcy. Apostelg.-schichte. 1.333.
205. ·wichtig is nicbt die: Erftillung des Gcsdzc:s. sondem die Anrufung des Narr~m; des Hcrm.•
Rusam. Diu Aft~ Tesumumt bt:'i l.ukns. 430.
206. Robcn Wall. · 1sroel and tbe Gentile Mission in AciS and Paul: A Canonical Approoc.h•. in
ll'ifiU!l'S to the Gospel: Tire Theology ofActs (ed. Ian Howard Marshall and Dnvid Peterson: Grand
Rapids: Ec:rdmans. 1998).451.
101. Bnuekham. •Jamesandthc-Grntiks'. 168.
20&. Robertson. ·Hc:nnc-neutics·. 106: Sandt 'Explnn:uion·. 94.
109. Wall not:<s llmt tbeexpmsion ·oombincstwo importaolluc:ancatc:hwords': ).ex(,;; nnd0VOJ.IU..
Wall. · 1srnel'. 451.
2 10. Johnson. Acts. 164. 'lnsofem sonst im flukanisohc) Doppcfwcrk <kr /.a6;(Volk lsmd) stc:ts
von i'Ovi'J (Heiden) untorschicxkn wird. wir\:t diescr Vc:rs parado.x.' Rusam. Das Alte Trswm~nl bei
Lllkas. 427. Luke's eonsiSic:nt usc of the tenn mal:es unlikely Wilson's sugge$tion that its usc here
' 013)' simply be due to Luke's earc:lcssnes:i. Wilson. Ge11tile !lliJJioll.125. ·r he fundamcntnJ theo-
logical oon-espondcncc between James' nntKipatory slatc:menl nnd the prophecy of Amos is. how-
c\·c:r. comprised in the.one word l.Uo; ('people').' Adn.1. ·Jmms·. 149. Sec nlsoJack T. Sunders. ·ne
Jcwi~h Poople in Luke- Acts'. in Luke-.4crs ond 1he Ji!lliJh Pro-pit:> (cd. Joseph B. T)'son: Minne-
apolis: Augsburg.. 1988). 56.
211 . Duponl has argued that this language (:O.fl' ;;7~. LX.\0 <tq>to\iolo;) lies behind: AaOv ·tiP
(w0!l«H o.Uto6 in Acts 15.14. Dupont · AAO!.'. 47- 50. Ho\vcvc:r. Dahl finds a more likely bnsis
for the. cxpres~ion in the Tnrgums. Nils A. Dnhl. ·A People for His Nnmc (AcH X\'. 14}'. i'v'TS 4
( 1958): 320- 22. Ncw,tthckss. Dahl in es.scnc:e nyces. witt. Duponl's ch:uuctc:rization '''pout son
Nom... c'cst·:i.-dire. pour lui-mC-1nc. pour sn gloirc'. Duponl. · AAO!.'. 49.
undergoing circumcision Ol' taking up the obligation to keep the Mosaic law. It
seems clear. as Peter said ( 15.9). that God no longer distinguishes between Jew
and Gentile. ;God places the Gentiles on the same level of honour as the Jews,
when He wishes His name to be invoked upon them. ·m
God has done this. not through the proclamation o f the Mosaic law. but by the
proclamation of Jesus and faith in him. Luke Timothy Johnson observes that to
l'equire circumcision for salvation ( 15. 1) ' fties in the fhce of luke's whole
previous narrative, which made the emphatic point that Gentiles could and did
receive salvation through the principle of jaith' .m And they did so without
circumcision Ot' obedience to the Jaw.m
It is precisely with this that the citation from Amos 9 a~rees. ln it. God claims
·an the nations/Gentiles who are called by my name' (1t'UVt<X tit £6vl'} iq) oil;
irrtKiKAJltCXI tO Ovo!Jc( JlOU £2t' a\ho,j.;). This expression makes Amos 9.12
uniquely appropriate to James's m·gument,21s connecting the. prophecy with
James's characterization ofPeter·s report to the counc.i1.2t6 It also underscores the
activity of God, who c-alls his name over the Gentiles. making this text more suit-
able than texts such as Zech. 2. 11 ( 15 MT). which simply promise.s that ·many
nations shall join themselves to the LORD')tJ The. much-discussed wording of
Acts 15. 17a. 'that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord' (differing from the ~tT) .
add'\ little-to the m·gument.
There is a second, more important way in which the citation from Amos is
uniquely appropriate to James's argument and the issue before the council. The
citation explicitly links the restoration of the kingdom and the inclusion of the
Gentiles. All in che counc.il would have agreed chat in Jesus the kingdom is being
(or has boon) restore<f! 11~ and that o r prophecies indicated that at some. time and
212. Cah •in. Acb· 1.f-l.Y. 46. Similarly. 'they art induckd in the cm•enant tt'fotionship(God's naenc
has b«n im·ok~d over them).' Bauckha.m. · James and the-krusakm Chu«h •• 458.
213. Jobnson.Acts.272.
214. 'The: outw111d signs of continuity and idc:ntit)·of fsrael.lawand c:ircurncision. are replaced by
the continuity of saving faith produced by the 1-loly Spirif (my translation). JUrgc:-n Roloff. Di~
Apostelgesc!Jiclrtf! (t--'TD: GOttingc:n: Vande-nhoc:c:k & Ruprecht. 198 1.). 232.
2 15. The argum~"llt offered here challenges the: assertion that there: arc: ·many far more apposite
passages• from whic.hone might rn:akc.tbc argumau. as claimed by RichardS. Cripps. A Critical and
l:.'.tl'gt'lical ConwrentaiJ' 011the Book of~1mos (NC\\' York: SPCK. 1929). 323.
2 16. Or r.tther, Jarncs c:mplo)·s this in beginning his spc:cth. because it will be key to hisargunx-nL
Robcnson. 'Hermc:nC'tuics'. I 06.
2 17. Bauckhom c:orrc:ctly not~ that ·in enos! c-ases such texts could be token to rnc:an that th($('
Gentiles would be proselytes. undc:r~oing c-i« umr:isionos the corollary of their conversion to the: God
of lsrad'. Bsucl:Jtam. ·James and the: Jerusalem Churc--h•. 458.
118. ·rhc: kingdom is alrc:ad)' here: ... Oa\•id's kingdom ha.s already bttn rebuilt (cf. Acts 15.16
with Amos 9.11).' Goppc:-h. Typos. 124. ·Janlc:s' ckd ar.uion that God bad Ktumed to rebuild the
fo lkn tent of D.:wid so that the: Gentiles might seck the:. lord (Acts J6.16f. ) shows that Luke saw the
restoration of lsml not as something to k c:-ffcctc:d only ot the:- parousio. but as actually in pro.:,'Tc:ss.'
David Scecombe. "The:-. Nc:w People-of God'. in Wimess 10 1heGospd: Tile 11eeologyofAc-1s (c--d. Ian
How:ud MaNhall and Da\'id PeteNon: Grand Rapids: Eerdmons, 1998). 351. "The: Cornelius story is
cited os proof that the n:storation of the--fallen house of Da,·id has afn:-ad)' «C·Ul~ as we: II as the
Gentiles scc:king the Lord.· Jcn·c:-11. 'Divided P~opk' . 51- 52. 'Israel's restof!ltion is an established
in some fashion some Gentiles would be joined with God's people.m Amos 9
explicitly connects these. James's argument tums on (htro~ iiv in 15.17a: the
purpose for which God has t•estored the kingdom is to claim the nations as his
own.210 11le inclusion of Gentiles is a necessary consequence of the rebuilding of
David!s fallen tent. Since the kingdom has bee-n restored. the time for Gentile
inclusion is now. It does not belong still to the distant funtre or depend on the.
prior completion ofJewish evangclization.w (ndeed, without the incorporation of
the Gentiles. God's messianic project would be incomplete.
And this (the proclamation to the Ge-ntilC'S) is. rcquirrd in order that the messianic
prophecies may be fulfilkd in lheir entireay. For the passionand rcsurm:-tion of ksusdo
not cons•itute the e-ntire work of the ~ies.s.iah. For the-eomplcle accomplishll\Cnt ofthat
work. it is n«es:•ary that Paul nnnounce salvation to lhc Gentiles and enny the Gospel
rncssage to Rome-. the city l.hat rules the n11tions.222
Dupont writes. 'Tile Scriptures themselves justify the Christian mission among
the paga ns. fOI' they requit'e this mission as the continuation of the salvific work
of Jesus. the-Christ.'.!:B f\•tore strongly, Calvin argues. 'The. Kingdom o f Christ
can only be established if God is invoked everywhere throughout the whole
world, and the Gentiles UJlited into His holy ~)eople.'m If the Gentiles are pre-
vented from coming in, God's purpose will fhil.
Therefore. James argues that the council 'should not trouble those of the Gen-
a
tiles who nlrn to God" (~~ 1taprvox).tlv tot~ no t<llv £6v<llv entotptipOU<!tv
btt.tov Ot6v, 15.19). Peter has already declared that it would be ' testing God" to
impose a burden on these Gentile believers that Jews had been unable to bear
( 15.10). The council dare not oppose what is clearly God's purpose (as indicated
by both God's providential actions and prophecy) and. in so doing. defeat the
foct ' Jacob Jcrvdl. ·The Twd"e-on ls.rnd·s 11uoncs: Undastmdingthc Apo~ol:ue.' . in L11kt?artd rltt>
P~opfe of God: A J'lll!w Look ar L11ke-Acu (Minneapolis: Augsburg. 1972). 91. ·The Jerusalem
Counc-il was fnctd with indisputnblee\·idence. The ultimate blessing oftheco\·enant the: possession
of the-Hoi)· Spirit had come in fullness on the-Ge-ntiles. This poin1 was not 11 matter of dcb3te.
Neither was. it being debated whether or not the ..tent of D11vid'' hnd yet been restored.• Robertson.
·Heol'fll(ncutics.·. 105- 06. ~iorc tentllti\·dy ' lsrnd's restoration is underway. but is fat from estllb-
lished.' CmigA. E\'ans. ·rropheq and Polemic: Jews in luke's Scriptural Apolob"Ctic•. inl.uke wul
Scripturf!: 71ft' Frtoclion ofSacrNI Tmdilion ill Luki!-Acts(cd. Cr11ig A. Evans and Jarncs A. Sanders.:
Minne-apolis: Fortress. 1993). 207. n. 145: ·The Tw·d\·e Thrones of l~md: Scripture and Polities in
Luke 22.24-30'. in Evans ond Sanders. eds.. L1tkl! and Scriplllri'. 155. n. 2. Dupont bdic,·cs that the
•tent ofOa,·id' w-as restored by the asce-nsion of Christ {AC'Is 2.34). Dupont · Ac-15.16 ' . 30.
219. E\•e-n if some Jews did not e-ltpcctthe inclusion ofsonle Gentiles in the future.the te11ching of
Jesus would haw required such an exptttlltion by the apostles. Sec e.g. Joachim Jere-mias.. Je:ms'
Promise 10 rlJf! Nali(IJrs (trans. S. H. 1-looke: SBT 24: N"!lpm·ille. IIL: Allenson. 1958). 40-5-1.
220 . 'The restoration of the faJk n tent of l>a\'id ( 16) is bcs1 undc:mood ofksusa~ the l>a\·idic-seed
who bas now bee-n installed as Christ and Lord.. witflthe Grntile-inAu:t ( 17) occurring liS a con-
sequence.• Bolt. ·Mission·. 204. Sec also krvell. ·Divided People'. 51- 53.
22 1. Munck. Paul. 236. 239. 255---259.
222. Dupont. ·salvation'. 19.
223. Dupont. ·sah•ation'. 33.
224. Cahin. Acts J.l-18. 47.
purpose for which God sent his Messiah. How ironic if the church (mther than
the Sanhedrin. .A.cts 6.39) were to be found ' opposing God' in this way!
In this light. the re.stored kingdom difters from David's in important ways: it
includes Gentiles (even Israel's historic enemies); it is extended by the Spirit
through Christ's appointed wihle.sses. not military conquest (Acts 1.8); the temple
loses its prominence (luke2 1 .6~ Acts 6. 13- 14); and the Jaw is seen as 'a yoke ...
which neither our fathers nor we have been able co bear' (Acts 15. 10). If it were
merely reconstituted as before. Gentile.s would be conquered. or at most be
admitted only on I he basis of circumcision and obedience.to the law. Amos 9.11 f
('as in days ofold') may be omitted from the citation to avoid confusion on this
point.:m
The conclusion of the citation (15. 17c- 18) undersco1·es that this has been
God's intention all along: ·says the Lord who makes these things known trom of
old' (A.£y£t ~upta<; 11016\v tcdha yvroota a11' o:i6lvo:;). 'The eschatological
restoration of Israel was always intended to attract the. Gentiles to seek God. '2:16
The ancient pi'Ophec.y of Amos is ample testimony to this, and the concluding
words, yvroof.O. Cut' eti<ovo~ ( 15.18). add nothing new~ it is bette.r to see.them as
a free adaptation than unnecessarily posit conftation with Isa. 45.21. Ban·ett
captures the thought when he. says that ' God has not suddenly thought of the
inclusion of the Gentiles~ it has always been his intention. and he has long made
his intention known. '121
4 .4.7 The Result

lest the Gentiles who are coming to faith be 'troubled' unduly. James proposes
only certain minimal requirements for them. The apostolic decree ( 15.20. 28-29;
21.25) is beyond the.scope of the present study. Some have found the origin of
the decree in the so-called Noahic regulations, but this view has not fo und wide
acceptance.Hi N5.gele.has argued that the-provisions ofthe decree correspond ' to
the minimal requirements which are binding for Jews even in li fe-th1-eatening
sintations .. . (cp. bShevu 7b: bSan 57bf,129 but it is unclear why only 'emer-
gency' stipulations would be.applicable to Gentile believers. and not the whole.of
the Jaw. Many have argued that the four require-ments of the decn."!C correspond to
four stipulations in Leviticus 17-18 that are applied to •the strangers thnt sojourn
among' the people of Israel; the decree is intended to make table fellowship in the
225. Sundt. 'Explanation'. 92.

226. Wi1hering1on. A<ts. 459. ·r hat was. after all. the-purpose of Israel's re-;(oration: tlrat rlrc
remnant ofmen may Jeek lhe Lord' (<mphusis his). William J. L:ukin. Acts (IVP New Testament
Comlll(fll!lt)' Series 5; Downers Grove. Ill.: lnlcrVarsity. 1995). 124. Bon.m speaks of 'il schema
which isdc!lt to Luke(ond J>oul): the nxst:tblishment oflsmd (first phase:) which k ads to tfle-opming
up to the- nations (sc:cond phase)'. Bovon. L11ke the 11reologiwr. 99.
221. B!ltrctt, Act.f. 2.i28.
228. 11lesc: we-r t seven prohibitions supposed to have been given 1hrough Noah a.nd required ofall
mankind: idolatry. blasphemy. murder. inoc:sl Slc.aling. per'l'eningjusticc.andcating meat with blood
in it Evidence is lacking: thal these had been formulated at this point in the-first ttntury. Fitzmyer.
Acts. 551: Witherington. .4ct.\·. 464. Sec also Buudiliam. ·James and the Gcnliles·. I 74.
229. N3gde-. Loubhritte fkn·ids. 231.
church possible between observant Jews and non-observant Gentiles.DO Bauck-

ham has refined the argument. proposing that James connects the God-see-king
Gentiles of the .sclwtou (Jer. 12.16 and Zech. 2.11 [IS ~IT]) \\1th the Gentiles "in
the midst' of Israel in Leviticus 17-18 by means ofgttz.era aw6 (the shared
expression 1ir4, ·in the midst').::!ll However, Nagele has correctly noted that 'the
Amos quote served to settle the overall conti'Oversial issues, not just the.question
of table fellowship•m - the issue was that ·unte.ss you are circumcised according
to the custom of Moses. you cannot be sa\red' ( 15. I). Witherington has found that
the alleged similarities between the decree and Leviticus 17-1 8 are overstated,
and has suggested that worship (particularly feasts) in pagan temples are in
view.m activities that would be. in conftict with God's ownership of Gentile
believers ('called by my name'). A satisfying explanation of the.decree has not
yet been offered.
The concluding statement of James's speech has also puzzled scholars: 'For
ft·om early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him. for he
is read every sabbath in the.synagogues' (v. 21 ). Dibelius observed that 'ahhough
straightforwaJ'd from 1he linguistic and textual points of view, in context and
meaning it is one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament' .l:lJ Lake and
Cadbury commented that :the explanations offered by commentators are numet·-
ous and unsatisfactory· .m-Daniel R. Schwat1z has found two main interpretations
of the verse.::: ~ The first suggests that the long proclamation o f the Mosaic law
justifies the. imposition of the decree's requirements, as things that were only to
be expected by a nyone who knew the law. or that would be necessaty for table
fellowship.n1 Opponents have questioned why only these few requirements of
230 . Johnson. Arts. 173: Polhill. Ae~s. 332. For an carticr slatcmau of this argurnem. sec-Bun on
Scott fitS{on. The PflrpoSt:<!{Acu (n'lt>OIQKI'Occ.asional Paper.> 6: Loodon:SPCK. 1936). 16-17. The
presc-riptions arc said to be found in LeY. Ii .8 (sacrifices no11o Yahwc.h. i.e. ·pollutions oridol.s'):
11.10. 12. 13 ("blood' and ·what is Stntllgled'}: 18.26 ('unchastity' ). It should be. noted that thC$C
comprise only a sm:.ll ponion of Le\·iticu.s- 17- 18 and th.at they are not particullllly distingui.s.hc4 in
the-text from other prt$C-ription:s. found there. For textual i.s:oue-s. .see Witherington. Acts. 460.
23 1. Bauekham. ·James and the: (J(ntilcs•, 175-77. While the expression ('in your midst'}oceur.>
li"e tim($ in l.<.\'iticus 17- )8 (Lc\'. 17.8. 10. 12. 13: 18.26). it also appears in manyothc.r texts. It is
unckar on wh:u basis we arc to connect the-expression hue with l e.viti-cus 17- 18 rathcr than these
01hcr texts. Bauckham concede-s that · t uke's summary has obsc.ured the excb'"Ctical argument on
which the tcm1s ofthe apostolicdcc.reeare based•. but what is so well concealed may not BCIU3IIy be
there-. & uc.kham. · Jamcs and the Jerusalem O.urch ·. 458. It is- unlikely that reader.; would grasp
'obscure-d' te:ttual allusions without more e:tplicil cluC'S. Barrett belic,·e.s that ·one would e-xpect at
le-llst a trace ofthc xvn 7x fonn of argument' if one is prese-nt here. Bsrrctt. Arts. 1. 728.
232. Niigde-. LaubhiiJie Dan·ds. 23 I. Note oJso the: daimalrt3d)' m11de in Acts 15.9. th:u God has
alrcadycea.sod making any ·distinction bc.1wocn us and Lbem' nnd thai he has 'dean.scd. [1he Gentiles')
hcan.s by faith·. Niigck l.Aubhiitte /J<tl'ids. !29.
233. Wilherington. Act.f. - 1-60-67. Cf. I Cor. 10.1-1-·22.
234. Dibd ius. St11din . 97.
235. Fo11kcs J:lckson and Lake. e<ls.• Begilwin,gs. ·t 117.
236. l>anicl R. Schwartz. ·r hc Futility of Pre11ching Mosc-s(Ac-ls 15.21 )'. Bib 61 ( 1982): 276-8 L
231. B11uckham. ·Jan"K:s and the Gemilcs'. 117- 78: Fi1zmycr. Am. 558: Johnson, Acts. 167:
Gcrh3rd A. Krodd. Acts {Augsburg Commentary on the New Tcstame.nl: Minneapolis: Augsburg.
1986): Marshall. Acts. 2H: Johannes Munck. Th~ ..feu ofl/re Apostll!s (AB 31 : Garden Ci1y. NY:
the Mosaic law are judged to apply to Gentiles and objected that it is not merely
table fellows hip that is at issue. but the salvation of Gentiles ( 15.1). The second
proposes that the. long and widespread proclamation of the rvfosaic law makes it
possible to limit the requirements at this time to only a few points, since. the
whole law is regularly being preached by othet·s.m Again. however. the issue
was not the preservation of the law of Moses. but the insiste.nce that Gentiles
obe.y the law in order to be. saved. Schwanz offers his own proposal:
James means that it would be wrong to impose. :O.i osaic law upon conve-rts to Christi-
ani!)'. for experience sho\ln: that only a few would be wilti.ngtoacttpt the ,vorsflipof the
tme God under such a condition. The Mosaic law is lhus an obstade to theacceplaoce of
the 1ruc rdigion. and. siocc God wonts the Gen1ilcs 10 worship him (as the quote-from
Amos in vv. 15- 17 shows). it follows that the law is not to be imposed. DO
Although ?\<loses had long been preached everywhere, few Gentiles had been
drawn to God, but now, through the proclamation of Jesus. many Gentiles were
seeking the God of Abraham. In light of the spedfic emphasis on circumcision as
the issue before lhe council ( 15.1. 5), it is worth noting the observation of
Jeremias that 'the greatest obstacle to lhe cotwe-rsion of Gentiles was the.demand
that they should be. circumcised'.W) Schwm·tz links the Amos citation and the
repeated assertion in Acts that not even the Jews had been able to keep the law
(Acts 15.10; cf. 7.53: 13.38-39). His proposal deserves fUJt her study. The
fulfilment of God's announced purpose for the nations required a different and
more effective approach.ut
James's proposal was accepted by the council with ·one accord' (15.25).
remarkable considering the otaotro' Ka\ ~tlt~O£~ oi>te 61-iy~' in Antioch
( 15.2) and the ltOIJ.f" \rtt ~O£~ with which the council had begun ( 15.7). This
was not merely the judgement of the apostles and elders at the counciL but also
·seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us· ( 15.2&). When the letter and the dele-
gation se-nt by the council arrived in Antioch, the congregation thet·e ·rejoiced' in
Doubleday. 1967), 14-0: Polhill. Ad.f. 332. ·~1 e warns thai it is not p'1sslble for the. ce-remonies to be
abolished so quickly. as if at ooc fell swoop. because:. the Jtws had alre-ady been uocustomc:.d to the
te.nching of the Luw for many generations. and Moses h:td his pn:adxrs: thatngocmcnt tiKrcfort must
be g-ained for a short tim-e until the freedom, procurt.d by ChrisL sOOuld gadunlly be more de~,rly
understood~ in olhcr words, as the common saying goes. that the ceremonies bad to be buried with
.some dccmc)·.· CaJ\'in. Acts 1-1 18. 51-52.
4
238. Bo~A·kcr. 'Speeches'. 108: Druce-. Am (rc\·. cdn..). 296: Burnside. Tlw Ads oftlu! Aposlle.f: Tht>
Greek Ediled witlJ f111roduc1ion o11d Notes for 1he l.he ofSchook 176: Rad:ham. Act.\·. 254.
239. Schwarl:t. ·futility'. 27. Schwartz swnmarizcs l.hc view ofl. K. L Gieseler. ·Obcrdic No:uriicr
und Ebionitcn '. Arc!Jivfiirolte undnmf! Kircllengesdtichtt• 4 ( I 818-20). J li- 12.Sc.hw·artt bus now
kc.n followed by Fittmyc:r. Acts. 558.
240. Jeremias. Promise. I 5.
241. Treatme-nts of this text from the: standpoint of contcxtuoli-7.ation expound on the nttd for
adopt.1bility in the sc:rviccof mission. but fail to gmppk with the Mosaic law ool rm-rdyasa matter of
human culture. but as given to Israel by God. David K. Strong. 'The Jcrusalc:-m Council: Some Impli-
cations forContc:xtualiution•. in MisJioJI in Acu: A11ciem /t.tarraliws ill CtmtemporOIJ' Come.Yt(cd.
Roben L. Gallagher and Paul Hertig: Arncrican Societ)' of Missi ol~y Series. 34: Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books. 2004). 196-208.
the council's decision and exhortation ( 15.31) and the Jemsalem delegates were.
after a rime. ·sent off in peace• ( 15.33). In his subsequent travels, Paul 'delivered
... the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at
Jerusalem • and ' the churches were snengthened in the faith, and the.y increased
in numbers daily' (16.4-5). The episode thus concludes with Godls evident
blessing on the church as a result of its decision.w
4 .5 Summary
4 .5.1 Text
The textual issue~" involved in this citation are.complex. The LXX appe-ars to repre-
sent an interpretive reading ofthe text (or, less likel}'· a lost Hebrew MS tradition
or a mjsreading of the MT) . The NT citation appears to be a free citation of the
text. Nevertheles..'i neither the-LXX nor r-.'T citation diverge at any essential points
from the general intent ofthe MT. The argument does not, as is often suggested.
depend pa1·t:iculal'ly on the fOI'm of the LXX text. but can be made from the MT as
well. The citation of the- LXX form of the text does not call into question the
historicity of the spe.ech. There. is no persuasive evidence that the words of Anlos
9. 11 -12 arc conflated with other texts.
4 .5.2 Hermeneutic
The text of Amos 9.1 1-12 is used in a way that is consistent with its original con-
te.xnlal meaning. Despite the.questions regarding 'the rest of mankind' or ·rem-
nant ofEdom', the argument depends instead on the promise that ·au the Gentiles
who are C31lcd by my name' will come under the merciful care of Yahweh. The-re
is no convincing evidence ofconflation with other te-Xts or ofarbitrary exegetical
strate.gies.
James employs a Christocentric henneneutic. The key to the use of Amos 9.11 -
12 in Acts 15.16- 18 is the relationship between tlle restoration of the Davidic
kingdom and the ingathering of the Gentiles. The kingdom has been restored (at
least in principle) in Jesus. who now re.ig:ns as "Lord and Christ' (Acts 2.36). Yet
according to Amos. the purpose for which God had restored the kingdom is that
his saving rule might be extended to Gentiles. The council has already heard
'what signs and wonders God had done through [Barnabas and Paul] among the
Gentiles' ( 15.12), as well as how Gentiles first came to ' hear the word of the gos-
pel and believe' ( 15.17). James described the latter as God's having taken from
the Gentiles ·a people for his name', echoing God's election of(srael and antici-
pating similar language in the citation. The citation. Jame-S says. 'agrees with· this
unde1·standing of events. This ·agreement' is the agreement of the.prophecy with
its intended fulfihnent: what God annmmc.ed through Amos. God has now accom-
plished tluough Jesus. Tl1e kingdom had been reestablished in Christ. as all in the
council would agree. And. just as the prophecy said, Gentiles are coming to God,
242. Luke rcgul-nrly highlights God's continued bkssingonthc.chui'C'b al lhecooclusionorepisodes

wilhin the narrative. e-.g. 2.47: 4.32· 13: 5.12-16. 42: 9.31.
but through the preaching of Jesus by the apostles. rather I han the preaching of
Moses in the synagogue.
4 .5.3 Purpose
The citation is employed as 'proof from prophecy'. h not only interprets the
events Peter had narrated. but establishes divine.authorization for tlle manner of
Gentile inclusion by demonstrating that the inclusion of the Gentiles is God's
design.2u
The question before the council is whetJler Gentiles must be circumcised (and
keep the Jaw off\•foses) in order to be saved. The eve-nts at Cornelius's house had
made. it clear tl>at God had cleansed the hearts ofGentiles by faith ( 15.9), tltat the
ceremonial cleansing of circumcision was unnecessary - salvation is by fhith.
What matters is not the law. but God's calling his name. over Gentiles in cove-
nant relationship and blessing - salvation is by grace. To require that Gentile
believers undergo circmncision and obey the law would ·test God' by imposing a
burden that Jews the-mselves had not bee.n able to bear ( 15. 10). Above alL the
church must not ·trouble-· Gentiles in such a way as to frustra te God's purposes,
for the reestablishing of the kingdom requires the successful inc.orporation of
Gentiles. Acts 13 addressed the nec.essity of the Gentile mission and Acts 15 its
mode of opemrjon; both are now settled questions for the church. (The Gentile
mission remained controve1·sial for Jews who did not acknowledge Je~~-ti S as the
Messiah. Acts 22.21-22.)
The argument does not rest on the citation alone, but is advanced on three
levels. First the account of the delibe-rations allows n."aders to follow the council's
reasoning and reach its conclusion. Second, the account of the council invites
l'eade:rs to share its own conclusion that it has been guided by the Spirit. Third,
the nmTative of Acts as a whole shows God's initiative-in launching the Gentile
mission and his blessing on both the council's decision and the mission itself.
The place of this account in the.narrative indicates that not only the appi'Opri-
ateness of the. Gentile mission but the manner in which the Gentiles were to be
included were mattersofimponance 10 Luke and his audience. The multilayered
argument (scripture and providence. citation and narrative) provides confidence
that God has indeed acce.pted Gentiles into the. people-of God without circum-
cision or obedience to the law of Moses.
243. ·HislorisdlC Ehrfaluung: und Schriftbc\\'Cis fl iessc-n 1.usammcn: die Schrift b~iiligt die Ehr-
fuhrung: des Pc.lru!:. und die Ehrfuhrung cks Pctrus bcstiiligt die Sduift: JcrvdL.4poMe/geschidue.
395.
5
THE SPI RIT AND ALL fLESH ( JOEL 3.1·5 MT IN ACTS 2. J7-21)
The key role played by or citations in establishing the legitimacy of the.Gentile

mission is clear from the foregoing examination of the citations in Acts 13.47~
15.16- 18. These c.itations appear in contexls that are explicitly concerned with
the Gentile mission and are introduced for the purpose o f addressing questions
about that mission.
The survey of OT citations in chapter 2 found two additional texts containing
language dHlt appeared to refer to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the promise.s of
God. The cilalions of Joel 3.1-5 MT (Acls 2.17-2 1) and Gen. 22. 18 (AciS 3.25)
figure prominentl}' in the first N,;o sermons in Ac.ts and play a significant role in
introducing major themes of the book.t In their immediate c.ontexts. Peter cites
these texts to establish the proclamation about Jesus, not to address the Gentile
mission. which had not yet begun. The speeche.'l ofActs. however, have two audi-
ences: in the narrative, Peter addresses these sermons to Jewish audiences in Jeru-
salem; through the. naJTative. Luke addresses his readers.:'! What may be oflittle
importance to. or escape the-notice of. one audience nta}' be important to the
other. While there is no indication in the narrative that Peter's original audience
attended to the implications of these citations for Gentile ministry, l uke's Gen-
tile readers might well be expected to .see themselves in the apparently universal
language. of these citations. The implications of these. citations for the Gentile
mission become clear in the large1· context of the narrative and its use of the OT.
References to Gentiles in the citations of Joel 3.1-5 MT and Gen. 22. I8 may be
anticipatory rather than explicit, but they nevertheless conn·ibute to Luke.'s te.giti-
mation of the Gentile mission from the or.
I. Han$ F. Bay~r. 'The Preaching of Peter in AOI:i. in lfirlft'S.S w tlJe Gospf!l: The Thrologv of
Acts(cd.lan l·low:ud Marshall and David Peterson: Grund Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998). 260. Similarl)'
1he two spccc,hes arc 'eompk mrntary' and ·we must view the two speeches together in order to
understand Peter's message in its full scope'. Tannehill. J'v'unuti•·~ (Jnily. 2.58.
2. 'Luk<: docs not plu.:e his !-'p('tthcs random1y but ralhcr $lTategieulfy. in order to provide his
readers at key rnomcniS with iln interpretation of the story he: is narrating. In this sense his spttohes
area form ofauthorial eomrncntary.' Johnson. 'Idols'. 10. The: failure to r.:'togniu-this dual iludicnce
lie-s behind assertions such us the following: ' Peter ~-tel ivers his address to !he kWS-gathered in kru·
salem for the Fe-ast .. . Therefore. this text is to be understood as ecclesiastically pnticularistic to the
Jewish nation. Peter's message is not intended for a univers:.lis:tic intcrpre.tation: John Str.u:Kioh.
/Q~/'s Use ofScripllfN a11d Scriplm'i' ':; Use (Jf./md: Appropriolion and Resign({icatioll ill Second
Temple .ludai.tnl and £ar6' Clwistianily(lcideon: Brill. 2007). 273. This tuuTow nrgument is-striking
in ll study dcvO(cd to the-'rcsignillcation• or the text
The quotation of Joel 3.1-5 MT (Englis h 2.28-32) in Acts 2.16-2 1 has been
called 'the most discussed explicit quotation in Ac ·,; due to its programmatic sig-
nifk.ance as the initial citation in the. firs.t Christian se1·mon in Acts:111lree parts
o f the citation appear related to the Gentile mission: Joel 3. 1b (Acts 2.17c). 3.5a
(Acts 2.21) and 3.5d (2.39).
Joi!l 1./a-b MT Joe/ 1. fo-b LXX Acts 1./ia-c
EGY.titcu; i]~[pcu~.
b i.i"(t:l 0 9t6;.
nCioav acip.:a
Joel J.J J.tT Jocl J.5LXX Acu 1.11. 39

~)(~if~ ;:..1:;:11 S.a .:cti i o<tcu ·:tei~ Cu; iiv 21 .:ai ia<al ·:tfr~ 0~ iiv
ct~: l'l)1: ~~ inn;al.iotlt«l 'tO (h<o).l« E·: tu:a.Ai a qtcu •0 0\'0IJU
.:upiou o moO!lot-tt.u -=~lo u acn&llonat
rr.;-,;:i: '.¥ b Mt Ev 'Tij) Op.t:t ! ww .:a t E"
,,~·7~ ;;)?i;l ~?.:-
~-q1 h:pol.la«AtW Eotcu
tt\•cta(!)~OJ.ttvo~
11}1": iJi:;: ,;1:~ c .:«&On eh:n• .:Upto;
3~.a Uph• ·(Up i:cnw ~
i-;w:((E~iu
b .:ai toi; tiKvot; Uv,6v
c .:a-i n6.o t\' tol; ti;
IJa..-pci:v.
X!; ;"IF~ ~ ~!'$ O'"!··q;t d K«i e-i>ayytAt~ci,.u:vot o~ d Ooou; O:v
J;Upto; xpoa.:i .-i.q"Tm 1!'poa..-aAial)tu.l ..-t.pto; 0
OtO~ tlJ.16V.
The omitted vel'ses describe the effects ofthe outpouring of the Spirit in prophecy>
visions and dreams (Joel3. 1c-2 MT : Acts 2.17d-18) and accompanying signs and
wonders (Joel 3.3-4 MT: Acts 2. 19-20). While. these are impo1·tant for the
interpre-tation and applie3tion of fhc pi'Ophecy within Pe-ter's speech, we do not
need to consider them in detail for our present purpose.
5. 1 Texf
The Hebrew text of Joel 3 is not in doubt: BHS lists no extant variants and no
citations from Joel have been identified in the DSS. Some recent tmnslations (e.g.
3. Stcyn. Septuagint Quota/ions. n .

4. Robert Wall ha!: :ug:uc:d that the c-itations from Joel 3 (Acts 2) nnd Amos 9 (Ac-ts 15) piny an
important role in ·orgn.nizin_g the-entire composition· (i.e. Acts). WaiL'israel'. 441. Vande Sandi hns
argued that Joel plays a prominent role. not only in At'ts 2. butoJso in oth« imponant texts in AciS.
Howcwr. his- interttxtual argument. r('lying on slender \•crbnl allusions, is ultimately too tenuous to
be compl<td y p.-rsuasi\'c. Huub \'an de Sandt '11lc Fate of the Gentiles in Joel and Acts 2: An Inter-
te--xtual Study'. £'11 66 ( 1990): 55- 77.
5. The Spirit and All Flesh 97
JH, NEB) have cunended 3.Sb to 0~"'"1~ .::·1~~~; to create the parallel "in f\•fount
Zion those who esC3pe . .. and in Jerusalem survivors·, but this proposal is with-
out MS support Tlte LXX textual tradition shows more variation. including four
minor variants in Joel3. Ib, 3.5a and 3.5d (2.39).s. but none are well attested and
none affec.t I he meaning of the citation in Acts. There are no well-attested variants
in the NT MS tradition for Acts 2.17c, 2 I. 39.6 There are minor differences between
the ,_nand the LXX. and more substantial differences between the LXX and the
text ofActs,' but none affect loe13. 1b (Acts 2.1 7c) or 3.5a (Acts 2.21 ). There are
also differences in 3.Sd (2.39), but there Joel appears to be echoed rather than
cited. Steyn concludes that Luke's source ·was probably a LXX text' but notes
some points: at which it appears more. similar to the He.brew.3
5.2 Joel 3.1-5 MT

The prophecy of Joel provides few clues regarding either its author or the
historical period in which he prophesied. The-book has been variously dated from
the ninth century to as late as 200 BC£.9 ' Happily, Joel's message does not hinge
on the date. ' 10 Debate over the identity of Joel's ·locusts' is more challe-nging.
They have been understood as a literal locust plague.11 as invading annies:. 12 as
apocalyptic imagc-1y. u or as a combination of che~se. 1 J While. imponant for the
5. In Jod J. lb (Acls 2.17c). some-MSS rt-.ad 'tO ;n•EUJW. in pku:c of CurO toUJl"<'E·UIJCCf~ . In
Jod 3.5b (Acts 2.21}.se\·er.tl MSS huve-the-futurc(int.:uAEanc.u) orprcS~Cnt (_En u.:u.A~t cu) in plucc
of the uorist imt:«AiofltO:L lnJoc-13.5d (Acts2.39). some MSShave the singularEOO.yydl~ci,.tE\'0~
for the plural t-00-'(YEAt~OIJEVOt. some have the activestpocn:iKi.IJ);f (ot the middle ~tporid'ltal )
for lhc middle :tpooddtJt«l. and so1nc: re,•e-rse IC'Upl~ and :tpooKi,.AIJta l.
6. Eldon Epp has noted a number of\'tlrillnts in D that ·universalize' lhe c-itation. Only ncia o:;
o cipKo:; (2. 17c} is p:.n of the citations we lltc consid« ingh«e. Epp bd icws that the Gcntiks<annot
be in view here bcc.ause Peter is spcul:ing to Jews. ' thut the Gentile mission first began later with
Coroclius·. und that no hin1s of it appear before Acts 10. Epp. Tlteological Tendt>IJC)', 66- 70.
1. ' Previous studies ofthis qooution. ultllough numerous. ha,·e not pro,•idcd satisfac-torye.'(pla~
nation for all the textual changes between the-Ac-re-nding and that in u isting munusaipts from the
LXX.' Stcyn, Si!ptuagim Quotations, 76. cf. his detailed !lll3f>·sis. 74-90.
8. Stcyn. Septuagint Quowtions. 99.
9. See e.g. the survey of views presented in Raymond Bryan Dillard. ·Joel'. in The Minor
Proplrets: An Exegetical a11d E.tposilional Commentary (cd. Thomas Edwurd MoComisk<y: 3 \'ok:
Gmnd Rapids: Bak«. 1992). 242- B. See-also the-summaries in Rotund K . Harrison. /mrod1K'ti<m 10
1ile Old Tes1ame11t (Gmnd Rllpids: Eerdmuns. 1969), 816-19: LllSor et al., Sun>ey. 438- 39.
10. LaSor e1 uJ.. Smwy. 439.
II . E.g. Leslie C. Alle-n. The BooksofJotl, Obodiail. Jonah. and Mimh(NICOT: Grand Rapids:
Ecrdman.s. 1976). 29-31: HaiTison. buroduclion. 815- 76: l·lubbud. Jol!l <md Amos. 21: Simon M.
Lchml:tn. ·Joel'. in The Twt>l~·~t ProplletJ: Hebrew Text, English Trtmslatioll a11d Commelllllt)''(ed.
Abraham Cohe-n:Sonc-.ino Books of the Bibk: Bou:rnemouth: Sonc-ino. 1948). 57- 58: Stuart.lloscu-
Jonah. 231- 34.
12. litnckrson c}lamcterizes this as ' the more anclcnt opinion· and uttributes it to 'the Tllrgum.
the Jews whom Jcro1nc: consulted'. Epluucm the Syrian. ThcodorcL Cyril of Alexandria. Hugh of St
Victor. l ulhcr and other!'. l~ enderson. Minor Propllet.f. 9 1.
13. Most notably by Adalbert Men. Sl.'>C' LuSor et ul.. Sum_,._ 440.
14. Henderson bd ie\'es !hut the plague of c--b. I is Iiteml. while tbnt of c-h. 2 describes the-destruction
interpretation of the book as a whole., the identity of the locust'! is not cn1cial for
the interpretation of3.1-5 .\fT .
The overall How of thought in the book is clear, even if some commentators
differ on details. Joel 1 describes the devastation from a (current) locust plague
and calls for repe-ntance. Joel 2 speaks of the locust plague in tenns of the day of
Yahweh (or vice versa. 2. 1-1 1) and issues a second call to repentance.(2.12- 17).
Tl1e message then n•rns from judgement to restoration: material/economic (2.18-
27) and military/political (with the desuuction of Judah·s enemies. 4. 1-21 MT}.
with Joel 3.1-5 MT between these.
Joel 3.1-5 ~iT begins with the words j;-"~}.~~ n:-:;1 ('and it shall come to pass
afterward'), indic-ating a shift from the preceding verses. Most interpreters view
the transition as n temporal one. The. expression p-,j,cJ ~ occurs 45 times in the
MT and is typically translated temporally as 'afterwm·d·. or ·afte.r this'. 15 Dillard
believes the expression 'seems unambiguously to signify temporal sequence! and
finds that ·it is hard to escape-the fact that the prophet intends his readers to under-
stand 3.1-5 [2.28-32] as sequential to 2. 18-27'." Hubbard believes that it marks
the transition from the repair of the old order to the inauguration of the new .17
Achtemeier believes that the events o f3.1-5 MT take place.in ' that indefinite time
of the coming of the day of the Lord ' . 13 VanGemeren believes that this expres-
sion, like-;-;90~ ·~·;;.:~ ('in those days', 3.2 MT), simply means 'when' . 1'> Chapman
has argued that discourse analysis indicates the. expression is ' used to create
major discourse level transitions' and argues that the.transition is best understood
as one from expected to unexpected blessings.20
of Judah by its polilic-lll ene-mies. Hendcrson.Minn-r Propltet.f. 9 1- 92. So John Cah·in. CQmmeJrtwit3
011 t!rt• T11·eh-Y Mioor PrQpheu (Calvin's Commentaries 14: Gttlnd Rapids: Baker, 1979: n:-.pr. of
Calvin Translation Socie-lyecL Edinburgh. 18~5-56). Others sec-Yohw·ch's anny inch. 2. J-ames L
Crenshaw, Joel: A New Tnmslutio11 ' ~ith Introduction a11d Commentary (AB 24C: New Yolk:
Doubleday. 1995). 15. 116-17. 128- 31: Dillard. · Joel'. 278. Still otfrers find apocalyptic creatures in
ch. 2. e.g. Roben H. Pfeiffer, fnJroductio111o 1h~ Old T~Jtament (New York: Harpe-r & Brothers.
1941). 574: Hans Walter Wolff.JQ~/ a11d Amo.t (Irons. Waldemar Janzenct al.: Hcrmcncia: Philadel-
phia: fortress. 1971). 42.
I S. The ex.pression with :~:;;~)occur.; only here. ahhoughthc si mil ar j;-·x~ ·;r,}occurs II times in
narrati\'econtc:tts in the MT {Judg. 16.4: I Sam. 24.6: 2 Sum. 2.1: 8. 1: 10.1: 13.1 : I 5-.1 (p ' '"{!!;'•: ; ':r;J}:
21.18:2 Kgs. 6.24: I Chr. 18.1: 19. 1). IMLOT. s.v. ' "(!~.
16. Dillard. 'Joel'. 294. Dillard undcrsta.nds-2. 1 11 to rcfcrto on apocalyptic judgemenl on Judah
4
and bclic,·c.s 3. 1·5 answers to thill thrcat (as 2.1 8. 27 an~wcrs the tempornl tlut".U of 1. 1 20).
4 4
17. Hubbard. Joel a11d Amm. 68.

18. Eliubcth Aehlerlle!ie.r. 'The Book of Jod: lnttoduction. Conunc-nblry. and Rcflcotions·.JV/8.
7.326.
19. Willem VanGcmercn, fnteqm!ling tire Prophnk fiOrd (Grond Rnpids: Zondcrvan. 1990).
123- 24: ·t he Spirit of Restorntion •. lfTJ 50 ( 1988): 84-90.
20. David W. Chapman, · A Superabundance ofBk ssing: ihc Discourse lnlcnl of Joel 3. 1 5 and 4
lis Canonic-nllmplications·. M.A. the-sis. Trinity Evangelical Divini1y 5(hool. 1996. 129. ' The differ-
ence between the two stages is not that l.hc 6m is male-rial nnd the s«ond spiritual but that lhe firs1 is
the restoration of old dan1agc and the second is !he inauguration of a new (-til in God's dealings with
his people.· Hubbard.JQ~/ a11d Amos. 68. In a like \'Cin ai!OO Wolff: ·Not onf)• will earlier conditions
be restored (v 23). «hc.y will be exe«xied: Wolff. Joel and Amo.f. 65.
Joel4. 1 MT has another temporal indicato1·, N"l}i). n-~~1 ii/?tl~ !:·~¥;~ :1.~:, ';.("for
be:-hold, in those days and at that time'). lt sounds a 'somewhat similar chrono-
logiC3l note· to 3.1,21 but the transition seems primarily to be to another blessing:
' not only will I [God] do this. but at the s:une time. I will also ... · .22 The. focus
changes f1·om ble.ssing on Judah to judgeme.JH on fhe nations. Joel3.1-5 MT may
thus be viewed as a distinct sectjon within the message of restoration and
salvation for Judah that begins in 2.18.
This cited text can be fiu1her divided into three sections: the outpouring of
God's Spirit (3.1-2 MT). cosmic signs (3.3-4 MT). and the deliverance of all who
call on the name of Yahweh (3.5 MT)." Oftltese three. the first ('all flesh') and the
third ('everyone-who calls' and ' everyone whom the LORD calls') are relevant to
the pl'esent study. The apocal}'ptic signs of3.3-4 MT are important as 'indic-ators
that God is at wort.::·;~4 but the focus is on the gift of the Spirit and deliverance.
5.2 .1 All Flesh (JoeiJ. IbMT)

God promises to do much more than restore Judah's agricultural pros-perity. •And
it shall conle to pass afterward. that ( will pour out my spirit on all flesh'
("'liiT-'='~-s,g ~ry;.,-;,~ 1i~~ p-· jQ::O: ;-;:·~1- paralleled in a c-hiasm by aQ:;
~-:;r.-n::;: 1~~~ n~J;:t, ·in those days, I will pour out my spil'it' in 3.2bMTJ. The
focus of this outpouring is not new obedience as in Ezek. 36.26-27. or refresh-
ment and renewal, as in (sa. 32.15: 44.3.25- The Spirit here brings revelation:
prophecy p~q~). dreams (F·'S~~: nt-:r,q) and visions (:~q: n~J~~Q).:::6 ·rn the Old
Testament. the Spirit of God is preeminently the spirit of prophecy' .21 Many see
here the fulfilme.nt of Moses' wish (Num. 11.29). ' Would that all the LORD's
people were pi'Ophets, that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!' 13 Wolff
dismisses the view that this- gift of prophec.y consists in ecstatic e.xperienceNor
prophetic proclamation. Rather it refers to the relationship to God, 'which has
become completely new in the newc.reation through the outpouring ofthe spirit'.
'similar to Je1·. 31.33-34: everyone will stand in a relatiol\ship of immediacy to
2 1. Dillard. 'Joel'. 300.

22. The thr<eothcr appeauncc.s of lhc e:xpr<:ssionare. in k r. 33.15: 50.4. 20. Crenshaw.Jod. 173.
23. Allc.n. Joel. 97. So also Chsprnan. ·superabundanu'. 200: Crens.h.aw.JOt>l. 170-71.
24. Hubbard. Jot'/ a11d AmoJ. 71.
25. Wolff..loel u11d Anms. 66.
26. The~ is no paniC'U iar sig:ni6canceto the auributionof visions to young1ncn and dreams to old
men. Thc :LS$OCiation of thc fonns of re\·dalion wilh the groups who rOO<)\'('. them appc.nrs merely
·mctoricaJ'. Julius A. Bcwc:r. Tommc.nltuy on Joc.l•. in .4 Crilicol a11d £xegetiMI Camm~'111ary on
Mi<ah. ZepllalliulJ. No!Jum, Hahokkuk Obadiah andJoel( fCC: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 19 11 ). 122.
So Crenshaw. Joel. 165.
21. Dillard. ·Jod'. 294-95. He calls lltlcntion in panicularto Num. 11.25-19: I Sam. 1 0 .6- 1 0~
18.10; 19.20-33: I Kgs. 22.22.-23 (2 Chr. 18.2 1·22): 2 Kgs.. 2. 15: Ncb. 9. 30~ Ezck. 13.3; Zcx:h. 7.12~
13.2.
28. Crenshaw. Jool. 17 1: Duane A. GarrelL Ho-sea. Joel (NAC 19A: Nashvilk: Broadman &
Holman. 1997).368.
29. AsclaimedbyBew«. 'Jocl'.l 22.
I00 Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts
God' ,ltl i.e. all will receive. intimate and direct knowledge of God such as came.
previously only to prophe.ts.ll
The Spirit is poured out on-~~-':-~ ('all Hcsh ').Most limit the.expression here
to Judah. 'There c.an be little doubt in t11is context that Joel intends all flesh to
refer to Israel alone - the phrase allflesh is explicated as your sons and daugh-
ters. slaves. young a nd old; the fommes of Judah are contrasted to those of the
Gentiles (4.1-17 [3.1-1 7]). ·l~ It is more likely, however, that-~·;-~~ is a univer-
sal reference. Keil be.lieves "..all fles h·· signifies all men ·.n a nd Kaiser undel'-
stands it as ·a synonym for the ''nations''' , arguing that ·seldom if ever may '' all
flesh" be rcserve.d and restric.ted to all lsrael' .J: The expression appears 45 times
in the ~nand almost always has a universal sense. referring either to all living
things ( 17 times, especially in the flood narrative)l 5 or to all humankind (_2 1
time.s, not counting Joel 3. 1 MT) .l 6 A number among the latter explicitI}' include
other nations (e.g. Zech. 2. 13: Isa. 66.1 6. 23. 24). (We will argue below that the
expressions in 3.5 MT also bear a universal sense.) •All flesh· here must re-fer to
' all humankind'. Just as the promised blessings in Joel 3 vastly exceed theeal'lier
devastation. so 1he recipients of those blessings vastly exceed Judah.
Even if we.conclude that the context focuses the refel'ence.on Judah, there nre
two indications that the promise is broader than it may at first appear. First. the
Spirit will be. poured out without distinction: ·sons ... daughters .. . old men ...
young men ... menservants and maid~ervan ts '- me.risms meant to indicate the
30. Wolff. Jod and Amo:.·. 66-0i. Wolff compnrcs the usc of ·prophesy' with the ' nalion of
priests' in Exod. 19.5-6. be-lieving both 1'<-pi'CS(nt 'immediacy to God'. Se>e also Garre-ll. Hos€a,Joel.
36&: Norman F. Langford. 'The Book of Joel: Exposition'. JR. 6.152.
31. 111is would not exdudc the existen« of 11 dlstinctivc prophetic. gifL juS! as God's making
l ~rud ·n kingdom of prics1s' (Exod. 19.6} did not eliminate a distinct priestly office. Tberc-rcmnin
prophet~ in Acts ( 11.27: 13.1: 15.32: 19.6: 21.9-10). despite the: fulfilment of Joel 3.
32. Dillard. ·Joel'. 295. 'A!IjfeJit may me-an all mankind. and we ~houl d interpret it thus. if the:
following context did not restrict it to the Jews.' Bcwer. ' Joel'. 123. Sec also Allcn.Joo/. 98: John A.
Thompson. 'The Book of Joel: Introduction and Exegesis.'. lB. 6.152.
33. KeiL Ali11ar PropheJs. li O.
34. Walter C. Kair.er. Jr.. 'The Promise of God and the OulpOUring of the 1-loly Spirit'. in T1u•
I.Mng a11d Aclh't' Word ofGod: Stttdies in Honor ofSamuel J. Sch11f: (c:d. Moni ~ Inch and RonnJd
Youngblood: Winona Lake. Ind.: Eiscnbrnuns. 1983; rept.• with tc\'i$ions. in The Uses ofrite Old
TeJtamt>nt in the Neh'. Chic-llgo: ~ioody. J9S5: 89- !00). 119. An annfysis of the 44 in~1anccs of the
c:tprcssion outside. Joel ( Kaiser'~ count of 32 instances mu$t eonlbinc: adjnccnt rcfercnccs}docs not
Sllpport the claim that inn majority of instan«s 'the expression refers toG.:ntik s alone:' indistinction
from ' nil mankind'.
35. All 1 2occurrcncc-~ i nGenc:sis 6-9pl uslev. 17.14(3 }: Num. I8.1S: andpossiblyPs. 136.25.
In Gen. 7.21 -23. 'all fl<~h •(,~;·7;) is explicated ns ' birds. cnttle. beasts.. all s....~J.nning creatures thnt
swnrm upon the.c:tnh.nnd C\'ery man: C\'erything on the.dry land in whose.nostrils was the breath of
life'. Cf. Gen. 6.17 ('all flesh in which i~ the brcalh of life .. . evcrything thai ;~ on the e;arth') and
Num. 18.15 ('all Rem. wheth« man or beast').
36. Num. 16.22: 27.16: Ocut. 5.26: lsa. 405: 49.26:66.16. 23.24: Ja. 11. 12 (lhe sok ncgnti\'c.
·no flesh'): 25.31 :32.27: 45.5: Ezck. 20.48: 2 1.+5: Z«h. 2. 11 : Ps. 65.2: 145.11: lob 11. 10: 34.15:
Dnn. 4.9. In the remaining six occurren«s. i1 ha~ 11 pronominal suffix and refa s to 'hi~ whole body'
(lev. 4.11: 13.13: 15. 16: Num. 8.7: Ezck. 10.2: Prov. 4.21).
whole poople of God-" 'All of God's people will have all d1ey need of God's
Spirit', without ' societal restrictions' .l8 ' No exclusion will be made on the basis
of gender. age or social station. ' 39 But the locust plague affected only the resi-
dents of Judah, not all of God's people, scattered as they were across the ancient
world. h is one thing to understand the blessing of agricultura l restoration to
apply only to the inhabitants of the. land, but another to suggest that Jews living
outside the land would be. excluded from the larger ble~~ings of the outpoured
Spirit and divine deliverance of Joel 3- 4 Mr..so
Second, the 'menservants and maidse-rvants' (3.2 MT) specifically included
among those who receive the gift of the Spirit would likely have included Gen-
tiles. Walter Kaiser has argue.d that the promise indic-ates that ' even Gentile
slaves in Jewish households would benefit fi·om this outpouring' .'u It is clear that
from early times Israel held Gentile slaves..tl While. ·your' might limit 'sons and
daughters· to Jews, ·your menservants and maidser...ants' suggests the overflow
of blessing to Gentiles. In addition, there were. apparently always free Gentiles
living within the borders of Israel: Rahab (Josh. 6.25). Ruth. Doeg the Edomite
(I Sam. 22.9). Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sam. 24), Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. II).
Solomon' s wives ( 1 Kings I I), and tlle ' foreign· women married by some in the
post-exilic community (Ezra 9- 10; Neh. 13.23-27). These were ' strangers' (i~)
or 'sojourners· (~~i.i) recognized in the Mosaic Jaw. provided with ce11ain pro-
tections, and held to many of the same requirements as ethnic Israelites (Exod.
12.49: Lev. 24.22: Num. 15.1 5-16). A number are presented as believers in the
God of Israel (e.g. Rahab, Ruth). All in Judah (servants, strangers and sojoumers)
would have-suffered from the plague-. and presumably all would have. sha.l'ed in
the agriculnu·al renewal of 2. 18-27. Would not. then. these Gentiles, slave and
free, also participate in the greater blessing o f Joel 3 M11
Some have noted in this context the comingjudgement on the-nations in Joel 4
MT. Wolff notes tllat ·concerning other nations a completely different message is
coming (4.1ff)':l 3 Joel. however. is painting \\~th a broad b1·ush, as biblical
prophets regularl}rdo. The J>I'Omise o f deliverance for Israel does not mean that
every Je-.w~ however wicked or impious. will be saved. Nor does the destruction
of the.nations mean that no GentHe.s will be saved. particularly if they have taken
37. 1-lubbard. Joel and AmoJ.69. The appear.mcc: ofsuch particu1:us may reAcct the samd:indof
particularizing of unin:rsals that Raabe finds in j udgemc-nl omdes (ahhough here they occur in a
promise of bk ssing). Raabe. ' Particularizing•. 652.
38. GaiTCtL Hosn1. JC~t'l. 260-61.
39. Hubbard. Joel axd Amos, 69.
40. Hubbard. while insisting Lhat 'Israel. not the whok world is in ,·iew'. still contends that in its
broad cxtc-nLthis promise ·readies the pcopk for 11 new era ofoneDCss, wl«:n superficial distinccions
are set liSide and ewn outcasts bcoolll(" core member.; of God's new fellowship'. 1-lubbard.Jod and
Amos. 69.
41. Kaiser. ·Promise.>. 119.
42. E.g. I Chr. 2.34·35 and pos.s.ibf)· Josh. 9.27: Num. 31.18 (sla\·es or wives?). The lawc:tplieid)·
distinguishe.d bc:twccn Jewish slil\'CS anc!-slan:s from the nations (e.g. lev. 25A4-46).1smdites wett
also msla\'cd in other lands (e.g. 2 Kgs. 5.2: Amos 1.6. 9).
43. Wolff.Jat•l a11d Amos, 67.
t'efuge in the God of IsraeL The geneml use of the expre-SSion and the presence o f
Gentiles (slave.and free) in Judah suppon a universal understanding of·an flesh·
in Joel 3 MT.
5.2.2 E''"IJ'OIIe Who Calls (Joel 3. 5a MT)

The opening ~;:t~ ('and it shall come to pass') echoes !he n;;:q of3. Ja. As in 3.1-
-,z
2, tllere is an inclusio: the clause iifi; o;f; X¥:~~~ ('all who call upon the
name o f t he LORD') in Sa is bal:mced by x,p it1i\: i~l$ ('those whom the LORD
calls') in 5d.
JoCt promises 'escape' (il\?..?~. 5b), that those who c-.all on Yahweh 'shall be
delivered' (o?'?:. 5a) ..u whetller that is undentood to be from llle e ffects of the
plague (Joel I). the cosmic distt·ess (3.3-4), ot· the coming judgement on the
nations (4). Many see the unusual expression in 5b. ii}i; i~:;: -;;;*~("as the-LORD
has said'). as indicating a citation ofObad. 17.J5
ilr.t?.? ;,:.,~ q?;:r1~1 p-:r -n:q Joel 3.5b MT in Mount Zion and in Je-rusalem there shall be
!hose-who <scape-(liL there will be-escape]
:'! <;! '?; n:;:z~ i1"l> i.J:~ <>bad. Ii but in Mount Zion there-shoJI be those that
escape (lit. there will be <:sc.:~peJ
Obadiah, like Joel. promised escape.in Mount Zion in the ii)ii~ -ci", ' the day of the
LORD' ( 15: cf. loe12.11 ), which not only threatened Edom, but 'is ncar upon a ll
the nations·.
The promise of escape (Joe l Sa) is given to :t~ii; c;i; x-:V,:I#~ S~ ('all who
call upon the name of the LORD'). :To call on the name. of the Lord (v. 32) ...
means to worship God (Gen. 12.8), to acknowledge chat one be.longs to God (Ps.
105.1; lsa 12.4; 44.5; Zech 13.9). and to depend on God for one' s life (Prov
18.10; Zeph 2.3).' 4 It also ·means veneration through worship generall}' (Gen
12.8). especially the confc.<Sing ofYahweh among those of other fuiths (ls4 1.25:
44.5_), worshiping him in the midst of the world of nations (Is 12.4; Ps. 105.1;
Zech 13.9)' :n Finall>'~ it entails ·agreeing to keep YHWH's statutes and to render
exclusive loyalty to him.' 48 Deliverance. then, is promised to all who give
a lle.giance and trust to Yahweh - salvation is by faith. This deliverance includes
·not every Jew simply bec-ause he is a Jew. but eveI)' God-fearing Jew who trusts
in Yahweh and calls on him for help'.$- salvation is by faith alone.
44. The \·erb · indie.ot~-s survi,•al in the fa<:eof g:rnve danger' .e.g. 3 in Amos 2.1 ~· 1 5. Crenshaw.
JQt>/. 169.
45. lkw-er, ·Jod'. 124-25-: Crenshaw. Jod. 169: \Volff. JodundAmos.68. The' aq,'llmcntlkpends.
of course-. on the' rdali\'e daring of these two books. neither of whic-h can be dated wiih ce--rtain!)'.
46. Aehtemeicr. ·Joel'. 7.328. Curiously. in the 'Reflcc-lion' -section of tbe comn'IC'ntary. Achtc-
meier odds that •to ..c.oJI on the name of the Lord'' means. in the scriptures. to tdl others what God
ha:s dotlC' (Ps. 105. 1: ls:L 12.4}'.
41. Wolff.JoelandAmos.68.
48. Crenshaw.Joe/. 169. Similarly also 1-lubbard.Joo/ and Amos. 72: Stuart. Ho.fetJ-JQnah. 261.
49. Bewcr. 'Joel'. 124.
Might Gentiles be included if they call on the name of Yahweh'] Gentiles are
commonly characterized as ·nations that know thee not. and .. . peoples that call
not on th}r name· (Jer. 10.25: cf. Ps. 79.6). but Garrett notes an ·implicit univer-
sality of "everyo ne~· · here and understands the reference to Zion. not as limiting
salvation to Jews. but requiring identiflc-.ation with the God oflsraeJ.S0TIU'ough-
out the OT there are.Gentiles who offer their allegiance to Yahweh,51 even if they
are not said specifically to ·call on his name' .51 Boaz blessed the Moabite Ruth
for her allegiance to and tmst in Yahweh. 'under \~,o·hose wings you have come to
take refuge!' (Ruth 2.12: cf. 1.16, 'your people shall be my people. and yoUJ·God
my God'). The. Syrian general Naaman vowed not to worship ·any god but the
LORD' (2 Kgs. 5.17). In his prayer at the dedication of the temple, Solomon
anticipated this very eventuality:
'When a fort-igner. who is nol oflhy people Israel (~~~~: 1f?;tn6 -g~ ·--q~J). comes
from a far country for thy name's sake {forthe.y shall hear of thy great name:. and thy
mighty hand. and of thy outstn:tchcd arm). when he comes and prnys to\wtd this house.
hc:-.ar thou in hc:avc:-n lh)' dwelling place. and do according to all for which the foreigner
~:ail s to thee-: in order that all the peoples or the c:-anh may know thy name and fear thee.
as do thy people l!>rttel. and that they may know that this hou~ wflic.h I httvc:-buill is.
c-alled by th)' name. ( 1 Kgs. 8.41-43)
The prophets and Psalms speak of nations ·rurning to' Yahweh. if not explicitly
by ·calling on his name·.n Would they not share in Yahweh's promised
salvation?
5.2.3 Ev•IJIO/Ie th• LORD Calls (Joe/ 3.5d MTj

Joel 3.5d MT closes the chiasm with X1-P :"il;;: i~* ('those whom the LORD
calls '). The RSV distinguishes two group-s: 'and among the survivors shall be
those whom the LORI) calls·, but most commentators and recent translations
equate the two (the survivors and those Yahweh calls).~ Although some believe
that the text shows evidence of earlier editing/sour present concern is with the
text as it stood in the first c.entury and that text seems secure.
There are surprisingly fe.w instance$ in the ~iT where Yahweh is said to call
anyone; far more.oncn. people.call (to or upon) Yahweh (as in Joel3.5b). ln two
instances, Yahweh ·calls' someone to fulfil a task. Bezalel (Exod. 35.30-31) and
the lsaianic servant (I sa. 49. 1). Most often. Yahweh calls to people to get their
attention: e.g. Adam (Gen. 3.9). Moses (Exod. 3.4) or Samuel (I Sam. 3.4, 6, 8).
Or Yahweh summons them: e.g. the earth (Ps. 50.1), Moses (Exod. 19.20) or
50. Garrett. Hosea. Joel. 369. n. S.

51. KOstcnbcrgcr and O'Brien. Salmlion. 35.
52. Then: docs oot sc:<m lo be a narrative tc:xl where 'calling on lhc name:-of Yahweh' is predi·
cated of 11 Gc:ntik or Gentiles.
53. E.g. lsa. 14.2 (13.2 LXX): Ps. 22.27 (22.28 MT: 21.28LXX).
54. ...E\'c:-ryoDC wbo ealls'' and the: "survi\•ors. whom Ynhwc-h will call'' arc oDe ttnd t.hc sanlC.'
Stuon. Hos~a-Jo11all . 262. See NIV and Wolff. Joel and Amos. 68.
55. Wolff.Jat•l a11d Amos. 68.
Aaron and Miriam (Num. 12.5}.56 The reference here is probably not to elec-
tjon.$7 but to God's gracious invitation Ol' summons to come to Zion in order to
escape judgement.5SWhile no MT text speaks explicitly ofGod"s calling Gentiles
to salvation from judgeme.nt. many speak of Gentiles coming to Jei'Usalem in
alle.g ianc.e to Yahweh.S') Such coming would be futile., even tragic. if the.y had not
been invited and were not welcome.
5.2.4 Summary
With others. Bewer maintains that the-seemingly universal expressions in Joe.!
3.1b. Sa, d {'.IT ' have a universal ring and could later on, when the context was
disregarded, be interpreted without mudl difficulty in a unive-rsalistic manne1·. cf
Rom. I 0.13. But our authors would have been much astonished over such an
interpretation. '60 The universalism in Joel 3 MT, howeve.r. is unavoidable. While
the focus is on Judah. the promises must include faithful Jews in the Diaspora (on
the one hand) and Gentile slaves and sojourners in Judah (on the other). The
expressions 'all flesh' . ·e.ve1yone who calls on the LORD' and ·everyone. the
LORD calls' must therefore be read in a universal sense. Gifts ofthe Spirit and
deliverance will be shared by Ge-ntiles who, in the future.as in Israel's pa.'it, call
on the name of Yahweh bec--ause they have been c-alled by him. Gentile.'! are
included in the prophecy of Joel.
5.3 The Expected Spirit

The gift of the Spirit is 'one of the decisive marks of the new age' .61 Some see an
anticipation of this in Moses' wish (Num. 11.29) 'that all the. Lo Rn's people
were prophets. that the-LORD would put his spirit upon them!' Isaiah envisioned
the Spirit resting in a special way on fhe promised servant-leader ( 11.2; 42.1 and
61.1. which is cited in Luke 4}. Both (saiah and Eze-kiel promised that God would
bestow the Spirit on all people (lsa. 32.15; lsa. 44.3; Ezek. 38.29). This gift of
the Spirit would be permanent ('shall not depart', fsa. 59:2 1). Ezekiel foresaw a
time when God would ' take out ofyour flesh the hem·t of stone', ' put a new spirit
within you. and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my
ordinances' (Ezek. I 1.19:36.26. 27).
56. See also Gen. 22. 11 . 15: Exod. 19. 13: lev. 1.1: 2 Kgs. 3.13: Ps. 50.10: ls:t. 22.12~ Zcch. 7.13.
51. Wolff.JoelulldAmos. 69.
58. Wolff. curiously. argues that lsl'lk'lite-s oU'Isidc ofkru.-.alcm are not in vic-w. Jkwercarlierand
more scnsibl)' argued •that the loyal kws of the Dispersion arc indu<kd among the tme Yahw-eh
worshippers is obvious. And although il is noc direcd)' stated it mny be ga1hercd . .. that they will aJI
be stlmmoncd to Zion.· Be,'l('r. ·Joel'. 125: Wolff. Joel tmd Amos. 68-69.
59. lsa. 2.2-~ (!I ~fic.4.1 -3 ): 25.6-8: 55.5: Jet. 3. 17: Zech. 2.10-11: 8.20-23: 14. 16:d !sa. 45.22.
60. Bew~r. ·Joel·. 125. So also Chapmnn. ·supc.rubundance'. 191- 93.
6 1. James D. G. Dunn. &1ptism in tlw Holy Spirit (Pililnddphia: Wcs1.rninster Press. 1970). 46:
Gnrrett. fJOJe(t,Jod. 368. So also. neatly a century ago. Gccfflardus Vos.. 'The Eschatological Aspect
of the-Pauline Conce-ption of the Spirit'. in Rnlemptit·~ HiJIO(II and Biblicol lllterpretatioll: T/1~
S/1orJer fli·iti1rgs ofOeuhardlls J Os (cd. Rie:hard B. Gaffin. Jr.: Pt.illipsbur<~. NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed. 1980). 95- 97.
The propbeiS of l!:mcl foretdlthc coming of the Suffering S<rv.lnl and of lhc new age
that the outpouring of the Spirit will inaugurate. The.Spirit will beprc<minend)'coocen·
trnte-d indlC· ).ie~iah and He will wholly indw"C'II Ihe pcopk ofGod who shall lin: indle-
eSC"hotological period. The abiding presence of the Spirit will be. as EKhrodt ha.<; !=lid.
'the-ccmral wornkrof the new aeon'. in which He will no longe-r appe~~r 'sian-wise' btll
He will exercise ;an enduring influence-on tl'K'n•. Here lneam:nion and Pentecost and the-
new period in the history of rede-mption that shaJI be inaugurated by them !li"C' adum·
bratcd.6l
The Spirit was understood as an eschatological gift in the apocryphaVpseudepi-

graphal and rabbinic litcmture.
The-prophcc)' of Joel was taken up in Judaism and understood to refer to :m outpouring
of the Spirit in the age. to come. when prophocy would ce-ase to be: conlined to 11 few.
Thus T(mlwma )';o § 4(96b). In Ibis age prophecy has bc:cn for one in a thousand but in
thc: age to come prophccy will be for e\·cry man: this appe3r.> to make: prophecy uni-
\'C:tSJI. bu1it should perhaps be understood in the sense of Tmrlwma 1il~!ii"i: § 28.(3 1a).
wbCl'e the new gift of prophocy is restric-ted to every lsrnditc-( ~~..,· ;:l). Jod 3.1 is
quoted in both these passages. btu Num 11.29 \.\'aS no doubt also inllucntial.63
In Luke-Acts, the Spirit seems to be everywhere. In the gospel, he is the agent

of Jesus' conception ( 1.35), fills John the Bapti>t ( 1. 15) and his parents ( 1.41.
61). a nd revc.als to Simeon that he will not die. before see.ing the lord's Christ
(2.25-27). John promised that his successor would baptize with the Holy Spirit
(3. 16). The Spirit descended on Jesus at the time of his baptism (3.22). led him
into che desert to be tempted (4. 1), and empowered him for his ministry (4.14).
Jesus claimed the. Spirit's anointing when he cited lsa. 61.1 in his inaugural
sem1on in Capernaum (4. I8).6-1 rejoiced in the Spirit ( 11.21)~ promised thai the
Father would give the Spirit to those who ask him (I I .13), warned against
blaspheming the Spirit (12.10). and promised that the Spirit would supply the
words his followers \vould need to testify to him ( 12.12). Finally, he promised
that his followers would soon be "clothed with power from on high ' (24.49).
In Acts, the risen Jesus instntcted his apostles "through the Holy Spirit' ( 1.2)
and pi'Omised the Spirit 's power fot· witness ( 1.8). He was the one who spoke in
the OT sc.riptures ( 1.16; 28.25) and is the source of Je.,u.s' powe.r to heal ( 10.38).
The gil) of the Spirit at Pentecost, and particularly the praise of God in other lan-
guages. prompted the first sermon (2.1-4 1). which m·gued from the evident out-
pouring of the Spirit that God had enthroned Jesus as Lord and Christ (2.33-36).
Believers received tl1e Holy Spirit when they believed (2.38: 8.15; 9.31; I 0.44-
45, 4 7; 11.15; 13.52; 19.2, 6). Leaders were appointed by the Spirit (20.28).
directed by the Spirit (8.29, 39; I0.19; 11.1 2: 13.2. 4; 16.6-7; 19.21 ), and filled
62. Hany R. Boe-r. Penrerosl and Missions (Gt11nd Rapids: Eerdmans. 1961). 69.
63. Barrett. .4cts. 1.137. S« aJso Bod. Proclamation. 346. n. 39: Ev-ans. 'Prophecy and Polemic'.
186-8.7: Vos. ' EsdutologicaJ Aspect'. 98.
64. Gr<e-n finds important p.1r.dlds between Jesus' inaugurnJ sermon In Luke 4 1lnd Peter' sspcec:h
in Act.s 2. Joel B. Green. · -Proclaiming Repentance-and Forgi"e-ncss ofSins to All Nations": A Bib-
lical Pcrsp«ti\'"c: on the Church's. Mission'. in Tire Mis.tton of the Churdr in Meliwdist Per.quxtin•:
Thf' World Is My PoriJh (ed. Alan G. Padgett: lewi ~ ton. NY: Edwin Mellen. lm). 34. So nJso
DuponL ·salvation'. 20- 14.
with the Spirit for witness (4.8, 31: 7.55; 9.17). service (6.3, 5: 11.24), revelation
( 11.28; 15.28:20.22-23: 21.4) and miracles (13.9).
The prevale-nce. of the Spirit. pmticularly in the promine-nt accounts of the
Spirit's reception by Jesus (luke 3 ). the church (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10).
demonstrnte-.s how important il was to Luke that God had fulfilled his promise
through Joel to 'pour ouf his Spirit.
5.4.4cts2.17-21
Acts 2 is familiar as the setting of the first proclamation of the good news follow-
ing the death and re-sm·rection of Je..•n1s.~ On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit
was poured out on tlle assembled company of believers (2.1-4).116 The soundf.l7
dre-w a diverse crowd which heard the believers 'telling ... the mighty wol'ks of
God' in their own languagcs.611 Some concluded that the believers \\'el'e dnmk
(2.13). Taking this accusation as his point ofdepa11ure-. Peter addressed the crowd.
explaining that what they were witnessing was what Joel had promised (2. 14-21 ).
He argued that scripture.demonstrated the.necessity ofChrist's restu·rection from
the dead and that the. e.vident gift of the Spirit proved ' that God has made him
both lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified' (2.22-36)' '
The benefits of the Spirit. rcptntanoe. n:kasc of sins. !lnd proOObly nlsosal\'ation through
the name are viewed as consequences of ksus' exaltation and enthrontm('l\1. As the-one-
c.xahcd to God's right hand. Jesus is able to extend the benefits of his minislr)·to all
Israel and lhc wotfd. 70
In re-sponse 10 Peter's c.all to ·repent. and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ for the forgive-ness of your sins'. about 3.000 believed ( 2.37-42).
65. Grcm speaks of 'thoe ccntnl signiOCanccofActs2.1-4 1 for the M ls of lhc-Apostks'. and argue:>
that il is 'anti<:ipatcd throughout the Luk:m story'. Gree-n. ' Proc.laiming Rcpentaocc.'. 33. T:mnc-hill
calls it ·one oflhc most carefully consltoctcd speeches in Acts'. Tannehill. iVurruri1=t' Uniry. 2.4 I.
66. 'It is the unanimous conviction of the-New Tc.stamcnt authors that Jesus inaugurated Lhc last
days or ).fc:-ssianie age. and lhat the final proof of lhi ~ was lhc outpouring ofthe Spirit. since Lhis was
the Old Testamen1 promise of promise--s for thec-nd·tinlC! StolL Acts. 73.
61. Eiihc.r of the-. blowing wind (l.2)0J of the-ir ~ak i ng in other tongues (2.4). The fonncr vie-w
is that of Fitz:myc-r (Acl.f. 230). the latter that of Bruce-(Ads. 54).
68-. ·Jews. dt\•out men from c\·c-ry nation unde-r hca\·c-n' (2.5: sec--2.8· 11a). Although they come-
from 'e\'C:-1')' nation•. those prt$Cnt arc--described only as kw·s. ' Ncvc-nhdcss. by enumcmtiog the--ir
geographical places of origin. Luke has symbolized tllC uni\•crsal soope of the- gospel· Green. ·pro--
chiming Repentance'. 36. On the question ofwhethe-r lhesc were peml!lncnt rcsidcntsmpilgrims.Stt
Marshall. Acu. 70: Witherington. Acu. J35.
69. 111is is 'thel:ey point in the discourse. It is the fae1 that Jesus is 1M Lord.· Marshall. Luki!:
Hi.worian and 11u,'Qiogiall. 16'2. Sec also Fitxmyer. .4cts. 24S. 'Tile key tothe.spc-«h is that it presents
the imagery offulfiltmc-nt for both Oavidic.and ocwc-ovenant promise: DamII L Bock. ' Proclama-
tion from Proph«:y and Pattern: Luke ·s Usc of the-Old Testa1ncnt for Christology and Mission·. in
Tlti! GcsJ)t'ls a11d 1he Scriptures of/.rral!! (c-d. Craig A Evans and \Villiam Richard Ste-gner: JSt-.'TSup
104: Sheffield: Sheffield Ac-ade-mic. Press.. 1994). 291. Sec also Robcn F. O'Toole. · Acts 2.30 and the
0 <1\'idK: Covenant of Pentecost'. JBI. 102 ( 198-3). 245--58.
10. TannehilL JVmrutil'i! U11ity. 2.40.
The introductory fonnula indicates that the propheC)' OfJoel is being fulfilled:11
toilt6 €em vto rip~~evov Stcr toti 1!potp~tou 1ro"Jil., (' this is what was spoken
by the prophet Joel'). 11 'The Pentecostal e.vent is the fulfillment of prophecy· .11
Marshall finds that 'the. event is regarded as falling into the pauem of promise
and fu lfil hnent, which is central to Luke's theology of histo1y' .i'J
5.4.1 All Flesh (.4cts 2. /lc)

It is ' upon aJI flesh· that God promises to 'pour out' his Spirit. As in Joe13. many
scholars seek to limit 'all flesh· to Jews: as with Joel 3, there are ~ood reasons to
see.a broader reference here. In the NT, the expression1tdaa ao:p; ('all flesh')
appears in nine. other texts. each time with a universal orientation. In five texts
(Matt. 24.22; Ma1·k 13.20: Rom. 3.20: I Cor. 1.29; Gal. 2. 16), it occurs with a
negative. yielding the sense 'no ftesh' or ·no one' . The other four texts are Luke
3.6; John 17.2; I Cor. 15.39; I Pet. 1.24 (cf. also aapKa~ navtrov. ' the ftesh of
all', in Rev. 19.18). In I Cor 15.39, the expression refers to the bodily nature of
human beings (not just Jews). which is then contrasted with that ofanimals, birds
and fish.75 1 Peter I .24 cites Isa. 40.6, where ltdoa. od:p~ is employed in a con-
trast between the power of Yahweh and human (not merely Jewish) weakness to
guarantee Judah's promised deliven1nce. 1~ In John 17.2. it refers to all human
beings. from whom some have been given by the Father to the Son.n
T he remaining occurrence, in Luke 3.6, is particularly relevant. All three
synoptics cite Isaiah 40 as a desc.ription and prophecy of the ministry of John.
Matthew and Mark cite only 40.3 (Matt. 3.3; Mark 1.3. the latter adding Exod.
23.20). luke alone continues the citation through the middle clause ofba. 40.5.
; I. Fitzmycr. Ads. 252: Stcyn. SeptuuginJ Quotolirms. 70. Dispensational commentators h:l\'c
ctuirncd that Joel 3 cannot have bttn fulfilled in Acts2. b«au.se l.he cosmic signs of Joel 3.3·4 (Acts
2.19·20) did not occur. Sec: the I"C'Sponsc of Dunn. Baptism. 4 7: Kaiser, ' Promise'. 112. For 11 recent
attempt to affinn the fulfilment of Jod 3 in Acts 2. while still allowing for future liternl fulfi lment of
the cosmic signs.sce Daniel J. Trcicr. '1'1le FulfillnlCnt ofJod 2.28-32: A Multipk -Lcns Approoch'.
JETS 40 ( 1997): 13- 26. Bock notes "that the usc of the. Jod tcxl in Ac-ls 2 is open-ended. that is the
fulfi lrncnt has begun with ti'IC oulpouring of God's Spirit but events are still to occur'. Bock.
Prod(tlfWii<m. 168.
12. Kenneth l itwul: has rro:ndy argued that tllCse words do not indicate the fulfilment ofproph·
ccy. but a ·rc"i~i otul)' reading' of Jod 3 in light oftbc C\'mts 111 Pentecost litwal:. EdttNS. I 55- 73.
\Vhile it is ccnainly ttw: that Jesus· disciples read the or through 11 new ·hcm\Cneutic.u) lens·. this
docs not exclude the fulllln"K'nl of Joel's prophecy at PentcxosL His as.scnion that luke docs not
atlcmpt to ·pro\'c." anything with this citation is cu.rlous. Peter argues that the disc.iples are not drunk
but filled with God' sSpirit. and (more imponandy) that thc.outpoutingoftllC Spirit<kmonstr:ttes that
God has cnthrotK'd Jesus as ' Lord and Christ'.
; 3. Burr((t. Acts. 1. 135. Toy asserts. ' Pcter finds the fulfillment of this predic-tion in the disciples
of JC'Sus. as the. true lsrad'. Toy. Quotations. 98.
14. Jan ~l owurd .\fatshull. 'The Significance. of Pcntecos1'. SJT 30 ( 1977): 367.
15. Gordon D. FcC", Tfrr First Epi.ule to tire Co1inthians (NICNT: Grund Rapids: Ecrdmans.
1987). 782- 83.
76. Ed\.,.\'lrd Gordon Sdwyn. The First EpislleofPeler: 71re Greek Text nith Introduction. Notes
and Essays (2nd edn.: london: Macmillan. 1947). 152. Sec also Puo. Acts. 48.
i1. Leon Morris. The GoJ[Jt'l according 1oJofl11: 71re Englislr Te.~t witlt lntroduc.tio11, £\'fJOJilion
and Nott•s (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Ec.rdm.ans. 1971). 718.
l'eading ( as in LXX) KC<C O'lfet CXI1tdCIC< C!Cxpl; ·t O Clc.lt~ptoV tOU 6eoiJ (•and a ll
flesh shall see the salvation of God').?$ While one could conceivably view
.,~~~;>as limited to the people of Judah ("Jerusalem')~ the expression in 40.6
(cited in I Pet. 1.24) ret"bt·s to human beings ge-nerally. The expression in 40.5 is
therefore mo.st likely to mean ·au people'. including Gentiles. 79 As in (sa. 42.6.
' to see the salvation of God' is not merely to observe it, but to experience it.110
luke. is the only <:\•angdlsL therefore. who continu~ the- traditional qoototion from
Isaiah 40 111this point in his Gospel up to the words. ·And all flesh will sec the salvation
of God.' Similarly Luke is Lhe only <:\'angelist who oontinlk's the.Gospel story by going
on to narrate the missions ofthe apostle-s .. . By thus pi:King Isaiah 40.5at the b(£inning
ofhis Gospel stol)'.llnd also drawing the-conclusion of AciS from words that remind us
of the sanlt te-xt. luke bctra)·s his strong inte-l'tSt in the idea that the salvation of God is
m11nifc-sttd to all me-n. h see-ms reasonable to consider that interest one ofthe keys to his
work: the history luke wisht"s to UllCC is the history of God's salv11tion for all tlcsh.111
l uke thus introduces an anticipation of the Gentile mission e-.arly in the third
gospel. using language.that will also be evident in the citation ofJoe13.1 in Acts
2. I 7.
Peter's sennon focused on the gift of the Spirit, not its recipients. His he-arers.
too. would have paid less attention to 'all ftesh' than to ' I will pour out my Spirit'.
However. the Gentiles among Luke's readers. who hnd received the Spirit when
they believed in Jesus. could not have helped seeing themselves in ·at! fte-sh·.The
use of ;~:r~~ in Joel 3 (and the-. OT) , the use of 1ttkaa acip~ in the NT, the
evident importance of the Gentile mission to Luke, and the subsequent narrative
indic-.ate that 'all flesh · in Act'! 2.17c includes Gentiles.~
5.4.2 E••eryon• Who Calls (.kts 2.21)

As in the OT, to ·c-all on the name of the l ord' (S·nu:aAdo6ttt 1 0 Ovoptt
1\Uplou) is an expression of tmst. worship and c.onfession, equivalent to belief in
18. Somes« an etbo of !sa. 40.5 in Luke 2.30. wlltrc Simeon's ·eyes ha\'e-seen thy saJ~Jation'.
DuponL 'Salvation', 15.
19. So CrJig A. Evans. "Tilt Prophetic Setting of the Pentecost Se-nnon•. in Lulw and Scripture:
Tht- Amrtio11 q{S(mwl TraditioII ill L11ke-Acu (cd. CtaigA. Evans and Jack T. Sanders: Minneapo-
lis: Fortrc~. 1993). 120.
80. ·seeing' ·nccd not imp!)· that all flesh will AAarc in its bencfiiS'. W. R. Hnnford. ·txutero-
lsaillh and l ul:o-Acts: Sl13ig:htforwtlrd Uni\'malism?'. CQR 168 (1967): 147. But soc lsn. 9.2: 33.17.
20; 35.2: 52. 1as well as John 3.3. where il is no! a motterofmerdy obsm·in:g: ti&:i\'. 3.3) the king-
dom. but entering it {tiocl.&civ. 3.5: d . BDAG. s.v.tiOov. 4.) Motyer !q)Caks of the 'doublescnsc of
ob.scn'ing and experiencing·. Motyer, Prophecy. 300.
81. Duponl. ·sllh'alion'. I ~16. 'Thai the-Gentiles arc tilt intended objects of God's salvation is
announced at the outset by John the. Baptist.> Sanders. ' Prophetic Usc' . 194--95.
8-2. Green.. ·Proclaiming Repentance'. 31. Tasker spc-aksof 'God·s Spirit .. . pour<d out 001 only on
lsrnel. but on -oil Rc.sh'" ·. Randolph V. G. Tasker. Tht- Old Testament i111ile Ne1\' Testament {2nd re.v.
edn.: london: SCM Press. 1954). 67. Tannehill sees ·a vnriation on the promif.cs of worldwidesal\'a-
tion in Luke 230-32 :md 3.6 ('"AU flesh will ~e the snh•ation of God"').• See oJso E\'ans. ' Prophetic
Se.tting'. 220: Fitzmyer.Acu. 252. Bru(e.and Ed:e)' se-c Luke 'looking forward' (Bruce) ond ·signal·
ing· (Eckey) the coming Gentile mission. Bruce. Acts (Greek Tt":tt. 3Hl edn.). 12 1: Ed:e)·. Apo:;cd-
gcsc!Jicltle. 1.83.
Jesus as saviour.&l (As elsewhere. 0 ciplO<; in an OT text is understood to refer to

Jesus.tt) In Acts 9.14. 21, Ananias equates 'all \Vho call upon thy name· \\~th 'the
disciples of the Lord' (9. 1), ·any belonging to the Way· (9.2) and ' thy saints'
(9.1 3). 1n I Cor. 1.2. it parallels ' those sanctified in Christ Jesus' and 'called to be
saints' . as 'the church of God which is in Corinth'. In Acts 22.16, ' calling on his
name' is connected with baptjsm in Paul's conversion. Finally, Rom. I0.13 cites
Joel3.5b ~IT to support the sweeping claim that ' there. is no distinction between
Je\Vand Gree-k: the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who
call upon him' . Yet. as Paul observes, no one can believe unless thC}' hear, nor
hear unless someone is sent to them. Paul. at least. understood Joel 3.5a MT to
include Gentiles and to require an intentional Gentile mission.
Acts 2.21thus ·emphasizes the universal charac.t erofthe gospel and thus antici-
pates the inc{)rpomtion o f the Gentiles into the Christian community in the dra-
matic episodes of the remainder of Acts'.~5 The gift of the Spirit and the promised
deliverance are for all who call on the. name.o f the Lord Jesus, whether Jews or
Gentiles.li6
5.4.3 Ev•IJIO/Ie th• Lord Calls (.dcts 2.39)

Although the citation in Acts 2.21 strictly ends with Joel 3.5b MT (omitting the
focus of the deliverance on Zion and Jemsalem). words from 3.5d appear in Acts
2.39 ('every one whom the Lord our God will call to him'), oii<; KOpto<; 1tpoa -
K'i KAt'J'tCU.n The verb occurs 29 times in the Greek NT, consistently in the sense
o f 'summon· or ·ca ll ' .~" With the exception of Jas. 5.14 (' let him call t(w the
elders'}~ it is not used outside the gospels and Acts. (t is not used in a theological
sense (election) as Kaw is (e.g. Rom. 8.30; I Cor. 1.9).
In conte-xt. 'the promise' include-S ·the forgiveness of your sins' and ' the g ift
of the Holy Spirit' (2.38). Barrett, however, believes thnt 'it would be a mistake
to confine it ... It c.overs the covenant into which God entered with his people, to
which he.c.ontinues to be faithful. ' $9 The noun appears nine times in Luke-Acts.
83. Barrett, .4cts. 1. 139. The. e~prts.Sion simply refers to bclic:\'ers inand disciples of Jesus. Hans
Conzdmann. Acts oflhe ApoJtfes (trans. James A. Limburg cui.: Hcrm(1t(:ia: Philaddphia: Fortress..
ln 7). 20~ Ed:c.y. Apostelgeschichte. 1.83- 84. The verb may rcfer to pl'ayer (Ac.ts 7.59 RS V~ c f. 2
Tim. 2.22: I Pt-1. 1.17) and is used six times of Paul's appeal to the emperor (Acts 25. 11 . 12. 21. 25;
26. 32~ 28.19}. The- ·nanlc· represents ksus ond becomes almost cqui\'alc:-nt to "the gospel' in Acts
3.16: 4.12: 8.12: I 0.43. See Wall. 'lsl'.ld '. 445-48.
8-4. ·1n Acts 2 all the limits on Christology au broken as Jesus' function is totally cquat«f ..,.ith
that of God.' Bod:. 'Proclamation from Proph«y and Ptutc-m ·. 298..
85. ~farion l. Soards. T1u! Speeclles ofAcls: TheirContellf. Come:rt, and Concems (louisville:
\Vc:stminster John Knox. 1994). 33.
86. 'Luke docs not want to limit the quoted words only to the Jews assembled in Jerusalem: nil
human bcingft lll3)' caJI on the name of lhc Lotd for salvation.' Fittmyc-r, Aci.S. 254.
87. So. c:,g. BarrelL Acts, 1.139. 15-6: Conzdmann. Acts. 20. Stcyn identifies n number ofsimilari-
ties bctwcoc:n the Jod quotation and Acts 2.38-41. S.tc.yn. SqJtuagint Qumations. 127.
8:8.. ·TocaJi toor notify inordcrto sccutc:-someonc:·s p-resence: BOAG s. v. itpoa .-a>.Eo~uxt. It is
used Mice of calling to sen'Ke (Acts 13.2: 16.10).
8.9. Bnrrctt.Am.l.l 55-.
I I0 Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts
With the exception of the exodus (Acts 7. 17} and the governor's promise to trans-
port Paul for trial (Acts 23.21 ). the referent is eschatological: the gift of the Spirit
(luke 24.49; Acts 1.4; 2.33); the coming ofthe Saviour (Acts 13.23, 32 [or per-
haps forgiveness of sins, 13.38]); and the resurrection (Ac.ts 26.6; cf. 24.23; 26.8).
·Every one' here is comprehensive. Bruce states that ' the promise. is not only
to those. distant in time. but also to chose distant in place, eve-n - as was soon to
appear - to Gentiles' .90 The expression t't~ pcu~pftv refers to distance, as 'chil-
dren· refers to the future.91 The adve-rb !Ja~Cpciv is explicitly employed in LXX
texts referring to Gentile nations. as in f!.<fic. 4.3; Joel 4.8; Zech. 10.9: (sa. 5.26. 1t
is likewise employed in relation to the Gentiles in Acts 22.21 (' [will send you far
away to the Gentiles') and Eph. 2.13, 17, where the 'fh1· off' Gentiles are explic-
itly contrasted with cheJews who arc 'nea r' .n The 'distance' ofthe Gentiles may
well be s.pirin1al, as Calvin suggests.S.l Kaiser believes· ·'those who were afar off'
was merely a circumlocution for saying "Gentiles"· .9:
Douglass Stuan rightI}' observes that, while Jemsalem is 'the dominant sub-
ject' o f Joel 3.5 MT. thel'e is a larger principle at work. Peter's use of the e.xpres-
sions ·everyone who calls' and ' everyone-God calls'
is fajthful to t.hc impaccof the verse in its context. 11tough spoken to cnoournge Jem-
salemitcs at a ~imc when the holy city was unde-r attac'k, its real concern is future deli\'·
~ron« for a co,·cnant people. ·Evcr)·onc who cans· and the 'survi\·ors whom Yahw~h
will call' arc one and the: same - a brood con!tti tu~ncy not limited to o single locale. by
n::uson of the spirit and language of the oracle as. a whole .9':
5.4.4 Peter, Joel and the Gentiles

The language. in Peter's citation from Joel in Acts 2 indicates that the.gifts o f the
Spirit and the eschatological salvation will include Gentiles~ as well as Jews. who
call on the name of the Lord Jesus. Even if'all ftes h·and ·eve1yone who calls' did
not bring Gentiles iJlto view. ei~ f.ICXK:pciv (' far off') would.
Some have a1·gued that~ at this early point in Acts, Peter \Vould not have under-
S-tood Joel to include the Gentiles, bec-ause the narrative. portrays the apostles
(including Peter, see Acts I0) as slow to grasp the universal scope of their min-
istry.96 This re..ading, however. is not supported by the narrative. While we read
90. Brue<.Acr.nGrcd;. Te:tL 3td edn.). 130.

9 1. CC~nzdm.ann. Acts. 22. LSI cites insume<s when:: the tenn rders to d i~tance in space and
where it refers to timc.althoughdistanc< predomin:atcs. Forthc.view that those ·far off nrc Jews li\··
ing in G<nlik lands. see Withe-rington. Ac-u. ISS- 56.
92. "That tbc.same eontraSI is. inte-nded here wi1h i.j.liv . .. ..:ai to i~ t6:vot; Uj.lciw is probable.
espec.i3lly in view of Paul's declaration that he was sent £i~i9VJ) J-la ...-pciv (Acts 22.21 ). To be mot"C"
specific in Ac-ts 2 'I>.'a$ not within Luke-'s plans.' Richanl F. Z<hnlc. Peter 'J Penrerosl Disco-urJi!:
Tradition tmd Utkan llrterpreMiotl ill P~ler·s SpN!clu!s of AciJ J tmd 3 (SBLMS IS: Nashville:
Abingdon. 1971 ). 124. Z~hnle3lso sees the: "n<:u/fur• COOlt'i \SI in !sa. 57.19. Others.. howewr. believe
that lsa. S7. 19 referred origin:tll)" to Diaspora Jew!t. e.g. Goppch. Typos. 11 8.
93. Calvin. At'IJ f.!-!8. 83.
94. Kai!ter. ' Promi se-~. 120.
95. Stum1. Homt- Jo11al!. 26 J--62.
96. Hacnchcn• .4cts. 179: Withc:rington.Aels. 140-41.
5. The Spirit and All Flesh II I
that the Spirit. step by step. directed the church ·s e-xpanding ministry, there is no
rebuke of the-apostles on this pointY? The apostles could not have been ignorant
of the eschatological inclusion of Gentiles among the people of God. since this
was taught by OTpropheciesil.i and reinforced by the teaching of Jes-us.~ It is more
likely that the apostles expected. the conversion of Jews to be the precurso1·to and
means ofGentile conversion and that. for this reason, thC)' foc used first on min-
istry to ethnic lsrae.t. 100 Paul's reflection on fsa. 49.6 in light o f continued Jewish
opposition led him ( 13.46-47), and subsequently the church, to conclude that the
time.actively to reach out to the Gentiles hnd come. Tl\eaccount in Acts 10-1 I
(pmticulal'ly in light of Acts I 5) indicates that Peter's ' problem' was not the fact,
but the means of Gentile inclusion.
He {Peter) could llC\'C-r have thought that the Gentiles w·c-rec:tdudcd from lhc church or
from sah·ation. There was no such exclusion. eY<n unckr the restric-tive institutions of
the ol-d economy. All of the Gc:ntiks in the world might have shared the pri,·ikgesof the-
kw-.s., by complying wilh the p('('$('ribcd conditions. Peter' senor consisted in bc:lic\·in.g
thut these conditions still existed undc-tthc gospd.or in other words.. that Gentiles must
becornc kws be:fore lhc)' could be Christians. Ofthis error he was not yet disabused: bus
there was nothing in it to pre\•ent his applying the-expressions here recorded to the-
Gentiles. lOt
Nc.ither Peter~ nor his audience, nor the narrative at this point call attention to
Gentiles in the. promise of Joel. Yet both volumes of Luke's two-volume work
are addressed to a Gentile (Luke 1.1-4: Acts 1.1). From the beginning of his gos-
pel ('lightto the nations', 2.32; 'all fles h shall see the salvation of God'. 3.5) to
its ending ('that repe-ntance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his
name.to all nations·. 24.47), Luke has had Gemiles in view. Acts begins with the
promise.of the apostolic witness reaching from Jerusalem 'to the end ofthe earth'
(1.8) and ends with its proclamation in Rome (28.23-31). All these things were
already known to Thcophilus. whose problem was not ignorance. but a lack of
'certainty' (luke 1.4 ).
9i. Acts 1.8:2.4: -1.31: 6. 10: 8..26. 29. 39.40: 9. 10: 10-11 (esp. 10.3: 11.12): 13.2. 4: 19.21:
21.11: contrast 16.6. 7. While the: persecution in 8.1 providc.ntially led to missionary uctivity (11.19-
20: stt also later. e.g. 13.50-5 1: 16.39-40: 17. 10. 14}. there is. no indication in the cext thul the perse-
cution was punishment for disobe<l.iencc-.
98-. E.g. fsa. 2.2: 11.10: 19. 16-25: 25.6·8: 45.12·23: aph. 3.9: Z«h. 2. 11:8..22: 14.16.
99. Jeremias. PromiJ('.
100. ~1und.• Paul. 236. 239. 255- 59. Chris Wright argues that the apostles infcm:'d from Jesus'
identificutionofhimsdfwiLh the. l.saiunic servant th:.tlhe s:.J\'ulion of Gentiles would follow the rtsto--
rution of Israel. but the rcjec,tion of the-ir message by -so muny Jews (including those in positions of
authority) s«mcd to put the Gmtik mission on hold until ls.rnd was restored by its embr.K'e-of the
gospe-l. 'But then God surprise<~ them' with dle.convcrsion ofComdius and the: events that followed.
Christopher J. H. WrighL Knoll'illgkms rltrougiJ 1heOid Te:uamelll (London: HarpcrC'ollins. 1992).
163-70.
10 1. Alex.nnder. At·rs. 87. ·At J>cntttost . .. thisidru ofu uni\·crsul mission begins tobttomca rt"al·
ity . .. with P<:ntttost the die had been c:c>t.' Green. 'Proclaiming Repentance•. 37. ' From the thrust of
the 113tT.ati\"c in Acts it become-; .:lear that Luke is ahead)' hinting at the-reconstitution of lsrud as the
people of God. which will inco.-poralc the G<nlilcs.' Joseph A. Fitunyer. 'The Usc ofE~pl icit Old
Testament Quotations in Qumran literuture and in the New Testumenf. NTS i (1961): 267.
Although the implications of Joel fo1·the Gentiles are not made explicit in the
text of Acts 2. the speeches of Acts have two audiences: in the narrative. Peter
addresses sermons in Acts 2 and 3 to Jewish audiences in Jerusalem; lhrough the
naJTative. Luke addresses his readers. What may be of little importance to (or
even escape the notice of) one audience may be ofconsiderable significance to the
other. l uke's readers> who certainly include Gentiles, would have readil}' seen
themselves in the universal language of the Joel citation. In these expressions
early in Acts ('all fle-sh'> 'e.ve1yone who calls'. and ·everyone God calls') luke
anticipates what they already know from ' the rest ohhe sto1y'. In tl1is way. he
uses the Old Testament scriptures to assure Gentile readers like Theophilus of
'the tlllth conceming the things of which [they have] been informed' (Luke. 1.4)
and of their place. in the promises, progran1me and peOJ>Ie of God.
5.5 Summmy
The citation of Joel 3 MT in Acts 2 plays a pivotal role in the development of the
narrative of Acts. Joel 3 ~tT re.sonate.s throughout the book of Acts. The Spirit is
present and active, poured out. even on Gentiles ( 10.45). Signs and wonders are
done by Jesus and his followers (4.16. 22: 5.12; 6.8; 8.6, 13; 14.3: 15.12). Men
and women prophesy (19.6: 21 .9). Ananias (9. 10), Comelius ( I0.3), Peter( I0.19:
11.5). and Paul (9. 12; 16.9-10; 18.9) see visions. 1"'
5.5.1 Text
Although the form oft he citation diffe-rs at points from that found in Joel (r-.rr and
LXX), there are no subs-tantial differences affecting the ponion of the text involved
in the present study. The citations of Joel 3.1b. Sa. 5d ~rr (Acts 2.17c. 21 , 39)
could equally be based on the MT or the LXX and the argument docs not depend on
distinctive features in either form of the text.
5.5.2 Hermeneutic
Although many have argued that the seemingly universal language of Joel3.1b,
5a, 5d ~IT is limited by context to the inhabitants ofJud'lh. we have seen that Gen-
tiles are included in the promises of Jocl 3.1- 5 MT in their original context and
also in the citation in Acts 2. The use of the citation in Acts respects its original
context in Joel. 10l
The OT prophecy is understood Christologically, not in the sense of speaking
directly about Christ, but as an eschatological promise that is fulfilled only through
his agency. Peter argues that the promised outpouring of the Spirit i11ows that God
has mised Jesus and made him 'both U>l'd and Christ' (2.36}. While the promise is
initially fulfilled at Pentecost, its complete fulfilment \\~II require (as in Rom.
I0.12- 17) the proclamation o f the gospel to Gentiles. so that they may join many
102. Evan!>. 'Prophccic Setting'. 220.

10:3. 11 was not neocss!lr)' to omit lod 3.5b in order to e:tpund the:-prophecy to the Gentiles. as
contended by Rcsc. Alrte:>tomemlicht' Moli•"E". 50.
Jews in calling on the name of the lord Jesus for salvation. The citation thus
develops the ecclesiology of Acts and anticipates the Gentile mission.
5.5.3 Purpose
Faced with puzzling phenomena and a mocking crowd, Peter cites Joel3.1-5 r-.n .
The explanation for the events of2.1-4 is fo und in the scriptures: ' this [what the
crowd has seen and heard] is what was spoken by the prophet Joel' . Adducing
additional scriptures, Peter s hows that the Christ must suffer and be raised.
The outpouring of the Spirit shows that he has been (2.33). The citation is thus
employed as ·proofftom prophecy' , a rhetoricalstrategy which seeks to persuade
Peter's hearers that "God has made him both Lord and Christ' (2.36).
This early an6cipation of the Gentile mission sets the stage for its more explicit
tn."<ltment in Acts 13 and 15. As a skilful author~ Luke has already included earlier
indic-ations of what is coming and here continues to prepare for later events. The
citation of Joel 3 :-.n is pm1 of a complex ofat least four prophecies that legitimate
the early church's Gentile mission. Ultimately, the fulfilment ofthe prophecy will
require an imentional and eftCctive mission to Gentiles (as Paul understood. Rom.
I 0. 12-15. where Joel 3. 1 ~IT is also cited).
This anticipation of the Gentile. mission would not have been missed by
luke.'s Gentile readers, given their keen personal interest in its legitimacy. Nor
could Luke, a Gentile himself, have failed to see himself included in :eve-ryone'
here. The citation not only explains the. events at Pentecost and establishes that
Jesus is tl1c Christ. but provides additional assurance for Gentile readers that God
had intended their salvation all along. Additional citations and the subsequent
narrative-will confim1this. Luke's careful crafting of the case for the Gentile mis-
sion through anticipation as well as the explicit treatment in Act.s 13 and 15shows
the impo11ance of this topic for himself and his readers.
6
AHRAHA~I'S OFFSPRING AND THE f AMILIES OF THE EARTH

(GENESIS 22. 18 IN ACTS 3.25)
Tltere is a second anticipation of the Gentile mission in Peter's second program-

matic spee.c h. this time in the citation of Gen. 22.18 in Acts 3.25. Again, the
Gentile mission is not explicitly in view. Peter did not draw out the implication
of this citation for the Gentiles and there is no indication in the narrative that
Peter's original audience.attended to the implications of these citations for Gen-
tile ministry. However, as noted above. the-S~)eeches of Acts have two audiences:
in this narrntive1 Peter addresses a Jewish audience in Jerusalem; through the
nan·ative, luke addresses his readers. These reade-rs were, or at le.ast included.
Gentiles who would have been deeply concemed with the legitimacy of the Gen-
tile. mission and who would nan1rally have seen them.selves in any apparently
universal re-ferences in OT promises.
The firs1 question is which OT text is cited. The promise to Abraham (and the
patriarchs) appears five times in Genesis. none corresponding exactl}' to the
citation in Acts 3.2S.
Acts 3.25 ~~:al iv tc) an(ppctti oot~ li:vJEuAo·rq&lloovtm ,;U.oal ai Jra tptal ·t t)~ yi};
Gen. 12.3 ~~:al
h'E\J/.oyJ1Eh}ooYtu.t i:v aoi ni<out ai (pu/.al ·nl..; yi):;
Gen. 18. Ul ~~:al
E\'EtJ/.oyl)9t\ooYtW iv a Utcil Jrci\•ta tit E&Vl) <Tf):; ·rijo;
Gen. 21. 18 ~~:al
i\'EtJI.oyl)9~ao\•tat iv t{j) o,;ip~a:d oou ntivta 'lix (9\'11 ttl:; yfJ:;
Grn. 16.4 ~~:al
i\'EtJ/.oyJ19 ~oo\• tat iv ·t (> o·x(p~cni oou ntiv;o: 'lix i6w1 tij~ yf):;
Gen. 28. 14 Kal E\'EIJI.oy•l9tloovmt iv ooi nfraco ai 'PUI.cd tti:; ·rft~ k'«i iv t~ anip!Ja'tl
aou
As noted by Steyn>the two principal differences betwe.en the citation and the
LXX are the transposition ofiv£.uAoyl)&tlOOV1Ul and the substit11tion of1t<X<Jal
ai 11a1pta\ tij' ytj' fot· n6.vta ta ii6vt)ttj~ y~ or ndam ai cpu).a\ ttj;
yf)~.l No NT ~iSS suppo11 the LXX and no LXX MSS support the reading in Acts.
The differences must be attributed either to Luke or to an otherwise unattested
texn1al tradition.
The expression 7!daat e<i ltatplat ttj' yij' is unique to Luke. The ~rr
employs two Hebrew e.xpressions in ditlerem occurrences of the promise. ~~
:'ii?1~ii nh~:;i9 ('all the-families [or "tribe.s' ] ohhe eartll'. LXX nttoat a \ cpuActi
tij' y~<;) in Gen. I 2.3; 28. I4 and i'1':'" •::i; ':>:.('all the naJions of the earth ·. LXX
n<ivta ta £6\/llti\' Yii<;) in Gen.' 18.18; 22.18; 26.4. T he expression ai
I. Steyn. Septuagint Quotations. 154-56.

6. Abrahams O.Dspring and the Families of the Earth 115
1t<ttpta't t~~ ~~~ does not appear in the LXX, w here the most common use o f
1ta:t pux\ is for families or tribes within Israel. Some have suggested the influ-
ence of Ps. 21.28 LXX (22.28 MT; 22.27 RSV),' 'all the ends of the eanh (JtttVtc<
ti:t 11Epttta t~' yi\;) shall remembet· and tum to the LORD; and all the fiunilies
o f the nations (7td O<Xl eti rratptct't tli)v £6v6lv, ,::i~ iiin9~.-;-:,~) shall worship
before him' . Howeve1·. Acts 3.25 reads ai 1tcttpta 't 't~~ ·yil~, not ai 1t<tt pu:xl
t(i)v i:6v6)vor t Ct tripcx.ta. ti\; yil;. and no satistbctory ground for allusion to
this text has been proposed.l lvlost commentators understand Luke's language to
be a conscious adaptation. choosing the more.neutraltratplCxi over £6vt) (which
typically refers to nations other than Jews) to ensure that the promise is under-
.s-tood to include Peter's audience of Jews in Jentsalem.-'
The pre.sence-of i.v t~ att£pf.lctti a ou in Acts 3.25 has inclined Steyn and
others to conclude that the citation is more similar to Gen. 22.18: 26.4 than to
Gen. 12.3; 18.18; 28.14.5 Genesis 12.3: 18.18 spe~k of Abraham as the one by or
in whom the nations will be blessed; the focus is on Abraham himself(ahhough
his descendants may well be included). The 0 1tipJJCt does not ente-r the language
of the promise until Gen. 22. 18. where it is particulal'ly appropriate given the
deliverance of Isaac from impending death and AbrahaJn's own advanced age.
The specific mention of Abraham in the introduction to the citation in Acts 3.25
('the covenant which God gave to your fathers, saying to Abraham') would seem
to exclude both Gen. 26.4, which is addressed to (saac and speaks of Isaac's
arc£p~a. and Gen. 28.14. which speaks of Jacob and his arc€p~a. As the only
instanc.e of the promise addressed to Abraham which includes his 01tipJ.UX, Ge.n.
22. 18 is the most likel}' source of the citation.
It~ that is. we should see.k a specific source at all. Barnabas Lindars has
persuasively argued that "the quotation is thus in a stylized form, and not to be
2. See alsoal ~ct:tplul 'Tiiw f:e,,c:;v without JrciGal in Ps. 95.7LXX (96.7 MT) II I Chr. 16.28.
3. Both ~ a::pui and ;pu). ~ translate ,,~~~;. the former about two dozen times and tbe. latter
about lhree doz~n (out of about 300 instancts of ,,l!~ ;;i~) . The LX.'\: most often renders :IJ!~'i:;- by
bfu.l~ lO\'C-r 100 times). although more than a dozen tem1s are- us~-d. For tpo/.11 {\...tlich more often
translates 11;.~ or c;;t). see Gc:n. 10.5. IS. 20. 31. 32: 24.4. 38. 40. 4 1: 28.14: 36.40: Josh. 21.38:
I Kgs. 9.21: 10.2 1: 20.6. 19: AnlOS 3. 1. 2: Mi-c. 2.3: Noh. 3.4: Zcch. !2.12. 13. 14: E:ttk. 20.32. For
:ra:rpuX(whtch most often tr.mslatcs :~ or :-c:_:n i';). see I.e-\'. 25.10: Dcut 29. 18: 2 Chr. 6 ( 10
times}: Ps. 21.21: 95.7: 106.41: k r. 2.4: 3. 14: 25.9. In s«ular Glt'Ck. >tt.nptci refers g~ncrally to
family (or dan) or lineage lLSl). as in t.hc only othc:r NT occurre-nces: Luke 2.4 of the ·tinc.agc• of
Joseph and the seemingly universa1 'every famif)· in heaven aod on earth' (Eph. 3. 15).
4. ·t fit isaccepu<i that the spc«h was addrcs!l<d toJe11·s. and that tO. E&vq mean.<; the.Gemiles
in Ac. the change nu kes sense.· Ste-yn. Septuagint Q;mt(t!i<ms. I56. ·Luke has replaced tbe tit [$\'fl
of the Septuagint with cti ~cttptai thus indi-cating that the kws are- included umong !.hose who shall
be blessed in the -posterit)·'• of Abr.th.am. i .e~ the Christ Jesus.· Dahl "Abraham'. 149. 'The Greek
version of Genesis that Luke was using 1113)' have substitutC'dpatrioi...fmniltcs••. for t>lhne. "Mtions".
bU!. more likdy. luke himself has substituted it for the-latter term. which he nom1aJiy uses for
..Gentiles." · Fitzmycr. Acts. 291.
5. Stcyn. Sept!taginJ Q1wtati01u. 153. See also Barrett. 'luke/Act~ 0988)'. 238: Uod :.
Proclamutio11. 195: Y.an den Eynde. 'Children of 1he Promi!lt'. 472: Fitzm)'Cr. A<ts. 291. For oontrary
view~. see.Dodd. According to tl1e S<riprures. 43: l indars.. NM1' Testament Apologetic. 208.
interpreted in any single context' .6 That is, it is the promise itself(more than any
particular instance of it) to which appeal is made. As a re~·mlt. we c-annot. on the
basis of the citation. reliably dmw c-.onnections from the contextofany particular
occurrence of the promise (e.g. from the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22 to the suf-
fe.ring of Christ) and there are no indic-ations that Peter (OI' Luke) does so.
Ge11. n . J8Mr Gen. n .Jsu:x ArtJ J.: s

25a Up.ci; Eo t £ oi uioi t ciw
~POIP I) t6\'
b .:at til; 6ta9 ~..-q-; it;
6ti9tto 0 &E~ Jrp(>; to~
~ct:tlipa; il).I<Ov
c /.iyol\' Jrp0; 'ApPaci.IJ.-
-~ :,:; 1;:'"!1-? ;;:)1;"'1~ ISs ..-ai. ivEW.o·rq(hiaovtcu i:v d tt.:ai Ev t<? a.;t(pJ.l<Ul oou
..
,~,
I ~· •
t(9 anip).lctti ao\1 ·~«\'ta E\'E\1/.0)'TjEI ~OO\''fGCl itUOCtl
•« i&Vl) tt)r; '(i\~ a.i ncnp1ai n);. yfJ:;.
b Q-\•lf ciw im ~..-ouaa; •il;
6. 1 Text
The citation may be based on either the ro.rr or lXX. 1The argument could be made
equally well from either. The author has emphasized the 'seed' by bringing the
expression Ev 1:<9 a1t£p~a'ti. aou forward in the citation. The apparently more
inclusive wording ltClO<XI ai lttttplttL ti\<; yij<; appears in place of 1he LXX
1uivta ta l'avq ti\<; y~c;.lest til f6v11 be understood as a refe1•ence to Gentiles
only. while Pete-r presumably \\~shed to include Jews.
6.2 The Blessing in Gem•sis

Tl1e promise to Abraham cited in Acts 3 appears with very similar \\lOrding five
limes in the book of Genesis: 12.3; 18.1 8: 22.18; 26.4:28.14. The firs1 is lhe
fou ndational statement and occurs at the beginning of a major section of the
book.s Its repetition in the subsequent chapters indicates its central role in the
narmtive.ln 18.18. it follows the.promise of the imminent bil1h of Isaac and sets
the stage for Abraham ·s intercession (as a channel of blessing'?) tbr the hypotheti-
cal righteous of Sodom. In 22.18, it is reaffirmed following Abmham 's demon-
stration of his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. In 26.41 Yahweh assure$ Isaac that
the promise. includes God's care during a time of famine. Finally, the promise is
renewed at Bethel as Jacob flees his home and the wrath of his brother Esau
(28.14).
6. Lindars. New Teswment Apolq:t•tk. 208.

7. Steyn. Sep11wgi111 QtJOUltions. 156. Brutt bd ic\·cs that ·oflC( again the Gk. ofan OT quotation
is do~r to ~tT than is LXX'. Bru~e . Acts (Gnxk Text. 3rd edn.). 146.
S. Gcrt.ard \'On Rad. for example. preS<nls Lhis tc.xl as the-climax of l.he prinx\'al history and the
beginning of the patriarchal narrali\·c. Von Rod. GeneJ;s. IS4.
The promise in Gen. 12.2-3 has a number of facets: descendants ('a great
nation'). fame (·a great name'). protection ('I will bless those who bless you, and
him who curses you I will curse ').land, blessing (; (will bless you'), being a bles-
sing to others ('you will be a blessing'), and a central role in God 's plan to bless
all nations. While these are interconnected and mutually dependent. the last o f
these is cited in Acts 3.25 and will be. the foc us he-re.
This 'blessing' is a tbmiliar crux interpretum9 and a fu ll treatment is beyond
the scope of the present study. The issue is the translation o f the-verb l i : .to In
1 2.3~ 18.18; 28. 14 the verb occ.urs in the nlp(:ll. while in 22.18; 26.4 it occurs in
the hitp;t(e/. Both may be translated as reflexives ("bless oneself), although the
nip(:t!may have a passive. sense (' be blessed').' 1 The otherwise similar expres-
sions would see-m to require a common translation and most scholars have pro-
posed a single translation fOI' all five te.xts. The lXX rendet·s both forms of the
ve.rb with the future passive £vruAoy116t)oov1<XLThe LXX is follo\ved in this by
early versions.ll?t.•lore recently, many have argued for a reflexive.sense~ i.e-. that
nations would say ' may we be blessed like Abraham· . 13 Delitzsch argues that the
existence of'an unambiguous passive· in the pu(:tlindicate-s that thc.nip(,·J/ (occur-
t·ing in the MTonly in Gen. 12.3: 18.18; 28. 14) should be understood as reflexively.
like the more common hitp.1<e1.1' Others still see the passive as the mot·e likely
rendering. 15 Gerhard Wehmeier has shown that the context in both Gen. 12.3 and
18. 18 militates against a reflexive sense. 16 At the same time, thedift'erence between
the nip(:ll and the hitp<l(elmay be smaller than it appears.
9. Westermann writes of 'the tong discussion obout t.hc lronslo!ion of ,: i::) os it c-ontinues to
sway now one way.now anothe--r'. 'This constant change of direction indicates an unccflainty which
has not yet been overcome: C'laus Wcstcm1ann. Genesis ll- J6: A Commemary (trans. John J.
Sc.ullion: ~finncapol i ~ : Augsburg. 1985). 151 .
I 0. Theoc:ntral idea of ' blcssing' is of God's 'manifesting his fa\-orandgrace.' toward men. result·
ingin 'we-ll-being. prospcrit)". J. Y. Canlpbdi./DB. · Bles!ltdness'. 1.445-46. The: term appears five
times in Ge-n. 12.2-3. Von Rad. Genesis. 159.
I I. GKC. §39r.
11. The Vg. Tg. Onk.. Sir44:2 1 und Ga1. 3:8. Wenham. Gem•sis. 1.177.
13. HALOT proposes 'to wish on onesdf a bkssing lil;c thai of (c.f. Gn 48:10). wilh : of the
person compared' for the nip':l/and 'I. to wish a blessing on oneself(on one another'! ) to be b}C$$C"-d
.. . with : . .. 2. to bless onese-lf:
l·t Fmnz Od itzsc.lt.. Nl!'l•' Commemaryon Gf!nesis(trnns. Sophia Tayftv: 2 ,·ols.: Clark's Foreign
Theological l ibrary 36-37: Edinburgh: T&TClark. 1899). 1.379. So also Bruc:e Vawtcr. On Gmesil·:
A New Reading (New Volt:: Ooubk day. 1977). I 77.
15. ·The translation ··be blessed" is preferable because it sets forward 1hc-idea of..to be-a bless-
ing.·· It also corrtSponds more d osdy with the originaJ declarotion. -r will bk ss." ' Gerhard Ch.
Aalders. Genesis (2 vols.: BSC: Grand Rapids: Zondcrvan. 1981 ). 1.269-70. Sec also Oswald T.
Allis, ·The: Blessing of Abraham'. PTR 25 ( 1927): 263- 98: Christopher Wright ~fitchcl l. Tlte Mean-
illg of BRK ·ro Ble.u ·in 1/re Old Tesramelll (SBLDS 95: Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1987). 3 1- 35: \·on
Rad. GeneJis. l 55- 56.
16. Wehmeier notes lho: contrast in number in 12.3 ('I will b1e.ss th~' vs. 'I will curse him') and
argueslhat ·whal isexpec1e.d to be the.nomlal action isc:tprtSsC>d by tht plura), thai otiKrs bless Israel
and conseque--ntly rece-ive blessing;; lhtm!~tlws . .. . Henec the conte-Xt does not fa\'Or the: reAe-~i vc
understanding ofthe- Kif<aL' He argues that, in 18.18. ·a statement that the-tl3tions .,isht•d to partici-
pate. in Abraham ·s blessing would be quite out of place IKrc. It is only b«ausc they 1weil·e bk ssing
11 8 Gentile Mission and Old Testa men/ Citations in Acts
God wilt bless those whom Abraham blesses. and it shnll come to pass lhat at l-ast all thc-
fami l~s of t.hc e-arth shall wish and seek to panicipate in the bkssing ofwhich he is thc-
vchidc. which is the same liS to say that «hey sh11U be actually b!CS$C'-d in him. 11
Wenham believe.'\ that in 12.3 the. m'pta/ is best understood as a middle ("find
blessing').
Alrc-ady it has boc:n stilted thnt Abram will be n bkssing. wflic-h presupposes both the-
passive SC'BSC. 'Abram has been blc$.SC'-d.· and the rcRcxive S("nsc.lll('n will usc his name
in blessing one another. Then it wns stated that all indi,•iduals who ble~ r\brom will
themsclvC$. be bl es~d. Finally. this d ausc brings the passage to a triumphnnt and uni-
vcrsn) condusion: ·all the families of the: earth will llnd blessing in you. • .. . Finally it
should be nO(cd that C'\'en ifa rcfluive 'bkss th<msch·es' is preferred here, it would also
carry the implic!ltions of a middle or passive. For if those who bless Abram are blessed,
and all families of thee:u1h bless Abram. the-n it followsthat·all families will be blessed'
find bkssing in him. ·IS
Waltke. concludes simply that ' in either case. God mediates his blessing 10 the
nations through Abraham' . 19 Kaiser concludes that Abraham ·was the medium
and agency through whom the divine blessing would come' .20
In a rec.e nt paper. Benjamin J. Noonan has offered additional light on the
meaning ofthe promise.zt Noonan characterizes the debate as one.between ' bless-
ing mediation or blessing utterance' . After a detailed examination of the linguistic
issues. Noonan concludes that the n,P~1/should be understood as a medio-pa.ssive
and the hitp11 te/as a re flexive ·make/declare/conside-r oneself blessed'. thus under-
standing both as referring to 'blessing mediation·. Then he conducts an examina-
tion oft he patriarchal nanatives, pursuing questions posed by Grlineberg about
which understanding of the promise the narratives support)2 Noonan find~ that,
while thet•e is no indication that anyone invokes the name of Abraham as a fot·-
mula in blessing. others are repeatedly blessed through their association with
Abraham and his descendants, particularly in the three stories of the ·endangered
ancestress' ( 12. 10-20; 20.1-18: 26.6- 11) and in tlte Joseph story (Potiphar. the
through Abrahnm tbat the pattiarch's role is so imponant• Gtrllard Wehmeier. ·Thc.111c.me ..Bk ssing
for the: Nations" in the-Promises to the Patriarehsand in Prophetical Ljtcraturc'. Bangalore T11i'ologi-
col Forum6 (19i4): 5-0.
17. Dd itzsch. Genesis. 1.379.
18. GordonJ. We-nham. Genesis (2 ' 'o k: WBC 1- 2: Waco: Word. 1987-94). 1.277- 78.Aoother
reocnl advocate for a middle sense-for both mp•:tl and hilp>i'c/ is Keith N. Griindxrg. .4brolwm,
Blessing ond lite NatiOII.f: .4 PhilologiMI and £regeliml Stttdy of Genesis 11.1 in Its ,ll arr(lfive
Come:rt (BZAW 332: Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 2003), 242.
19. Bruc-e K. Wahkc.and Cathi J. Fredricks. Ge11esis: A Commt'llf(lry(Grand Rapids: Zonckrvan,
2001), 206. \Ve.stcrmann tcnns thecontrowrsy •otiose'. Heeondudcs that 'the t-c-Acxivc tr:utSiation is
saying no kss than the-passive or receptive· and 'th«e is no opposition between the pas.-.ivc. and
relkxive:. Wcstem1ann. Genesis 11- 16: A COII/1/Iental)'. 152. •Jt is. however. hcm)tncutically wrong
to limil such a pro<"Jamltl3tic saying. circulating in such exalted st)'lc. to onI )' one meoning (restric-
tively).' Von Rad. Gt?llt'l'iS. 160.
20. Kaiser. Messiah. 48.
21. Benjamin J. Noonan.·Abraham. Blessing, and the Nations: A Proposed Paradigm'. papcrprc-
StCnted at the November 2007 annWll m«ling of the Evange-lical Theological Societ)'. San Diego.
21. Griincberg. Abraham.
jailer. the cupbe.arer. the people.o f Egypt and the other nations that secure food
from Egypt). Noonan thus concludes, on the basis of both linguistic and narrative
arguments, that the promise is one ofblessing mediation. conveying blessing to
others.
Although :'ii?l*l! r..~o/:if~ ~:.( 12.3; 28.14} could conceivably be tmnslated 'all
the tribes of the land' (i.e. all of lsme.I)." the parallel r1':'~ •::i; ':;, ( 18. 18; 22. 18:
26.4) more.likely refers to Gentiles, in contrast to Abraham's 'seed' ("'P.l!; ). The
promise is thus a universal one.1" This was apparently the.view ofNachffianides.15
Von Rad states that ' Abraham is assigne.d the role of a mediator of blessing in
God's saving plan, for "all the famil ies of the. eat1h''' _16
In one of the oldest strat!l of the.O.T. we find a cone<pt which righd)'can be tcm1cd uni-
\'ttsalistic. The Yahwist ckarty indic-ates that from the \'l"l'}' beginning God is inler'C$tcd
in rnankind as 11 whole. and not onl)· concerned about lsntcl. The clloo~i ng of Israel
serves the purpose that God•s plan with l.hc world might be carried out. ... the line of
thinking which has been opened by the. Yah,vist. has ne,•cr completely cease-d to be.
effective in fsrad:n
The thought of a ' plan.' that ' might be carried out' hints at a second question
about the. promise to Abraham. Did the. promise to Abraham include. an obliga-
tion actively to communic-ate blessing to the nations? Did the OT envision a
·Gentile. mission''! Kidner writes:
Bl e~~ing for the world was 11 ,·ision fitfully see-n at first (it dlsappc-!ll"S between the
patriarohs and the kings. apart from a reminder of l::md's priestly role in Ex. 195. 6).
late-r. it reappeare-d in the psalms and prophets. and pcrflapsc"rn at its fainteSI it ahva)-s
imparted some sense of mission to l~mcl : ye-t it 1)('\'e-r b«amea programme ofconc<rtcd
a"tion until the ascen~ion.n
Was there supposed to have been ·a programme ofconce-rted action· by Abraham's
descendants'! Some have argued that thet'C was.» Grlineberg, however, argues that
Abraham was given a promise, not a commission. and that he (and his descen-
dants) would bless the nations as models or pioneers of the way of ble.ssing.)O
23. Alexis LC.onas. ·A Note on AciS3.15--26: The r-.·leaning of Peter' ~ (i(ol)(sisQuotation•. ETL 77
(2000): 159. Hamchrn suggeSis the preseocc. of an echo of Ezcl:. 3-0.5 ()"!~ ~J:~ lit. ·sons of the
land', LXX 1&v·uic!Jv t il; OtaEI~.:I').; ~ou). but this seems highly unlikely.
24. ' Not every individual is promised bkssing in Abram but every major group in lhe world will
be blc.s:scd.· Wenb:un. Genesis. 278.
25-. ' Not only1he families ofCanaan. but l.he families of alllhecarthsball be blessed through thee.'
Abr.thamCohcn. 71f(' Soncilm Ch11Jfi,(U'h: 711t' Fin• Book ofMoses wUIJ Hopl11arotlt (Sonc-ino Books
of the Bibk: London: Sonc.ino. 1947). 60.
26. VonRad,Genetis. 156.
27. Wehmeier. 'Blessing fotthC' Nations'. 12.
28. IX--rd: Kidl)(r. Genesis: An lntroductiM cmdCoJJtnlt'IIUlty(TOTC: [}r()\~1\Crs Grovc. IIJ.: Inter·
Varsity. 1967). 114.
29. So Kaise-r. Mission. 9. 61-63. 74: David Filbcck. Yes. Godojlhf'GI!IIfifes. Too(Wht-aton. lll.:
Billy Graham Center. WhC".aton Co1kge. 1994), 65. 130-32: Robert Martin-Achard. A Light to riU'
Nations: .4 Study of thi' Old Tesramem Conceptio11 of Israel's Mil·sioll 10 1/re World (t111ns. John
Pennc)' Smith: Edinburgh: Oli\'a & Boyd. 1962). 23.
30. Griincbcrg. Abraham.144. Similarities between the promise to Abraham and the language of
Brueggemann believes the. idea is 'not that (srael has a direct responsibility to do
something fo1·others, but that the life of Israel under 1he promise will energize and
model a way for other nations 10 n.~eive a ble~'ising from this God'.)l Matthew
23.15 appears 10 indicate. that there was some. deliberate missiono:uy activity by
the time of Jesus,n yet in Acts 22.21 -22. it appears that the idea of an intentional
mission to Gentiles was offensive.to at least some Jews. Either way. the citation
of lsa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47 makes it clear that Luke believed an active and inten-
tjonal Gentile mission had now been commanded by God.
The repetition of the promise to Abraham five times in Ge.nesis indic.ates its
importance. Yahweh promised not only that Abraham will be.blessed. but that he
and his 'seed' will be.a blessing to all peoples. At the hean ofoT particularism is
the promise that God's choice of Abraham and his descendants was for the pur-
pose ofblessing the. world.
6.3 The Expected Blessing

Yahweh's covenant with Abraham is the basis of his subsequent acts on behalf
of Israel and tlle guarantee ofhis continued merc.y.n In Genes is, the promise to
Abraham provides 1·epeare.d assurance to his desce.ndants (26.3. 24: 28.4. 13:
21.42; 31.42; 35. 12; 48. 15-16; 50.24). It is beC3use ·God remembered his cove-
nant witll Abraham. witll Isaac. and with Jacob· that he rescued Israel from Egypt
(Exod. 2.24). The land of Canaan is 'the land which he swore to your fathers. to
Abraham, to Isaac. and to Jacob. to give you· (Exo<l. 6.8; 33. J~ Num. 32.ll; Deut.
1.8: 6.10; 9.5; 30.20; 34.4). Yahweh is known as the God of Abraham. Isaac and
Jacob (Exod. 3.6. 15. 16: 4.5; I Kgs. 18.36). Neve1t heless. the promise to Abm-
ham does not appear to be.explicitly c.onnected with the prophets' expectation of
eschatological ble.ssing for the Gentiles:'ls
A mixed picture of1he promise to Abraham regarding the nations appears in
available intertestamental materials.
Lsuiah 42 lc.ad Goldingay to conclude thtu neither Abraham oor lund was called to preach to
Gentiles. Golding;ay. l.wiah. 241.
31. Wahcr Hruc-gb'<nlilnn. Gt-nesis(IBC; Ad:mta: John Knox. 1982). 120. Similuly KOslcnbcrgcr
and 0 ' Brien. Sai~VJiion. 28- 36; Christopher J. H. Wright. Thtt Mission ofGod: U11lnd.ing lh(! BibleS
Grand Norratiw (Downers Gnwc. Ill.: lntcrVarsity Press. 2006). 50 1-05.
32. A subnnmial rc«nt study of kwi$h uni\'ersnli.s:mcondudcsthat while 'thc.re is littlee~·idenc<
ofan octi\·c mission designed tocrcalc intc~st whe.rc it did not alrcady e:\ist ... many Jews were eager
to instroclanlicncourage those who were ottrnctcd to Judaism and who tookdl< initiati\'e.loseek them
oul' .ll is in this sense that Mal1. 23.15 should probably be: understood. Tcrcnce.L Donaldson.. Judaism
aJJd lift' Gentiles: J f"'l,is/1 Patrems of Ullil'ersoliJm (to IJS CI:.J (Waco: Baylor Uni\·crsity Press.
2007). 492.
33. Exod. 2.24: 6.3: 32.13: Lc \'. 26.42: DcuL 9.27: 29. 13: Josh. 24.2. 3: 2 Kgs. 13.23: ls!l. 29.22:
4 1.8:51.2: Mlc. 7.20: c.f. fsa..63.1 6: Ezck. 33.24.
3-*. Unless 1hc ~~f ('blessing') on E~ypl !lnd Assyria in lsa. 19.24-25 is mc-.am to C\'okc Gen.
12.2.
The blessing of the: nations through Abraham's offspring is also e~plici dy rncntioncd in
early Judaism but plays a less significant rok . probably due to the political and social
silll:ation of most Jews in lhc firs t ce-ntury C. E.. in J>okuine and in the Diaspora.)S
The promise is cited in Sirach, but without e-laboration o f its meaning or appli-
cation.
Therdort-thc-Lord assured him by an oath that the.nations would be blessed (E\'EOi.oy·
ll&f\\'CU ii&\'11) through his posterity: Lhat he would muhiply him like lhc dust of the
e-arth, and exalt his posterity like lhc sl.ars.and cause the-m to inherit from sea to scaond
from the River to the ends of the: earth. (Sir. 44.1h
While some texts positively enumerate intellectual and spiritual blessings that
come. to the-nations through Abraham, others see the ble.s$ing as wrested from
Israel by Gentile exploitation.lti Other sn1dies have. found that $-CCOnd temple tra-
ditions regarding Abraham vary between exclusivism and universalism:n
Abraham figures promine.ndy in l uke-Acts, being mentioned 22 times. As in
the exodus. the promise to Abraham is che basis for God ~s mercy to his people
(luke 1.55, 73)." The promise figures as well in Stephen 'sspeech (Acts 7.17; cf.
·our fa thers'. Acts 13.17. 32;" 26.6). God is identified as the God of Abra ham,
Isaac and Jacob (Luke 20.37; Acts 3.13: 7.32: c f. 'God o f our fathers' . Acts 5.30:
22.14). When Jesus comes bringing healing and restoration. it is specific-a lly to an
unnamed "daughter of AbraJlam' ~ who is released from her sic-kne.ss (Luke 13.16)
and to a ' son of Abraham' . the chie ftax collector~ Zacchaeus (luke 19.9). •Abra-
ham's bosom· isthe place of etemal blessing (Luke 16.22. 23. 24. 25, 29. 30; cf.
the presence of Abraham. Isaac and Jacob ' in the kingdom'. 13.28). Apart from
Acts 3.2S, the.re appc.ars to be no other explicit reference to ble.ssing of the nations
through Abraham.JO Jeffrey P. Siker has argued that in Abraham texts in the gos-
pel, Luke COitsistcntl)rdownplays physic-.al descent and highlights God's mercy to
the outcasts who re~)ent. while in Acts those who receive the promi.se are those
who worship God (7.7) from all nations (3.25; 13.47)." Thus. although Abraham
figures somewhat mo1·e prominentJy in the gospel than in Acts. Siker correctly
notes that in the work as a whole
JS. JeffreyS. Sikcr. Disilflleriring 1/wJewJ: .4hluham ilt Early C/Jrirtian ColllrOI'el::ty (Louis,·iJk:
Westminster John Knox. 1991}. 20.
36. At least some of this material is laler and may haw been shaped in response to Christian
appropriation of this promise. E\'a.ns., 'Prophecy and Pole-mic•. 192: Withcringlon. Ad s. 188.
37. Brawley c~tcs an unpublished 1997 Fuller Seminary Ph.D. dis:•enation tlut was not available
to me: P. Choi. · Abmh:un Our Father: Paul's Voice in the Covenant Debate of the Second Temple
Period·. Ruben L Drnwley, · Abrahamie Traditions and theChamtcri~t ion ofGod in Luke- Acts'. in
The Uniry oJL~1kc-Am (ed. Jozef Verheyden: DEn 142: Leuven: Leuven Univmity PrtSS. 1999}.
38. Litw'J.k has argue-d for recognilion of repeated « hoes of the: Abmham narrative in luke I as
an important pan of l.hc author's framing of the e-ntin: narrative. Litwak. Echoes. 82-8-9.
39. ·what God promised to the: fa!hers' in AciS 13.32 ·cannot rcfere:\d usivd y to God's promise
to the paltian:hs. but must include both lhc promise. given to David and later prophecies'. but lhC$C'
hiler promi ~s ·n:iterate-and unfold' the: foundational promise to Abr:t.ltsm. Dahl. · Abrulum'. 148.
40. This remains true even when te-!(IS such as l.hosc rderring to •the fathers• al'e' taken into
account.
41. Siker. Disinheriti11g lht? Jet1·s. 103- 27.
Luke-Acts uses Abrahum inorder to showthnt GC'f!tilc Christians huvc a1egitimlltednim

to Abrabam ilS the-ir fnthcr. on the some terms ns Jews. und thus they h;.we a shore in the
promise: to Abraham along with tile Jews:~ 2
6.4 Acts 3.25
Acts 3 t'ecords the first miracle in Acts and the beginning of conflict between the
church and the religious leaders in Jerusalem .J~ On their wa)' into the temple.
Peter and John met an apparently well-known cripple who regularly begged alms
from 1hose passing by (3.1-1 0}. When healed lhrough 1he name of Jesus, 1he
cripple responded with joy and followed Peter and John into the temple. 'walking
and leaping and praising God' (3.8, 9). His actions drew tl1e attention of .some
who recognized him as the former cripple (3 .10). The man's exube.raoce. together
with the ·wonder and amazement' ofthose who recognized him, attracted a crowd
(3. 11). Provided another oppo11unity to address an uncomprehend ing crowd (cf.
2. 14), Peter began to speak. His address was apparently terminated by the an·ival
oftempleofficials (4. 1),u who arrested Peter and John (4.3). Neve-tihele~'is. many
responded favourably to the. message.and believed (4.4). Following an abbrevi-
ated hearing the next day before a frustrated tribunal (before whom Peter again
preached), Peter and John were instructed 'not to speak or teach at all in the name
of Jesus' (4. 18). an admonition lhey doclined (4.1 9-20. 31. 33). Upon their
re-lease, the.y rejoined the church. which responded by praying for boldness and
powc.r (4.24-30).
As in his Pentecost sermon, Peter began with the (mis)perception ofthe crowd.
It was not Pe.tet· or John who had healed the cripple. but Jesus, the Jesus whom
they had handed to the Romans to be killed and whom God had raised and
glorified (3. 11-16).1n ''V. 17-26, Peter three times calls for repentance. each time
identil)'ing Jesus as the fulfilment ofOT e.x.pectation. (n 17-21. Jesus is the f\•fes-
siah, who sutTered as God had ; foretold by lhe moutl1 of all lhc prophels' (I&).
Peter's hearers must repent of their complicity (ifonly in ignorance) in his death
( 17), so that (tic; 't6 + infinitive.} their sins might be taken away and the.y may
shnre in the. pi'Omised messianic blessings. i.e. 'that times of refreshing's may
come from the presence of the lord. and that he may send the Christ appointed
for you, Jesus' (3.19-20) to restore all things as ·God spoke by the mouth of his
holy prophets fronl of old' (21). Second. in 22-23, Peter identifies Jesus as the
prophet like Moses. warning that ·every soul that does not Hsten to that prophet
42. Sik<r. Disi11heriting th~ Jt:li'S. 103.

4.l FiiZmycr.Acu, 275- 76: ~iarshnll. .4m. 86. Both sc:e this confti-ct section continuing through
chapter S. It muy aJso be seen as continuing through the scattering of the church in Ac.ts 8.1.
44. Ba.trt1t linds that 'the-speech ends abrupdf. but docs not beliew it ·is unfinished'. Barrell.
Acts. 1.214.
45. ·The expression 11s such ()((UI'S onfyhere.and itsspccilic meaning is not ck:u.·Johnson. Acts.
69. Ncverl.bck ss, 'the healing of lh< lame mnn br.adcts the reference to l.bc Abrohamic. CO\'C-nnnt in
3.25 in such a fashion thot it is nconc.retc instance of the times of refreshing and the-bk ssing of all
the families of lhc enrlh (3.19-20. 25)'. Bmwle)'. •Abraharnic- Traditions·. 126.
shall be destroyed from dte people' (quoting Deut. 18.15, 19 and possibly Lev.
23.29; the tb rmer is also c ited in 7.37):"' Finally, after assert.ing that ·all the
prophets who have spoken. from Samuel and those. who came afte1wards. also
proclaimed these days' (3.24) and that his hearers are ;the sons of the prophets
and o f the covenant which God gave to your fat hers'. Peter cites the promise. to
Abraham. 'in your posterity shall all the families of the eanh be blessed ' (3.25}.
but again urges repentance.as he wams that God sent Jesus to 'bless you in turn-
ing every one of you from your wickedness' (3.26):''
The two distinctive changes in the citation indicate something of its signifi-
cance. First. £v t<P ani pJ.lttt i aou (" in your posterity' [lit. 'seed']) has been
brought forward. Steyn attributes the transposition to the desire to emphasize Ev
tQ> o1t£p~ati o ou..s.S ln Genesis che ·seed' is genemlly understood as a collec-
tive noun encompassing Abraham's (or Isaac's or Jacob's) offspring;'~ Some
interpre.ters understand 1he te11n in Acts 3 in I he same way. as a collective noun
referring to Ismet.s-> In this case. the ·sons .. . of the covenant' and Abraham's
'see.d ' would be. one and the S<Une.51 Others see a singular noun. referring to
Christ,52 believing that Luke-follows Paul's reading o f the promise in Gal. 3.16.
where he famously argues that the promise "does not say . .. And to otTspl'ings>·•
t'eferrin~ to many; but. referring to one. ''And to your offspring," which is
Christ". 3 (Such reasoning is not made explicit. however, in the texco f Acts.) A
few sec a double reference co both Israel and Christ.54
Since Christ has been the focus ofthe e.ntire sermon." · it is most natural to see
46. Max Tumc-rargucs l.hat ' Luke combines . .. O;widic Cbristology with 11 ptophct-likc-MOS('S
motif.' TtllllCr. Po11-er. 267. 279-89 and elsewhere.
47. Steyn observes lh:at in Luke 20.37-44. lul:ealsojo-ins referenc-<s to Abraham. ~{OSC$and the
Davidic Messi11h. Stcyn. Seplllaginl Q1totatimu. 156.1n luke20. howe-ver. only Da,·id and the Mcs-
s.iah appc:tt in connection with a pn."tiictivc prophecy.
48. Stc-yn. Septuagint Qumwions. 15-t-- 55. So also Bock. Acts. ISO. On 1hc earfier position as
emphatic. St't' BOF. ~72.
49. Wenham. Gent'si.s. 2.113.
SO. Bock.Art.s. 180-S1: Johnson. .4c-u. 70. Olhet instances of o~iwa in l uke-Actsappellr tobc
collccti\'c (Luke 155: Acts 7.5. 6: 13.23: aDd prob:.bly Luke 20.28}.
S1. kn-ell. 'Oi\·idcd People·. 58-60: Turner. Power. 310. ThusJcrvdleond~s. 'Godsc.nt Christ
first to Jews with tbc. inte-ntion or reaching Ge-ntiles through them.· Jervell. 'Di,·ided Peopk'. 60.
52. Bruc-e, Act:; (Ort>ek Text, Jd Ni.). 146: \'iln den Eyndc:. 'Children of the Promise'. 412: foakes
Jackson and Lake. eds.. lkginnings. 4.39: .\f:ushall, .4cts. 96: Resc. .4/tte:.-ramentlk:lw Moliw!; Roloff.
Apostdgewlliclrte. 18.
S3. Sec thcsur..-cy ofherrnencuticlll propo.sals for thi!:passagc in CliO"ord John Collins.. "Gillatillns
3.16: Whllt Kind of Exegete--Is Paul?'. TjmBul 54 (2003): 7~79. See also Frederic-k F. Bruce. T11e
£pis1le 10 the GalaJians: A Commentai)'Oil tire Greek Ttxt{NIGTC: Grand Rapids: Ecrdm11ns. 1982);
Erncs( De Witt Bunon.A Crilirol and £'Cc-geticol Commentm~· on tire Epistle to Jiu! Gttlatia11s (ICC:
Edinbutgh: T&T CI111k. 1921).
54. 11le term here-. wouJd then function in a 'twofold way: not just geoc:tic.!llly or all the Jewish
pcopk . but more spccific:.lly ns a rcfc-rmc-< to-an indi,·idual desocnd:mt of Abraham. the-risen Chriss. •
Fitzmycr.Arts. 291. SoalsoSiker. Disi11lreriti11g tht>Jews. 119- 20. A specificall)·typoloskal unde-r-
standing of the: rd:.tionship between the corpotll!c and indi,·idulll seed would be 11n auractive possi-
bility (sec eh. 3 of the present work}.
SS. Hans F. Bll}'C:-t. 'Christ-Centered Eschatology in Acis 3. 17- 26'. in Jesus q/"Na:aretlr: Lord
the 'seed ' as one more reference to him. He has already been described as 'the
Holy and Righteous One' (3. 14), 'the Author o f life' (3. 15). ' his Christ' (3. 18,
20). the prophet like Moses (3.22), and the divine 'servant' (3.13, 26). It is this
individual who b1·ings life.(3.15): health (3.16). forgiveness of sins (3.19). ·times
o f refreshing' (3.1 9) - in shot•t. all that ·God spoke by the moutlt of his holy
prophe-ts from of old' (3.2 1). Peter distinguishes the 'seed' from his hearers. His
hearers are not the. me-ans of this bles.."ing. but its first recipients. The promise is
for all nations, but comes ·first· to lsrael. as God's serva11t is ·raised up· and sent
' to you first, to bless you in tuming every one of you from your wickedness·. The
"servant' who first brings blessing to lsrnel is the 'seed' who will also bring bless-
ing to all the nations. Thus Bock writes that ·in verse 2 1, Peter particularizes the
means of blessing and the seed (v. 25) through whom the promise comes. Bless-
ing comes through the servant (v. 13) God raised up (v. 22) to turn (v. 19) each
one of them from their acts of wickedness. This tjes the speech togethe1· and
makes the point that one descendant in pa1·rkular is fundamental to the plan' .56
The ' raising up' o f the.se1·vant in 3.26 (echoing that of the.prophet like Moses in
3.22) may evoke the promise. to ·raise up seed' in Yahweh's promise to David
(ttvaat~aro to ant pJ.!a ao1> J.!E·t ix atin 2 Sam 7. 11 Il l Chr. 17. 11)," a seed
that is clearly understood as an individual. While the. ·seed' in Genesis is best
understood as a collec-tive noun. this understanding does not preve.ntone ofthose
descendants from assuming a primm·y role. in its fulfillment. {There is perhaps an
imperfect analogy in the way we attribute to an entire people the actions of its
leader. such as its foreign policy.) Historically. Jews are the.means by which the
blessing of the 'seed " is initially c.ommunicated to the nations, but this was neither
in view in Acts 3 nor ofpanicular concern to Luke and his audience. Tl1e focus
in Acts 3 i.s on the individual servant/see.d as the one through whom the blessing
is to come.
The second distinctive re.ading in the citation is ntlact\ ai rrcttpuxl 't~~ yil~
( 'all tlte families of the earth') where the LXX has 11til'ta tix €6v~ ti]' "(i]<; ('all
the nations of the earth', 22.18: 26.4: 18. 18) or ai qll>l.ai ti]<; Yii<; (' all the fami-
lies of the earth·, 12.3; 28. 14). As noted earlier, the expression ntkacu. cti 1tct1'-
p ta\ ti]<; Yii<; ('all the f."nilies of the earth') appears to reflect adaptation o f the
citation to include Pete.r·s Jewish audie.nce by substituting the-more neutrai·Jt<U -
ptctl. for £6vf1 (lest the latter be understood as a reference only to Gentiles). The
focus in Peter's speech is on fulfilment of the promise to Israel.
The following verse (3.26) applies the. promise and concludes the speech:
'God. having raised up his se1·va.nt, sent him to you first. to bless you in nu·ning
every one of you from your wickedness.' ' His servant" (tOv 1ratOa a Ut of>)
echoes 3.13 ('his servant. Jesus' ). Since Moses and David are commonly referred
turd Chris/: £ssayJ on 1he Historicai.Jesll:l a11d New Teswmnrt ClrrinologJ•(ed. Joel B. Green and
~'Ja:\ Turner: Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. lm ). 23-6-5-0.
56. Boc.k. .4cf.\·. 181.
57. Cf. Lhc onl)· other inslnncc of thi!:cxpres!:ion in the description of the levirate custom in Gen.
38.8. The-ar ne\·cr speaks of the ' raising up' of a ser\'anl in this s~'flse.
to as Yahweh's servant. the tem1may also allude to the prophet like Moses (3.22-
23) and the Davidic Messiah (3. 18-2 1; cf. 4.27, 30)''
God ·raised up' (Ctvaot~ocx~) his scwvant. not in the sense of resurrection.5'i
but as God promised to 'raise up' (ttvaat 1ja£.t) the prophet like Moses (3.22). i.e.
·provide. cause to appear'.f.O God raised up his servant to ' bless' (eU/.O)'OUvtct)
Peter's audience. by 'turning every one of you from your wickedness' (tv 1~
ttJtoat prrpetv liKWJtov tt7!0 tlilv 7!0V11PIIilVul!lilV) 61 This blessing ofre.peu-
tance (3.26) is not the promised blessing for ' all the families of the-earth·. As in
3. 19-2 1, repentance is the prerequisite to the experie-nce. o f promised blessing
(God's pi'Ovision o f what is needed to obtain the blessing is itself a blessing.)
' First' (1tp&tov) again brings the Gentiles into view. God has not sent his
servant only to ti~lv (you') Jews." but to U)ltv !tpliltov ('you first')."' 'First'
suggests ·second',64 a subseque.nt stage.in the \VOck ofrhe servant, that the promise
to Abraham ' will be t•ealized. for others at a later stage.' .65 Steyn conc.ludes that
"the 1tp6>tov in v. 26 clearly suggests chat the circle is wider than Jews alone· .66
Barrett's careful discussion touches on so many matters ofimpot1ance tllat it is
worth quoting at length:
implf.es !hat the oOCr of messianic-salvation rnade to the Jews as he-irs of «he-
Jrp<it"TO\'
propbC-Isand inheritors oh he cove.nant (see above. \'. 25) will be followed by another-
to Lhc Gentik s. Other ways oftaking it. suc-h as that Jesus was the first to be: raised from
the dead (cf. I Cor. 15.20). otthat he was miscd before the-parousiatoo~ pia«. have
littk to commend them. . .. :tp6tov must then be 1a~en d osdy with \.J.tiv: It was
58. Barrett c.h3ractcrizcs the-term as a 1itk that ·grows out of wide·sprending roots. In the OT
many nse spoken of as God's s«Yant: king;;. priests. prophets. and others {e.g. Abraham}.' Ban'\:'II.
Acb·. 1.21-l. S<e-section 3.2.1 abo\'e.
59. As c-Ontended by Fitzmyt-r. .4cJs. 291: Tannchii i. Nurrali~'E' U11ity.2.56. Nor does it refer to l.hc
SC-1'\':tnl' s ·appointment' as suggcstc<l by LConas. · Ac.ts 3.25-26•. 160.
60. LT. Johnson finds that ·tJte Mosaic. imagery is ob\·ious'. Johnson. Acts. 70- 71. The \'« b
alrt-ad)· occurs in 3.12 (LXX of De-nt. 18.18). It is usc:d in the sense-of ·cause-to appear for a role or
func:cion•. BDAG. s.\'. civian un. 4 (although BDAG a!:signs 3.26 to de f. 2. ' to raise up by bringing
back to life.'. with dcf. 4 present only as wordplay). Similarly (of coming ·on to the stage ofhistory'.
or of'raisingup' a leader). see BarrctLAcr.s. 1.113: Bruce.A cis (Greek T<:tt. 3td cdn.). SS. ~ hil'rJ
of o:.yis commonly translated by lc:n•u.u (or one of its con1pounds) ort.,.cipo. Also ·raised up' ( LXX
Uvicntyn) nse a priest (to replace Eli. I Sam. 2.35). Dl\'id•s throne(2 Sam. 3.10). O..wid's ·seed' (2
San1. 7.11). the king(Dc.u t 28.36. Ka 9io·tll)Jl}. thejudgC$ (e.g. Judg. 2. 16. (yE"i.pco).ande,·il (2 Sam.
12.11. E~E '(Eipro}.
61. Barrett understands the inllnitive in an aoti\'e.transiti\'e.sc.nr.e: God (orthesCT\':tnt) "turns you
from yoot wickedness'. Barrt(t. Acrs. 1.214. If so. it is part of the promise: if noL it reinforocs the
command to rt-pcnt (3.19}.
62. Th:tl Jews arc in ''iew is e-vident from the beginning of 3.1S: ·you [emphatic. il,.tti; i:(n£] arc
the !:onsof the prophets and of the CO\'enant which God ga"e 10 your fathe-rs. sayin-g to Abraham .. .·
63. The word :tpci)tov here may anticipate its occ-urrence-in 13.46: 'h was nce<ssary !.hat l.hc
word of God should be spol:c-n first to you' before turning 10 the Gc:niilcs.
6·*. Van den Eyndc. 'Children of the Promise'. 472.
65. Dupont. ·sah•ation ·. 23. Similarly. Fitzmycr spe-aks of a ' note-ofunin•t!:ali~m· provide<~ by
the c-itation and indicates lhat 'this quol!ltion in Peter's spc~h fon:-shadows the spread of the Chris·
tian message to non-kwish families as w"CII'. Fitzmyer. ActJ, 291.
66. Steyn. Septuagint Quotmicms. 156.
initially but not exclusivd)' for your be-nefit that God se-nt his Servant: that is. the fir~
srnding will turn out not in the fust instance but evcntuoll)· to be of benefit not only to
Jt"\vs but to Gentik s also: to the Jew first and also to the Grcd: (Rom. 1.16) . . .. The
relation between J u<bi~m and lhc Christian chun:h is a que!>lion that i~ frequently raised
in Acl!: and one that cannot be adequately considcn."ti on the basis of one passage. The-
present p:1ssagc docs howewrsut;gc-~ that for Luke the question was not o difficuh one.
It is God's intention to hove a newly con!>lituted people of wt.ich the original heirs ofthe
covcnant and Gentiles. ncwl)' calle-d through the Go:spc-1. may be me-mbers. For both
there is only one way into the inheritance: Jc~us the Mcssioh.«;'i
In fsa.49.6. Yahweh's servant has a ca lling •first' to Israel, but this is so that ·my
salvation may reach to the end of the earth·. Acts 3.26 displays the same pattem:
the servant is sent first to 'you' Je.ws. but the blessing is intended for 'a li the fami-
lies of the e.arth ·. 'To llle Je.w first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1.1 6) remains
the pattern of ministry throughout the. book of Acts, both in the overaJI narrative
o f Acts as it follows 1.8 ('in Jemsalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the
end o f the eanh ·)and as Paul at evety stop in his travels fit·st seeks out the local
synagogue in order to pt·each there.
The promise to ble."s "the familie.s of the earth' thl'oug.h Abraham, then. is a
promise of salvation through Jesus for both Jews and Gentiles. ·Peter's point is
that the messianic.blessing. though destined first for the Jews (3.26). must extend
to all nations: the risen Christ is a principle of salvation for the Gentiles. too.' 611
' It is generally agreed that there is a reference to the future Gentile mission in the
phrase Jtdacn eti Jtet1ptet\ tij' yij' and allusion to it implied in the use ofu~tv
1tp6>tov (v. 26).'"
This is not to say that this assertion was explicitly intended by Peteri'O or under-
.s-tood by his hearers. lvlarshall believes 'the re-ference to the Ge.ntiles is at this
stage a quiet hint (contrast 13.46f.u Witherington finds that ·here and in v. 26
the blessing oftJle Gentiles is clearly alluded to, but only in c.onnection witll Jews
or follo wing blessing given to Jews. Luke is masterfully preparing for later
developments in his narrative. ' 71 Nevenheless. in light ofthe later progress of the
narrative and the way in which Luke elsewhere appeals to the OT to legitimate
the Gentile mission, it is impossible to imagine that luke or his readers would
have missed the implication of the language here. As a Gentile believer. Theo-
philus would have-welcomed this earl}' indication in the narmtive of Acts that,
because Jesus came in fttlfilment of God's promise to Abraham. the promised
67. Barren. Acis. 1.213. Eckey likewise sees the rcdemptive-his1orical priority oflsrod sc-I forth
here (and also references Rom. 1.16). Eekey. Apostf'igesriJidtJe. 1. 110. Se< also 13A6: "it w-as
ncccssaJY thai the word of God should be-spoken first to you'.
68. Dupon1. 'Apolog-etic'. 135.
69. Wil son.Genrilf!Mi.u;on. 219.
70. ·u may haw 1akcn 1he apostles some time to full)· reolize the implicaiions ofthe missionary
imperative. but there it is. Pcter was primarily .:onccrnc:d with the-Jews. The gospel was preached to
the-m fi r~. Soon it would reach for beyond th.:-boundaries of Judaism ..to all the peopk s on earth".'
Polhill •.4cts. 1'31.
71. ~iarshalJ. Acis. 96.
71. Wilhc.rington. Actl·. 188.
blessing is not only for Jews, but for Gentiles (like him) as well. Further, the
fulfilment of God's promise and purpose requires that Gentiles receive.the bless-
ing promised. If the blessing comes by f.'lith (16). knowledge. (17), repentance
(19, 26) and hearing (22-23). then the Gentiles must be. told about Jesus. There
must be a Gentile mission.
6.5 Summary
6.5.1 T<•xt
The fom1 of the promise to Abraham in Acts 3.25 differs from any extant form of
the promise in any of its expressions in either the MT or LXX, although the lan-
guage of Gen. 22.18 comes c loses t h may be that the appeal is to the promise
itself, more than to any panicular instance of it. Neither the fomt of the citation
nor the. argument based on it depends po:u1icularly on either the. LXX or the ~n.
6.5.2 Hermeneutic
Acb 3 understands the promise to Abraham as a promise that God would bring
blessing to all nations through an individual descendant of Abmham. There has
been disagreement over the interpretation of the promise in Genesis: whether
Gentiles are-included, whethe.r Jsmel was given a mission to Gentiles, and whether
the seed who bl'ings blessing would be an individual. The p1·esent study has shown
good re.ason to understand the promise in Genesis as in Acts 3. i.e.• chat the Gen-
tiles are included in the blessing and that the seed through whom the blessing
comes is ultimately an individual. (The question ofa mission to Ge-ntiles by Jsrae.l
before rhe coming of the 'seed' is not addressed.) The interpretation ofrhe promise
to Ab1-aham in Acts 3.25 is therefore consistent with a proper understanding ofthe
promise-in its original context
The citation is employed with respect for its ol'iginal contexts. God promised
Abraham ·seed' through whom all nations would be blessed. fn his sennon in the
temple. Peter announced that the time ofble-ssing promised lo Abraham had begun.
The eventual inclusion of the Gentiles among God's people can le.g itimately be
seen in the OT original. The fulfilment of the promise requires the proclamation
of the gospel to the nations-. While these implications are.not explicit at this point
in the narrative, the subsequent narrative and Luke ·s evident interest in Gentile
mission support the assertion that an intentional Gentile mission is anticipated in
these citntions.
The citation is interpreted by a Christocentric hemteneutic. In Acts 3. Peter
associates the expected f\•fessiah (Christ), the prophet like rvtoses. the servant. and
the 'seed' of Abraham with the risen Jesus who had restored the lame man in
token of the restoration o f all things (3.21 . cf. 3.19). This hermeneutic is applied
{in pl'inciple) to texts from all of ' the law of Moses and the prophets and the
psalms' . The.coming of Jesus in fulfilment of these promises requires the inclu-
sion of the Gentiles for their intended consununation. just as the coming of the
servant demands an intentional Gentile mission. the restoration ofthe kingdom in
Jesus necessitates acconunodation.s to ensure the unhindered extel\sion ofGod's
name. ove.r Gentiles, and the outpouring o f the Spirit on all flesh demands the
proclamation of the gospel to the nations. The-citation thus develops the ec.clesi-
ology o f Acts. Although it is sent to Jews ' first'. the promise o f blessing through
Abraham is for 'all the families of the earth' .
6.5.3 Pwpose
T1le argument in Acts 3 is based on the promise to Abraham as the fo undation o f
all the promises God made ' to our fathers' (Luke. 1.55. 72) 'by the mouth of his
holy prophets from of old' (Luke I.70). To suppot·t this claim. Peter appeals to
the foundational promise of the OT, the promise to Abraham. Luke views prom-
ises made to Moses as pm·t of the promise to Abrahc:un?l and connects the.prom-
ises to David to 1he promise to Abraham. i-t The-promise to Abraham is the basis
o f God's subsequent redemptive work. In his influential study of'The Story o f
Abraham in Luke- Acts', Dahl has observed that. unlike Paul or the authot· o f
Hebrews, lukedoe.s not point to Abraham's faith. Instead 'God's word to Abra-
ham is seen as the.beginning of a histoty in which partial realizations are intercon-
nected with new promises. until the coming of the Righteous One. o f whom all
the prophets spoke (cf. (Acts] 7.52).' Two conclusions of Dahl's study are par-
tjculnrly worth noting. First, Dahl finds the use of Abraham in Luke-Acts to be
·a confirmation of Paul Schuben's thesis that "proof-from-prophecy.. is a main
theological and liter~uy device of the work' . Second.
S3h·ation of Gentiles. was fromthe beginning en\·isagcd by God and included as pan of
his promiSC'-s to luoeL Luke docs not ebim that the-church has repla-ced Israel ns the
people-ofGod.. nor docs bee all Gentik bd ie\'e.rs Abraham' sehildrtn. Gcntik s nresavcd
as Gcntiks. Luke lakes care.to ndduce prophecie-s thai really spoke of lhem. This ·proof-
from~prophocy' bas n doubk function: to prove the legitimacy of the-Gentile mission
nnd (J(ntilecburchcs. and topto\·e th:u k sus is the-Anointed One of whom the prophets
spoke.15
As in Acts 2. luke here.cites the OTto demonstrate that ' the things which have
been accomplished among us' (t (i)v !tE1tA11PO'POP11JliV(I)Viv ~)ltv JtPCI'()lcrt(I)V,
l uke 1. 1) have happened just as God had foretold. Gentiles are. included in the
promises of God that were made to the. fathers and that have been fulfilled in
Jesus. Both the.narrative of Acts as a whole.and the particular accounts ofeach o f
Paul's missionary visits follow the pattern inherent in the promise to Abraham -
' to the Jew first and also to the Greek' . This ·proof from prophecy' assures
Theophilus. and Luke's other readers. of the truth of llle message they have
73. In Acts 7.7. forex.amplc. the promise thnt brad will scr\'e God in the land (Mxtpt OOooot v)
owes more to Exod. 3.12 than Gen. 15.13-14. Van den Eynde. "Children of the Promise'. 413.
74. Thus. although thearmounce.me.nt to ~fary is mack in tenns ohhc promise.to David (1.30-33).
the Magnificat speaks of God's mercyto Abmltam( 155. d . 37J. Znchariab also moves from David
( 1.69) to Abrnham (1.73). ' No! only the 0:1\'ldic rvlcssiah. but also the prophd like ~iosc.s is o par-
tic.ular wayGod moves the Abrabomic OOV<'nant tow111d ils term.' Brnwlcy. · Abrahamic Traditions'.
112- 13. 12; .
75. Dahl. 'Abraham'. 144. 152. 151.
believed. panicularly that by fulfilling the promise to Abraham in Jesus, God

extended his bles.."'iing to all the families of the eanh.
The citation is a deliberate rhetoric-al strategy that advances the author's pur-
pose. Peter (and Luke) connects the covenant with Abraham and other promises
to announce. that ·anthe prophets ... proclaimed these days' o f blessing through
the name of Jesus and to se.cure the hearers' repentance (3. 19).
7
CoNCLUSION
T11is study has underscored the importance o f the OT in the development of key
themes in Luke- Acts. Appeals to the. OT play a prominent role in the narrative
and the development of cen tral themes.
Chapter 2 surveyed Luke's ap~leals to the OT. There are 14 statements which
summarize OT teachings and 78 explicit OT citations (identified in the text o f
27
NA and/or UBS\ 48 of which are marked by an introductory formula. The
summaries claim that prophecy has been (or is about to be) fulfilled in relation to
the coming of Christ. Over half of the citations (42 o f the 78 texts and 29 of the
48 with introductory fOrmulas) are e.mploycd in prophecy-fulfilment contexts.
(Tile remaining citations 1·efer to provisions of the law1 historical events or doc-
trinal teachings.) The scripture summaries and the explicit citations focus on five
themes: the suffering, death. resurrection and exaltation o f the.Me.ssiah~ the con-
sequent coming of e.sc.hatological blessings: God's judgement; the rejection of
Christ by many Jews: and the offe1·of forgiveness to all (Jew or Gentile) through
Jesus. This analysis of luke ·s approach to the OTis one o f the contributions of
the prese-nt study.
In his work on OT citations in Paul. Christopher Stanley has obsen•ed that
authors appeal to authority in regard to issues that are indispute. These five themes
offer a window into the concems of Luke and his readers. and particularly into the
areas in which Theophilus was in need of greate1· ·cenainty' (&cJ<pc:X/...tt.a.). It is
clear elsewhere in the NT that Jesus' sutTering and death raised questions con-
ce.ming his Messiahship and that his resurrection was widely doubted. The t--1
also indicates that the rejection of Jesus by many Jews raised questions: if Jesus
was indeed the.awaited Messiah. why had so many Jews rejected him? Finally.
Acts indicates that the.Gentile.mission and the Gentiles' place.in the church were
matters o f controversy, both betwe.en Jewish and Gentile believers. and between
the church and synagogue. All of these would have been matters of substantial
concern to Theophilw as a Gentile believer: whe.thel' Jesus was indeed the Lord's
Messiah, and whe.ther Theophilus as a Gentile was entitled to participate in the
people and promises of God. Both the summaries and the explicit citations see-k
to show from the OT that these things - the suffering, death and resurrection of
Christ; the. rejection of Christ by many Jews: and the inclusion of the Gentiles -
are part ofGod's plan. long fore.seen and announced in the law, the prophets and
the psalms. TIU'ough these appeals to the OT. along with other aspec.ts of his nar-
rative, Luke o ffers Theophilus assurance regarding the things he.has been taught.
7. Conclusion 13 1
Christo logy and ecclesiology have been recognized as central concems for Luke.
but the use o fappe.als to the-OTas a means of identifying the author's concems is
another c.ontribution oftl1is study.
The survey of explicit citations (Chapter 2) identified four texts that are rele-
vant to the Ge-ntile mission and the inclusion of Gentile.'! among the people o f
God. Two are introduced explicitly in connection with disputes over the Gentile
mission: the citation o flsa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47 and the c.itation of Amos 9.11-12 in
Acts 15.1 6-18. Two other citation.'! are introduced in programmatic texts earlier in
Acts to address other questions. but they also anticipate the.Gentile mission: the
citation of Joel 3.1-5 ~iT in Acts 2.16-21 and the citation of Gen. 22.18 in Acts
3.25. The diverse sources of these four OT texts (Genesis, (saiah. Joel and Amos).
the central prophetic themes the.y invoke (the promise to Abraham. the Servant.
the Spirit and the kingdom), and tl1e centrality of the characters who cite. tl1em
(Peter. Paul and James) indicate the-importance o f the Gentile mission to the
author.
7.1 Texl
h is generally agreed that the texts of luke's citations most often come fro m the
LXX, although occasional differences suggest that he may sometimes quote fro m
memory or somewhat fl'eely. The four citations examined here are generally
closer in form to the LXX than the. MT.
Bock has argued that there are two senses in which we may talk about an
author's ·use· of the or: the fomt of the text cited and the use (o1·argument) that is
made of it. The first is the question of whether a citation appears closer to the LXX
or MT. The second is whether the a1·g ument is based on a distinctive form of the
text. (n other words. has the author cited the LXX simply because it was familiar or
ready to hand. or because the argument he wishes to make depends on it? In the
case of the four citations examined here, the argument nowhere.depends on dis-
tinctive readings o fthe.tXX fomt of the text. In every case the MT would serve
just as well.
In Acts 13.47. the.citation of Isa. 49.6 exactly reproduces the LXX, but omits
the LXX text where the latter apparently adds to the r-.rr. Whether the fom1of the
citation in Acts 13 represents a fresh rendering of the MT, or an LXXMS closer to
the MT than most extant LXX ~ts.s. the fomt of the text actually cited in the NT does
not significantly d iverge fi·om the r-.rr or LXX.
The r-.rr and LXX of Amos 9.11-1 2 differ significantly and the citation in Acts
15.16- 18 differs from both. The NT citation seems to be based upon, if adapte-d
from, the LXX. Neverthele.ss, neither the LXX nor the citation disto11 the sense o f
the original words o f Amos. Despite frequent assertions to the contrary. there. is
no substantial evidence that the c.itation contains allusions to otherOT texts or that
the argument in Acts 15 de.pends particularly on the. LXX fonn of the text.
The-lengthy quotation from Joel in Acts 2 appears at points to be cited some.-
what freely, but neither the t--1 nor LXXdiffers significantly from the MT in the
portions of Joel examined here. The citation o f the promise to Abraham in Acts 3
,_
I· ? Gentile Mission and Old Testamen/ Citations in Acts
does not e.xactly match any of its occurrences in the LXX, but the substance of the
promise is repeated closely enough. In neither does the argument in any way
depend on the. LXX more than the MT.
7.2 Hermeneutic
These fo ur citations arc each used in a way that is congruent with the meaning in
their original contexts. Luke did not disregard or distort the original sense of the
Hebrew text (even when the words of the citation appear to come fro m the.LXX).
There is no evidence that meanings were based on wordplay or linguistic ambi-
guities, or chat texts were linked me1·ely on the basis of catchwords. These find-
ings are important bec.ause these texts have so often been seen as examples ofan
imaginative and arbitrmy hermeneutic.lfthis is not the c.ase he-re. it may be worth
reexamining other citations where similar claims have been made.
Luke consistently employs the Christocentric hermeneutic expresse.d in Luke
24.44: ·everything written about me in the Jaw of Moses and the prophets and the
psalms must be fulfilled' . The varied sources of the.citations and the central pro-
phetjc themes they evoke illustrnte how Luke understands all of the OT to be
about Christ and how broadly the o r suppons the Gentile mission.
In Acts 13.47.. Jsa. 49.6 is applied to Paul and Barnabas. The same text is
applied to Jesus on at least two other occ-asions (luke 2.30: Acts 26.23). The
application of lsa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47 to Paul and Barnabas is not an alternative to
its fulfilment in Christ. but an extension of it. Several rationales have been used
to explain this relationship in Acts 13. but Richard Davidson's unde1·standing of
app1'opriated/ecclesiologkal typology offers an attmctive conceptual framework
for underst3nding how this apparently Christological text might also be applied
to Christ's apostolic messenge-rs on behalf of the church.
In Acts 15, the citation o f Amos 9.11-12 is also used in a manner consistent
with its original contextual meaning. A Christocent.ric henneneutic is again
evident. The reestablishment of tl1e Davidic kingdom lies at the.centre o f God's
eschatological work. James argues from Amos 9 that the reestablishment of the
kingdom in Christ nece.'isarily implies the inclusion of the Gentiles among the
people.of God - as Gentiles, not as conve11s to Judaism. Although God's accep-
tance of the Gentiles was first apparent through God's directing Peter to the house
o f Comelius. James finds it confinncd in the-words of Amos. This then becomes
the basis on which to settle.• once and for all, whether Gentile believers in Jesus
must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.
Joel3 and Genesis 22.18 are also employed in ways that are c.ongruent with and
1·espectful of their original contexts. Both citations are applied to present circum-
stances by 1neans of a Christ-ce-ntred hemteneutic. ln Peter's speech. the observed
outpouring o f the Spirit (as promised by Joel) provides evidence lhilt Jesus has
been enthroned as 'Lord and Christ' . However. the large-r narrative of Acts indi-
cate.'! that the outpouring of the.Spirit on ' all flesh' will also include Gentiles, as
it does in Joel. Similarly. the promised blessing to Abraham will be shared by all
who call on the name o f Je.sus~ even by Gentiles. The extensiono f eschatological
7. Conclusion 133
blessing to the Gentiles is evident in both o f these citations in their original

contexts.
7.3 Purpose
luke uses these four citations to legitimate tlle church's Gentile mission. Although
the episode at Cornelius· house had demonstmted God's ac.ce-ptance of Gentiles.
Paul's appeal to Isa. 49.6 initiated an intentional programme of Gentile mission.
James's appeal to Amos 9.11-12 settled the question of the conditions under
which Gentiles were to be admitted to the. people o f God. The Gentile mission
was not merely the result of rejection of the gospel by many Jews. but was a
necessary consequence of the coming of the l\·fes.siah. Jesus. The ministryofthe
servant. the restoration of the kingdom. the. fulfilment of the promised gift of the
Spirit, and the promised blessing to Abraham all required the inclusion ofGen-
tiles among the people o f God.
These tOur citations are employed as 'proof from prophecy'. Tlle characters in
Luke's na1·rative encounter find themselves in uncharted territory. The citations
are employed to explain the drnmatic new developments in the fulfilmentofGod's
purposes. The speakers (and the narrator) argue that these events are simply \\ihat
God had promised long ago. What Paul and Bamabas do in turning to the Gen-
tiles (Ac.ts 13.47) is simply what God had announced through Isaiah (49.6). What
Peter and Paul repo11ed of Gentiles coming to faith (Acts 15.7-12) was confinned
in the prophecy of Amos (9.11-1 2). The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost was
'what was spoken by the prophet Joel' (Acts 2. 16). And the extension ofthe bless-
ing through Jesus to 'all the families of the ea1th' (Acts 3.26) is what God had
promise.d long before to Abraham (Gen. 22.18). 'This is that'. i.e. this is what
God promised long before and those who acc.e.pt the authority of the s.cripmres
are expected to share this conclusion.
Luke's appeal to the OT is one of his narrative strategies. He legitimates the
Gentile mission by finding divine sanction for it in the OT. The Gentile mission
was a matter ofsome controversy and one about which his Gentile readers needed
assurance. The-survey of scripture summaries and explicit citations (Chapter 2)
indic-ated that Gentiles and the Gentile mission are of considerable concem to
luke and his readers.
At the same time. Luke's argument does not rest upon appeal toscripturealone.
The narrative of God's pouring out the Spirit on the household ofComelius. the
divinely directed (and successful) ministry of Paul to Gentiles. and the remm·kable
unity of the council in Jen1salem indicate God's blessing on the Gentile mission
demanded by the.OT. The use-of appeals to the.OT alongside other rhetorical strate-
gies may be a fruitful avenue to pursue in the study ofothe-r OT citations in Luke-
Acts and elsewhere in the NT.
The citation of Isa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47 marks a tuming-point in the book o f
Acts. The chapter begins with the-commissioning of Paul and Barnabas for a then
unspecified 'work to which (God) called them• ( 13.2). The narrative subse-
quently confirms that this work is a mission to Gentiles. They initially preach in
synagogues to Jews and ' Gentiles who worship God' (13. 16). but when they
encounter opposition there. they declare their inte-ntion to ·tum to the Gentiles'
( 13.46), appealing to Isa. 49.6 as a divine CA)mmand addressed to them. The Jsai-
anic servant experienced fmstration and futility in his ministry to Israel. just as
Paul and Barnabas now do: just as God gave the servant a broader ministry as
light to the nations. so Paul and Barnabas have been sent by God to the Gentiles.
Their subsequent ministry will be described chieJ'ly in tem\s of response among
Gentiles (God>s having ·opened a doorof faith to the Genrile.s·, 14.27). even as it
continues to be •to the Jew first' in every town Paul will visit. What Paul and
Bamabas do in tuming to the Ge-ntiles is simply what God had announced through
Isaiah. l11e appeal to lsa. 49.6 is thus an appeal to ·proof from prophecy·.
Although the mission of Acts 13- 14 is not the direct cause of the.controversy
that led to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, it is the narrative pre.c msor to the
council, and the account of the council three times mentions the success of that
mission among the Gentiles ( 15.3, 4, 12). The citation of lsa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47
thus plays a pivotal role, not only demonstmting the necessity of an intentional
mission to Gentiles. but in setting the stage for the final dec ision of the. church
regarding the way in which the Gentiles are to be included among the people o f
God. These. three chapters ( 13- 15) at the centre of Acts provide the definitive
justification tOr the Gentile mission and the. means of Gentile inclusion among
the people of God.
The council in Acts 15 determined the conditions under which Gentiles are to
be included among the people of God. i.e. by fai th in Jesus alone (\\~thout circum-
cision or obedience to the c.e remonial provisions of the law). The c itation of Amos
9 by James appears to have played a decisive role in the. council's decision.
God's providential directing of Pe ter to the house ofCornelius. supplemented by
acc.ounts of\vhat God had done through' Barnabas and Paul ·among the Gentiles'
(15.1 2). isconfinned by James'sappeal to the words o f Amos. This is what God
had said would happen - ' proof from prophecy'. At the.same time, the citation is
embedded in the narmtive of the council. whose decision appears to have been
endorsed by the Holy Spirit, and the larger narrative of Acts. which repeatedly
underscores the divinely enabled success of the Gentile mission.
Likewise. Peter's citations of Joel 3 and Gen. 22. 18 are both instances of ·proof
from prophecy' . Neither is introduced explicitly tb r the purpose of legitimating
the Gentile mission. but the-language of both te.xts (·au ftesh·, 'everyone who
calls'. ·everyone God calls'. ·an the families of the eanh ') in their original con-
texts and in the tm·ger narrative of Acts anticipates that mission. While the impli-
cations o f these citations for the Gentile. mission are not developed at these.early
points in the narrative, luke is writing (at least in paJ1) for Gentile reade-rs who
could not help but read these in light of' the rest of the story' . Their cumulative
effect is to assure Gentile readers like Theophilus of their place in the promises.
programme and people of God.
7. Conclusion 135
7.4 Excursus: Jews. Gentiles and tl,_ People of God

The important questions of God's '1·ejection· of Jews and of the. 'supersession· of
Israel by the church 1 (understood as a Gentile entity) are beyond the scope of this
study, but it is d ifficult to avoid reflecting briefly on them.
In Acts 13. a deliberate Gentile mission begins. fottowing opposition from
many Jews. Its jus1ification. however~ is not Jewish opposition but the mission
given by God to his servant ((sa. 49.6). The servant's ministry as 'a light to the
nations' was based on God's desire to honour his servant, not on rejection of Jews
by God. ln fact, the servant's mission explicitly includes the calling to ' mise up
the tribes of Jacob and to resto1·e the preserved of lsrnel' . The servant's calling to
be ·a light to the nations' is an addition. not a substitution. The succeeding narra-
tive makes clea r that neither Paul nor Luke understood the Gentile mission as a
rejection of the Jews. In city after city, Paul first see-ks out the synagogue and
preaches there. As in Pisidian Antioch (13 .43}. many believe, but many also
oppose the message. When they do. Paul focuses his ministry on Gentiles. It is
again and again ' to the Jew first and also to the Greek' (Ron1. I. I 6).
Likewise. the citation of Amos 9. 11-12 does not support ' rejectionist• or 'super-
sessionist' readings. The centrepiece ofGod's eschatological work is the-restora-
tion of the. Dowidic kingdom, a kingdom in which Jews who believe in Jesus as
the Messiah play the initial. foundational and central role. The church is 'built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets' (Eph. 2.20), the fonner all
Jews and the latter (the.NT prophets) principally Jews. God restores his kingdom.
however. so that the nations will seek the Lord and be C31led by his name. In the
MT of Amos 9, the kingdom ·possesses ' or conquers the Gentiles; the.y are not
destroyed but are brought into the sphere of the blessings God pours out through
his Messiah. In the Greek ( LXX and NT)~ the kingdom is restored so that Gentiles
may seek the Lord. In eithe1· C3se the Gentiles are described in terms nonnally
applied to pious lsmelites. The citation thus indicates that believing Gentiles are
to be. included among the people of God. not distinguished from them.2 The
church is not the home of a Gentile religion. but of all those who. through the
pi'Omised Davidic Messiah. belong to the God of Israel, the.creator o f all.
This reading of the citation is supported by the larger conte-xt. Peter argues
that God has now 'made no distinction between us [Jews] :.lJld them [Ge.ntiles]'
(15.9). God tn.-..ats believing Gentiles just as he doe-S Jews who believe in Jesus -
he has ' cleansed their hearts by tbith' . making the ceremonial cleansing of cir-
cumcision unnecessary ( 15.9). Acts 15 applies to Gentiles language reminiscent
of God's initial election <\Jld redemption o f(srael ('signs and wonders', 15.12:
' take out o f them a people for his name·, 15.14). These are not indicators thnt
God has rejected his poople and stmted over (cf. Exod. 32.9-1 0). but that he has
I. Its \'Cry name. h ..'l>Allaia. is iLsclf rich with or associations. EdmuOO P. Clowne.y. Tile Cilurch
(Oowncrli G!o\·c-. 111.: lnterVarliity. 2000). 30-32.
l . Craig A. Evans argues that the. incorpora1ion of the <kmiles ·is not ot lsmel•scxpen.c;c bu1to
irs glory (Luke 1.31)'. E\'llns. 'Prophecy ilnd Polemic•. 207.
extended Israel's election and blessing to believing Gentiles.3 Just as the servant's
mission in Isa. 49.6 is expanded, Jsraers blessing is expanded., not revoked. Acts
15 does not describe.the establishment o f a rival people of God. but addresses the
means of incorporation o f believing Gentiles into the. one people of God. The
church does not replace Israel. In Acts~ there remains one people of God...a
The earliet· citations (Acts 2. I 7-2 I; 3.25) support dtis as well. The prophecyo f
Joel focused on Judah, but overflowed to 'all flesh•. God promised Abraham that
he would bless him and his descendants. but again the blessing overflows as Abra-
ham's blessing includes being the means by which God would bless the nations.
In neither case are Je.ws ' left out' . The. inclusion of Gentiles in these promises
does not mean lsJ'ael's elimination. As Paul argues in Rom. 11.28, ' the gifts and
the c.all of God are. irrevocable'.
Yet for Luke. as for PauL participation in the promised blessings requires faith
in Jesus. Tllis is not the mark of a Gentile re.ligion. It is the gospel ofGod's Mes-
siah. for Jews and Gentiles. God sent his servant to Jews 'first' . even as he fulfilled
the promise to Abraham to bless 'all the f.1.milies of the eanh' (Acts 3.25-26).5
The church is still called to preach ' repentance and forgiveness of sins ... in his
name to all nations' (l uke 24.47). And the promise. remains that · w h oe ve~r c.alls
on the name.of the Lord shall be saved' (Acts 2.21). All who do, Jew or Gentile.
belong by f.1.ith to the. one people o f God that extends throughout rime and
reaches to the ends of the earth.
3. Franklin. Chris/ rlre Lord. llS: Goppch. Typos. 118.

4. 'Luk< does 001consider lhc Gtntile Christians us the new lsmd. d.isquuli(ving the historic.ol
peopk of God.' Sandt. •Expl:tn3tion•. 92.
5. If Acts sadly records thai many Jews rejected the good news about ksus. it ab o relates thai
man)' Gcmiles did !IS wdltc.g. 1 6.2()..24~ 17.32: 19.2J.4 1: 24.25-26). The preuchers of Acts warn
both Jews and Grntiks of lhc danger of unbclicf (e.g. 13.40-41: 24.23-25). In judgement. as well as
blessing. ·God sho,.,.-s oo paniality' ( IOA6).
Appendix I
SCRI PTUR!l SU~I~IA RIES IN L UKE-ACTS
Undcrlinc<l text indicates the gefl('ral rc-fercntt to t.hC' Old T(';tan1en1. Bold itnlic text mar\::> the
content of the-Old Tcstamcn1 tcac.hing. Rde-~nCC$ given in bold ()'pc indic-ate cexts of particular
durity and i mpona.ncc~
OI~J:ted bo.- the l.lll'd Gild uf l.trac-1. (.;or he ~\a$ rititc:d otld ~ok«ned hill t::.,d wtolu11JCal
p~opk . W-'111 ba.1 rnind up a bum of ,;dyntinn f« ut in the h•:>ot.~eof hiJ bk"ins
J~r.·ucu D.l\•ld. aJhe )fl!!keb'( d~e fi!OIIlh ufhill ho!xrl1l!?hctll fwm .,r
old. th:11 we ...b!luld bt )03.\'f'd from our ~ncrni~.-~. ulld from tht himd of lll
who~ u:~: to pe!'f>'~rmthe m~n:ypromi !ltd to our futtw-~. und 10
rcn:.:tttbcr hill ho!vcoY~tutu. d~ oath which bt Jwort to our r..t~r

Ab!'ilb)nl..tU grtllll u:~ thM ""~· btmsdc!h"Crtd from tht lund of our
cn~mi~,._ mig.ht llcrw him w" hout fe.ar. in holiM.Sllll!ld ri_£hleownc~u
bde« him :tU the di1p I)( OW' lik
And lal:i ~ the IV.'C'II~. be 'aid to 111Cm. · n~hold. W<' nn- goins up tu Cbri•obgy
J~.wakm. :md c\~01hin;; 1h"'' ill '<1-rillcn o.flh~ Son of n~an b\' the (llotffcring. dN.th.
pN9ht:u will bt llCtmnp!iJhcd. Fur Jr.- •••il l ~ fkli••.-r..J w t/J if G.'lld(...,., n-~um"('llion 1
fiNd "'ill ~ INtH'/tcJ llm/ :t/JifmtfN//y tTI'OJI•'I/ 1111d spit ffptm ; tlt"'J' "'ill
·''~Ofl'll" him lltrJ !till llim, 41trd - th lf tltir4 dlfJ' Jr., ,..;11 tif<'. '
But whm yll'lt li<'I.' J.-rrt.salf!l'lt svrro¥11d•'fi byflriNWJ. then know lhm ;u Juds~nlmt
Jt!Yuliflillll h111 t•"'"' IINJ.r. Tb:on Icc tbu~ v1l10 a~ in Judea lko: 10 the-
mouutuinJ.and ll't th0$t 111bu !In' in)'idt the citydcpan .. and M Ml th!!Je
who nn• oot in the o:oonuy ~nttl it: f« I~ a~ JflJ'1 t>f •'C'NflNM'... !2
f-ullll nU lh.t1U written. AI ~) for tho~ who nrc wi th .:hikl ur.:l fllC' d~~.».:
who give .'lllt k in dlo).t~~ day$! F« gmu distrns IAIJ/16~ "JIU" th.. Ni t/J
01Nd h'TWtlt 11pt1N llliY pet>p/': t/Jt')' ,.f/1{1d/ b)' tit.! ._..tg.. fljtM $Wtlr,/, ttM
/J('fd t 1Jptit'4' fl.lrl<lNfl fl-11 lf.lltlmu: rrnd J n.ul _., .,VJI be tr(J{/J~" dOII'JJ
by tlrt (;.mtil~. •mtiltll# '""'"·'' ufth.. G.-JJti/t) '"" fitljilf...J.
And hc-llaid ro them.. ·o fo.:>lbh rno:n. and.tln"A·oihcun 10 btlk\'t alllh~• Chri •olo~·
lhe proph~Li h...ve ,pokcn! W.aJ it oot lh'UI.Wtry t/llfl ''"' Cbti# Jbmr/d (:~u ffcring.
SMff..r llhWI' tbinp tl.lul ~IJI••T iJI(& /Ji.••t fmy?' And bcgiM i9£ "A'itb gl~'fifkMion j
M\'ll6 nod a!! 11~ pmphelll. he iuu-tpwt~d tuthm'l in all tht :~<:ri)IIUI\'$
rbt thintJ. con«min;bimJ<:If.
I.Atkcl..I..U-4~ Th;on he .uid 10 tb:m. ' The,._. W't: my words wh'=lllli!llkt 10 you. "''hilt Chri •ology
I Willi Jlill with you. th ~l l'\'ctvthi ol! '*''l'iUt n ubom tnt io tbt l ~w of (:~u ffcri n,s. dt.:ath.
M\'IJ<:~ nnd tberropbetll nnd t~plWnu mu.'>~t be fulll' k d.' Tl~ h~ r-:~ur~Wtionl
opened their mind$ ,,, uml.:uu nd d!l'" llnip!IJ.T<'ll. :md said 10 the-m.·~
it ill .,..rium. th:u tllf! G11i11 liruH/d .fMffiYitlfJ 011 lhl' third J11y riu- fNmJ
lhlf d No/, 1111J tlto:~t n.·~nt~u•~f! omdfiN'1lir.•Jt••f.:r ~f:titu· 11rflt1/d Jlf
pt•VJrll.vJ i11 /Ji:t 1Mmt l&all "-111'&111, ~lmrinxfrt>IN Jo>ms111-. l~m
.,,., •.-itii#$JI'.\' nfth~.-,Mnz"- . fnd bdwli , l.f lfnd 1/t., prt.~MiM-" t.~f"'1
,,_liN rl«lud "'it/1 fkiW••r
Flllilo..r otpl>ll J V>II: J~tt .UoiiJ' iN dr•• ril)•, 11nlil
frn~~~ lltr lt.igh.'
138 Appendix I
RcfcrflH'I'
; \ ('I$ J. l ~2ii
.•·h~IJ ~ff,..l~ lhUJ fulfilled. Rcpm1 thcrcfa~. und IUrn ugain.. lbu (~u ffcri n£.1
Yl)l•r ,in.'llfl.a)' be bl<>ltod ~~~. 11w ti~' of~fn:~insmuy.:om..- from
l':sd~-"'ktsical
1bc pro:~ of 1M Lotd. und lhll be' m:ay ~ th< Chri:~e appoinlcll ((If
blt~ins
y\)11. .kJuJ. '~>.'hom bN.\'Cn rn~UI M:l'i\'c unlil the timt for c>'lnhli>hins!!!!.
IbM GOO Jpob b\' lht n»uth of hU bolv prophcu (ronlo( ukl. MoJC'
it
'nid. ·nu• l.t~rJ G'ud •rill ritfr4' ~P f"r ymw pt'llflhd fn'1N1.1'0#r ltr•'llfr~u
.., lrl' titfrN ,.,.. otp. Y"u f.bll/1/i..r"" ,,.him iu orh«k'>VI' lk• "'k J'IIN•
. i tN/ k thiJJI j .,.llrll.t .-owy ,.,.111 r/uu /Wu "W lin··" tu t/1111prop/Jo'l WIJ.ll
6.- do•#fro:r·.._d frti'IN t~ p ....pt... • And aU d~o: p10(lbe!J w ho hn\-e Jpol:cn.
from San'ltld anti tho.uc wh!l o:nrnt nfl<rll'l!nb. nbo prod .Umo:d tbruo
ditp. You lilt' d~o: ll!ltu ofthe pmpllc" l nd oflhc W\~:Ont wltieh O.:.oi
!!JWC 10 your f-MIICI"ll. Ja)'ing 10 .'\brah:om. •:\l'ld in your ~crity llhnll•ll
1bc f"-"liltC'J of thoe C".ttth be hlc:~Jcd..' Ga.4. lflf'1·hr-g r11jk'lf 11p lrir "''rrtrJ•t,
.f~JtJrJm Nr )'<lll..firl't, It> J/N.fJ"* i'u t~HfljNg ('I'IVJ' clNI' nfJ'Uiff,_
J'<lll.f ,.•jdt!dJif!U.
Whieh of1bc p"'f!h~u did oot y~or (mb«J ~\lit? And th.:y kil!.:d
lboJewho ann.:ounccd bcfll«Mncl dt,• <11lfli NX 11jtltl' RiJ!!hi•'IINS(hu.
wb:tm you N.\~ llo)W lx·uay!1d u.nd rnunktcd. CbriMolujl:y ubt
RisJUI'OW One)
To himllillhc r ropht111 be:or .,..itne:u thnl <'\'cry .;on.: ....w bl"liC\'\'.S in him l'r«lmnuion
ICO:iv.:-'11 fors,iv.:nc.u of 'in' 11u'o!osb hi' namo:.
M ill 11.27-29 F'or tbl).'tC ....tw. li~-e in Jc.nuakm and d11'it n1!cr:~. ~enu._. 1bcy did nut Cbri~lllu~·
f COOglliu hin~ not Pndt r.m.nd the uuer-..~ o(t.h.: erophc:n whith nrt (dtMb)
read I'VCf\' 'nbbMI\. fulfilled 1b:-sc by <11Nd~rNNI~ lritff. TbQUgb 1hey
C>Ould .:ba~gc him wi1h n«h ~s dtJ<r...ing dcnlb. )':t lbcy u..bd Pil:otc10
Ao~w ItliN JdR!!d. And wbt.n they bad fulfil te-d nil W I .,.,-.u -.Tiucn o( hirn.
1bcy 1ook hin\dmo·n (rom tl~o: tt« . nn.t lnid him il) ~ ton:b.
"tU 17.2.-J Ar.:l Puu! WI:~)! in. 1111 w:o" hu tU.'I!~~ and for lh~ v.~eb he ml!-ued <.bri>1llla~·
with lhcm (rom til.: Kriptun::J..cxpbining and proo·ing 1hnt i r ,.,..... (~u ffcrin,g.
'""'('MIIry jnl' rh.- Christ li>SII.ffcr fl.lfJ tu riu fro• tlrfl4"-lld. und Jnying. 1:\'llllfn't:'lion. thoe
· Tlf/, J n 1u . w hom I pmd~im to yo<~o. ;,,. tlrfl ChriR. • Chri~)
Atllll8.18 (at b.-(Apol!oJ( ru•'<rlully wnfi11.:d lbc Jc'o\'11 in public. ~mo·ing by lht Cbri~llla~y ubc
s~rif!l\ltC'.i lh:ol drf.' Cirri# "'"" J"""·•·. Cbri ~J
Butlhi• I b(lmit to )'QU. th:ol ~eordinstothc Wny• .,..bicb lhcyull a EJcb:uokogical
JI'CL I wouhip the God o( QUI (~thc-tll. belk\'ing cv.:nth ing lnid down by bl.:~ins
1ht l ~w or .,..riltcn in 1l!c prophas. tuvins t1 lwJW i" GuJ w hi.:h lhe.tC!
lbtmllt-1~'6 at"Cqql, dw 1/Jrtf! ~t•i/1 ""'it
""'"~ti<lN nfbt».lf lb#!j o.•"t t~Nd
th('II.Nj!Sff.
"tb 26.12-U To thiJd:oy I have bad •he hdp 1h:01eonli:'J (rom God.. and JO l .tund bcf\• Cbri~lllu~·
l.:ll1ifyin,s bolh 10 .~mull nnd gi'::OL Jaying nothing hut .,..b)I the propbeu (~u tr~rins. &-.uh.
and Mo,.;~ snid wo>uld tillml! w ~ lhal th #! Christ"'"·'"' SII.Jlcr, t~IIJ l:l.'llllfn'l:'lion)
lhtU, bJ' Jdng t/1' jir..r tnrif.o•/,_ tk•• d. , h~•v.~IJ prod<lim li-glrt
Procl:mu:ion
jotlt W lh#! po.'4p/<' 1J/u/ tnt~u Wwtil.-,,
At1li1S.13 When 1My b;ad npp!linted a dny CUr him. 1hcy cume I<> hin\ Mbi' lodging l~'ctwC~k!Sical
i o~nl numboo:r:t. :\nd bc('Xp<>Prdl'd thl' mnner lolbcm fn:on\ m.:orning hll'!ttins
lill('vtnins. t<:lltil)'ing to tb~ kiulfl- nfGad nnd ~tying •o clltlvinc('
!bcmt~lw>ott J"""·'
b!llh (rllfll the bw o( M..uuiUid (rom •h.: propbc111.
Appendix 2
ExPLICIT Ow TESTAMENT C r rATIONS IN L uKE- AcTs
HrJd ittdk~> indiauet the ~o::u .:ite1d from thl' Old T t;il artll'nl. Underl ..ine ind:ie.~~~u the ut of un inllud\K"IOC)'
forn'l'ltlu.
' iodi.:a!t$ 11tc:o:1 murkcd., 11 cilaliciH•nly in NA 1~: • indiN.tet ;a teltt!N.rlttclu,. aci~i.m ..mly in U9s".
Key w Prophetic t ~ll.u: C .. ChtUto!ogiciJI. J '"'J udg.:mc:nt. R ... RcJ«tioo. S .. Sotmolosi.: ~l. U .. Uni\•eu:.L
tu~ us· Num. tU: U\•. (or tiC' '~>lll b.: gcut bo:fl)f'C t h< lolll.!Uid M Jlr,./1 dtiHk 1111legal
10.9 :.nd
o.~iN41 NIN' $lffllfJl drink. h.: .,·ill be lill.:d wi th dt>: Holy
SpiriL t \'Cil f:mm hLt mmhn '' "''Cimb.
Luke 2.!3 Ell(ld. IJ.l. 12. llU it il wriucn in lh.: ~· of d10: LC!ni. •t:o't'ry ,.,.,/_.,,.,, l.cgll
IS OJKn,; t/u "'""'".6 MWIIJ' ~"liM lw{!•tollfl' Ltmi' J
luke :UJ L.:\·. 5. 11"; :md 1>:> offn a ~w:ri.-:.: JKcordin,c; to .,_t uu U Jl&id ind~e: l:.w of l..cgal
I :!.II ~· ' (I plfi l ufllfff~1't:!f, Cll 11-ffl,I'UIIIt/f. pi8,N>IU.'
luke 3..1..6 bu. ~.J.s .o\.t it i.t wrin<'fl in the book of the ~ur<b ofbl!UIIIhc: prorl~o:t. Preph.:ti.: ~S)
• n , nHr•• r1w ..• ayiN!( ;N rlu• ...;ld,'l"tfo•.•'J: Pr~"'"'' '"'"J'
Pftlt•• Ltml, tn<~kff /JI.fp.~t/JJ $tmiJ!ht. Ercry TtlII~ JA.JI"
fillooJ, lllfJ <1¥<!1)' Nlttlf/Jt~iJJ Slid /Jill.durll b.• /t,vught '""'•
and th#frrun/.:.W #JIIJi 6.r Nlalk Jo1ntight, and thto flmglr waJ'I
Jhflll I;, rruu/,•.O:INIO()Ih: a11d ulljin/J F.lt.a/1 U>•' tit<' $fi/IUtil#l
PfC,...,d••
O.:ut. S.3 .o\nd k.iU..'I :mJwtrC'd him. 'II i• wriu.:n. - MII.If $htt/llt/d li•,.
by b~ altmff... ' '-"'''
Luke 4.S 0\'Ut. 6.1J.; And k.tU.'I nn:o~wcrc.-d him. 'It iJ wriucn.. -r,...,
Jlt.JJ wvm;hip
10.20" tluo /.on/ JY'flf CiHI, fin I ItliN 111tly $htrll J'<.>rt $4'1W:o. -·
tuke4.10.11 p,,9LJI.I2 (« il i) wriucn.. ' lit> .,iJI gi•'l' IIi.•· -gcb rlrol.rtfi! fl/ymt, N> Olltcr
JliiiJJ'II }'lltf: nnd · Q, thtir htrull•· tlrf"J' "'ill b#fttrJY'fl11p1 1m
1"" F.lfibJ Y>III'j""t flgofill$t a J.fi>lt...- '
tukc: 4.12 O.:ut. 6.16 .o\nd k.iU..'I :mJwtrC'd him. 'II i• Jni..t. " J'mt .~ludl JJ IJI t•·mpt lit;• lcgll
L11rd }'vttr (;.,d.··'
luke 4.17.19 ha. 6 1.1.2': bn. mtd 1bt'tc W1i given '"' bin\ d~e b!lol: ....r llw: prophc1 l.iainh.
Ss.ii H.: op.:ncd lhc- book lind found ~~ pluc " 'hnc it w.t.~
~rillcn. ·n., Spirit uft/J.r /.e~r4 iF. Ulffl" NU', 6o'!ff1MS#f ht>
INJ.J fiNPiiiJI'I/ NJ _. IP pt.-.w'/1 grNNf N<'W,f td tlrf' PfH#'• Jl.. /J/f,\'
J#fnt ,..f" to prucltrU.. m.w.s, "' '"" r.qNire ""d rt'<'CJYI'I'ilfN
P/J.l!(llttv tlr' blitrJ, All ;r.,.•t (1/ fihf"l1)•tlrM4' "*"
flfff
nppt<IFSN, to prvrl11i1N tM flff<'Pttr!JIIIJ WII' of"'" Ll#'d.•
tllke 7.22' bu. 29. 111'; .o\1'111 he aruwt'ted thcnt. · o o ll.nd 1tll John " 'hln you lu.,·t Proph.:tic 1S)
3SS ; 41.1s': JtCn .-nd llcnrd: tit<' bliNd f'o"t.-ir .. th#tir Jight. lht lame '¥1';~.1k .
2'6.19' !~-pe111 nrc dcmutd. and tlr.- Ji'-af/J#f<fr, dJ,• JNrd ~" mis#fd
up. d~epoor hnw sood ~~·' pre<Kt-..-<1 to then~:
140 Appendix 2
I.AI\(e-Atl.i Sour«- ll(lW u...
tukc 1.11 M:d.J.I :<'f. Thi ~ i~ 1~<: of whom it U .,..ritk-ll. ·& ·Mid, J .W!fld IN)' Pnlf'h<'tit (S)
E.\ud.. 2!.20 lfft'YUI!JtN'IH'for' tlty/IK•', t.~lf<l 1lrfdl I"•'Piff•' th,r •nrJ'
bcfo~th«.'
tnkc 11.10 ~ bu. 6.9 he Jnld. 1'o you • tws ~n £)\'en"' know the $.:~n:•:~ ofth<' Pnl{lh<'Li<' IJ)
kingdllnl ofDOO: but fur ot~ !My mv in r»t""blu. J01hat
Prllflh<'tit tR>
'rNiJf[f t/tty INIf}' lf<IJ .i<l<'• IIJIII lhvzrittG th•'J' AU II)' n()t
ttttJ""'If.tNI.•
Luke 9.S4• 2 Kg.~. I .If>. 12 And when hill .tu.:irk~ Jamuund John Jlt\\' it. t~· ..aid.
'lord. 00 you wnnt 11' to IJU.fir'~'fi,_-N frwn IJur;o.fl
fiJi fl (()/UISIN#I tlt4VN'.''
"""'
tukc IIU :4- lN01. 6.S H..- ,,aid to him. 'Wh.u i, .,..riUCT~ in the- Jaw.• Ho"'' do yoo J..q;al
27 rent!'!' :\.nd he nn)\l,'t'l\"d. ' )fm .\'lurlllno-,tlt,l.l'lnfyvmr CINI
wi11t 11/(fQfff Iftom, iUt/ 1Jil/r al/JVHtl'StiN/, mrd...W.h 111/JYIItl'
''"''R'"• 1111d witlfg.lfyflvf .tnitld.'
Luke 10.27 l<'V. 19.1S ·nnd J'<lflf mVgllbt>r tr.~,JY>¥r.!rlf.'
Luke 12. 35' Exud. l !.ll · Let J'.,"'' l&itu 1w gini.d and yuur lump:~l:uming,' '""''
J.e.gul
tuk e ll.SJ' Mi~ . 7.6 th~y .,.,,ill
be dl\·ided. f.1thcr n£ilirut Jon nnd .wm llg:lirur Propll.:tidJi
jfllih•r. roodK"r ugain.JI da\rghll.'r nnd d(IrtgltUr oww'nst her
Ptoph.:li~ (R)
wu7tllf'r. mO'IIl.:r.in.luw ~in.11 her daughtf'f-in-l.lw and
d lutghtt'f.,iltJ/flll #IJllliNSt /fu NIDII'/I.'T./JI.J<J..,,
tuke IJ.I'r p,, JQ.l. l2 II i> liken sr.un of mmurd xed \\ohich 11 man sool: ;and Othct"or
1100.12 o:xl ~-.wd in hill~: nr..i it grew nnd bccun~ 11 ltl't. und 11!• Proph.:Lic 1S)
bird.•' Dfthe flir w..J;:o wtsts iff ltsb11md1~.
tukc u.n· PJ.6.8 But h.: will .uy. 'I ~~ell yau. I &I 001 know 'IOilctc yl)lu come Ptllflh.:ric tJ)
16.9 >.O. I.XX) (rom: Jo!ptfrt from »1~, ~<~II y..M.........n.s Dfilli'lllity!'
Proph.:1ic tR)
tukc IJJS p,, IIS.26 Behold. yoor hou~~e iJ (onaken. And I rdl you. yau wdl nnt Pnlflh.:Lic IC)
...ec mc u ntil YllU Jay. ' 8/,y,..oJ is h•Jrllr.(YI"'"' h1 '"" """'"
nftl'lto I.MI!'
Luke IS.20 f.xud. 20. 12-16: Yau k now rbt- rommandnlenu: ' Dr. trot ~nunit fiJMIUr)',
O.:ut. 5.16.20 IW trk>t Aill, /Ji. tiDt .•t HI, IN 1101 b•'Sr f..Ju- "itne:u, H n,.Qr '-"'''
fDVf j ..tht'f I'INd NUJ>Ihet,'
tuk e I'U8 PJ. I Ut26 ,..yin£,. 'Btr~.•·.d ,.., rbe- Kins ,.-hiJ(WJH••.o h• tlk• """'e nfllf•' Propll.:tic (C)
Lw.t.' Pea.."<: in hl.'nv.:n and glory., rhc hi~.tt!'
tukc 19.46 ba. 56.1 ,;;t.yins ro th~m. ' I; iJ w riucn. -My hmut $htdl bto « lr11tt.•·•111/ Ptoph.:tic (S)
pr~".'
tukc I9A6" J~r. 7.11 •but you h:w\' mnlk ita tl'< 'll Pfrvbbton.' Prnph.:tic: If!
tuk e 10. 17 PJ. IIS.22 Uut h.: kl.,..C'd utlbcm IUid .•~id.. 'Whm Ibm U thi.t th111i ' Propll.:tic (C)
!'.!l!!!!!: - rJrr '""')' )'f<JN<' Kllkh tlt.- b«iiJ,• N r~oJ haJ
b«Dmr tlk•/r,.,.d uflhtt ~or~~..r"'?'
tukc 20.28 o.:.... 25..5 nnd lhey u..tC'd birn 11 qumion. J<ayiog. 'T cuo:bt-r. Mo)Cll
wrolc: (oculdlat ift1 lri<JN-,. brother Jln. ha1·in.g :o wit~ but '-"'''
lftl childr~. thor NltUr mlfflto~li•tl'l<' w•J• t~ml rfl>'w "P
~hiiJr.wjDr hi~ brotlt,•r.'
tuke 20.31 E.\od.. 3 .6 But thai rhe &W aretll.i,.,.d. cv~n MoJCl $howc:d.. i ~:~t the 1).-lc:rrinnl
~Wnj!<' llbt.ur rhc ~uh. 'IO~hc c~lb thr /Jml tlrf' C..d vf
A/t,t~IIUNI UAJ thr GI'Jd vf/,(I'IIJ~ find th<' CIIJ 111{Jtt~.
.,
tuh 20A2. p,, 110.1 For o .,.,•id hinudha~• in 1~ Dook ofP:.;alnu. ' Tbr 1.-wJ
S4id tom}' Lnt·d, Sit 41my rlftlrt hund, till I Nltlko! thy
Prophctic tC)
Pnlflh.:Lic I J)
M••~~J i<'.~ 4 SttiQ/ jDI" thy/fft.'
Appendix 2. Erplicil Old Testament Cit<11ions in Luke-Acts 141
I.AI\(e-Acl.i Sour«- ll(lW u...

tu~ 21..26' bu. 3:1.J mt'fl f.1it~1ing with feur :.nd 'lrith t;,reb..-.:linsof wtu1 i.t Proph~• ic (J)
Cllming on tho: "'~rid: f« Jhe /'HI"'"" 11{tlu ht!lrl't'NS will bt
:4'1:tk<'n...
tn~ 21.21 O;m 7.13. 14' .'\1'111 th<'n they will ,tct- lbt! SIN• c~f~rurJJ ~vuttilrg i~ .e d<lfiJ Proph<'tic 1C')
wi1b pov.oer :.nd ~111 glllt)'.
Lu~ 22.11 b11. S3. 12 Nlr I w-11 )'O'I Ihlll thi' llttip:un: mn• be t'u! ruled in mo.·. ·.fNd Prophetic tC)
lie "'"" r«<lwr...t wid! ffiiiNSgr~ur,.·: for wN.t i.t writtm
:.!lou• me lw iL'I fulfiltne'!IL
~...~ 22.1>9" p, 110.1 But from oow on tlrl'! Su1r o/INti~ "111111/ b.• ,\'ftr/..J Ill Me ri:glll Pmph<'tic iC)
/1(11/d "ftlt' p DIIW 11jCIU.
tn~ 2JJO l~..u. IO.S llMon they will ~lnU• $fr)' ltJ the lfiPNN.IIIiN.S, ·F..If Dl! fU ': Proph<'tic (J}
omd '" th~ hl/l~o, ·c- ,,., ·
Proph<'tic tR)
tuke 2JJ4' p,, 22.19 ,·\ nd Jc.tl!ll Jaid. 'f:.thct. f«'.;i\'e them: for 1hey lmuw noJC Pmph<'tic iC)
.,..h~l th~ydu. · .•Nd the}' t.Wl wr~ ru di••id' /lis [tfltN.r twt....
tn~2U6 p,, 31..5 llM-u k.tu.'l. tf)i ns with 11 klud '~kt• .tnid. ' F11111c-t. i1rtt'> thy Proph<'tic 1C')
J3lli MT; I!..N.d" I ~•mit my "Pirh.' ' And h:.'<ing J:tid lbiJ he l'lt'<'alhtd
30.6 1.x.x) hiJ !:tn.
Acu J.:!(l p, 69.2S f.or il is wrineu in the b:>llk of Pn lmJ. ·1..•1 hi" hdlt.,tinll Proph~•k (J)
169.26 ur: b«tmu•tle.~tl/1'11•'; am/ In Jher4' be lfd m"
111/iovin it':
6S.261.XX)
Acu 1.10 p,, 109.11 :md ·u is uJJk•· l# •»ntlr~nu.~: Pmphttic 1J)
Acu 2.l6-U Joti J. J.S Mr .,_II •hiJ U "'11m"''" ;o~pubu b~ the ~I!IICt Jotl: 'And in 1bt Proph<'tic 1S)
IEngl 2.111.J2) l.u1dlp ir .•</tal/ br. Ood dcdarco.t. thn• I ,..;a fH'"' .,,, ""J'
Proph~tic tJ)
Spirh upon .,1/jle:~ll, •"d J"'"' wr~s «nJyn,r dturgiiJ~"
s/Jilll pf'llp/le:t) '. tl11d J'OIITJV*~ "''"',.II.,// IN •idaNY, ..Nd Proph~• ic tU)
1""'' ..w lfii'!W shflll tl~m Jr4'1tm": , ..... «nJ mr ""J'

lrh!ll,( tY•'tUI/S swJ IN,I' INtliJJ.o•,-qNI~ iJr IIIIIU'tfll)'1 / 11i/l pm11
n¥~ tn}' Spiritt ornd tiiCJ' shall pmphf!$,1'. .•Nd I •riJI NIItJ"'
,..PNdl'!rs ill tht! lurroV!fr ab.,-, ~tltllsigNY "" th~ Hrlb
b'fwt!orlll• bi-.J., l/.ltJfir4', fiNd •VIpilr nf"-"""'kif! lilt SIIN 11l1111/
~ lt/TNtd ilrltJ J/JJ*"~" 1111i/ t/J~ INfNNI INW b/-.f, btf(JY4'ih••
diiJ' Djt11•• LMd ~n. ' '"gum ami 1ti111Jiif- dsy• •-fr~d it
shlfll !Jt! tlrut "*IH'•'« c.ells "" lhlf Ntlmlf <~Ith" JJJrtlshtt/1 bt
$#1V~v/. •
Acu 2.15.28 p, 16.8 .11 for lh\'id ,....., tQII'ICitminshim. 'I"'" "' Ill•• Lnrd "I"WJW Proph<'l ic 1C)
IJ S.II.J!ux ) HftJre "'">fnr lit iJo I'll MJ' rigllt JuurJ tlr11t I "'llJ' NtN lw
s/JtJJ.I'!.Ir: tilt!'f~jnr~ lflf ""' l/lrl Klr.J g/fld, 111/d mJ' IDJI#Ifl'!
r#.'joi«d: _,.,..,,~...,, "'' Jl••.d• wiP i •··l'll i" lkrp.·.r..,, thn•
wilt »nt lfb(IJtibJII "'1-' .•·mtl w 1/ndrJo, 1101' WI thy 1/tJ/y Om•
SN m tr11ptio11. 17Joot lt111.# "'""'" Alrti'H'N t<l INif ib ~ IIVfJ'_.. nf
lijr: thDII 11i/t tn111ltl'! Wlf full nf,_.fMJN~.t ,..lt11 thy pre~-.rc:
AC'I) 2.30 ~ p,, ll2.11 Ddns ch~rtfurt 11 P."-~P~· und knn'<'ing cb;u 000 hai..-..wrn Proph<'tic tC)
wilb an Olllh ltJ hiM thllt Ill'! -uli s•1 tJMt! nfhi.r Ju~~dlfn~
upmr hiv tllm114'.
.-\n;o. l.JJ" p,, 16.10 he fotc.tnw lind N!llkC' ofthe R''UI'I\'(Iiot'l of th.., Cbri ~. th:~o Pmph<'tic iC)
lie ,... ,, lft>f 1111HP1JnJtH itJ 1/otdn. lfdf Jh/bi' ll<"'lh ur
ttJfnqHJ.tllf.
Acb l.J.i. JS. p,, 110.1 f<ll' ~did 001 uccnd imuthc bc.a\'tnll: bul he hir.uclf Pn!ph<'tic ~C)
1109.1 l~'tX) ~ 'T/J~ I.«J uW to "'1 LMI, Sit •t my fix lit /Jahfl, till I
•nk•• thy ""''mie.•·fl :no~tJ/Jnr tb,t •f"'·'
142 Appendix 2
I.AI\(e-Acb Sour«- ll(lW u...
.:\ciJ 3.13 E.\ud.. 3.6 Tit' C..d 11j.flwwhrrw. SJ~J nfbtJIIU' tutl nfJr«YYb, '"" G~ tif 1).-lcninul
s!orifiNI hi ~ 1<'1"o'W'll kJWI. 'l'to'h!lm you ddr.·crcd
f>IIFjllltlrt'n .\
up :md denied in the pr..-ncc of l•il ~t~. wb:on he h-'11 &.:id~d
to rck:tJe him.
AciJ 3.22 1Nu1.18.15-16 Mo!IC'.l ,;aid. 'Tit•• Ltml Wd "'ill rflit..• ttp fnrJYI• tt pr<1pb~ Proph.:tic 1C)
frum )'Ofir brdhr·•• tU lu•rtJi.~N MU' 11p. Yurt shlf/1/it.tf'N tt~
ldm in wltfJ.tl/'0~ lrt'u/1.\' you.'
AC'Illl.23 O.:ut. IU9 •-flf.d it Jr.,I/IH 1/ult •'''"'1 .wmJ tlrtll d.Jr~ ltUt /i~ott-N 1<1 tlrlll Prl,lflh<'tic tJ)
pu•plro't
Ac" 3.23 l<'V. 2J.l9 $/UJ/1 bt' do•$.tt<lyf.'J frowr tltf' p<'<lpl". Pnlf'h<'tic tJ)
Propll<'tic (R)
Actll:us Ocn. 21.1S: Youul'\' the lll:>l., C!hh<' pr<~pbtu o.nd of the «waunt "''hid! Prl,lflh<'tic tS)
l6A Ood gavt to y.:>llr falhcu. lliiVin;; 10Abr.tham. : ·lml iJ• J'Oitl'
Pnlflht tic tU)
JNI.•1•vity sh11/l sll tht' jlfmilif',\' 11/thc NTth ~ bl_.~,·~. ·
ACI:'I 4. 1 1 ~ Ps. JIS.ll Thi ~ i ~ th~ JltJJJ~ " '1/.it'/J .,.,u roj<'tl~ Jy )\'>II bflildt>~. INlt Prnph..-tic: ~C)
wlrkh luu b«o~u·dt.- 11~-.Jd <~fth~NOI"'Id.
Prophclic: iR)
Aclll4.24" Exud. 20.11 : wh~n th<:y h~:~rd il, the)• lift~.! their vllfec.J wgctb..-r tCJ
1\1'111 O.,ctrin:ll
PJ. !46.6:s..-..- 000 ;md :s.:aid. ' Sov..-r~ign l.<ull, whn diJn rrur/w th~ h...,w,.
ni ~:! KJ;.i. ruu/ th~ ett11b fl.lld tlrf" .o~ fUIJ ~"'-'J1ltilfK iJJ tht wr'
19.15 1 b .-.
37.16: Ncll. 9.6
.Actli 4.:!S.26 p,, 2.1- 1 ' who bv lh~ mo\J!Itnf !loUt !••~ I>avid. thv ~r\1lm. di<.bt 'ar Proph..-tic ~J)
bv the Holy Spiric. " Wiry did dro• Gn~til~ mg.-, 11m/ thl'-
Propll..-ric (R)
,..,plf.'.ofiNIIgim> Tttilf tbilfgY'! ·71J~ kfNgJ njtJW f.'~rtlt 114't
thntt.1d••o•.o iJJ Olf'HI,r , 01tW tltf.' rnl w.•· ..w'4' goJtltt'l"'-<1 l<l[l4'tlto•r ,
llftoJiJJ.ot 1lt;• LO('d 01w.i fi.Jlllitt.•1 Iris .i~tQ>'NtH -·
.ACili7.J O.:n.. l1.1 mid :.aid 10 him. ·~,.,frum J'otirii1Nd flttd froiN ;rnl£r Hilrcori.:ul
kitUiro.J IIJJd gq inw tlu l~rNd '"IlkII I .,iJI .•·hrm•JV"'··
ACill7.5 O.:n.. l 7.8:4~ )~t be S"'c: him no i nh~riUII'I~'C' in U. oot cwn a (oot'llltfl.Sih. Hillloric:tl
.,.II promi~ tu giv<' it t ultliN iJJ pnM~imr rmd to Jrfr
pu.rto>riry 11fto•r hiiN , d10ugtl he hlld I'KI (bild.
Actll7.6.7 o...n.. I 5.1J.J 4: :\nd Ood ~pol:.: u1 thi.t <fkn. thm Jrj$ prnurity ,..mrld b.• Hi,.;oriul
E.\ud.. 2.12" 11/k NS in 11f11mf Mulfg}Jtg t u Pili~, , •Jru ><I~IJ 1'1/SioJ'n'
tbt'IN ll.lfll ill.tr~t th...., f~r lru~tlltvd J'<'dFI. •But I.,...,,
)111/gnlt.-11 fdi<llf ~lrkh tlto:J' , ...,,.,,' liAid Oud. · and "ft'" t bm
th.., 1ltrill tPINtt iNit'
Act:s7.~ bod..3.12 ' nnd "'Ot'.o.ltfp '""itt t/Jj$ p/IIU.' HiKoric:tl
ACill7.18 f.\nd.. LS Iill t/J,#t oJf'IA\'#1 QIVF £R.."P' 11JJi>lh"-f' AiiiJ( "'/lu lwil IIUI A$cl>f'N Hillloric:tl
Ju.··~/J,
.ActJ 1.17-2..(!: E.\ud.. 2.14 Uu.t the< uun .,..hn '"'.u .,..wnging hi' nci£.hbot tluwt him Hillloric~
aJ·idc. llnyin£., 'Wbn.m4dtoJ"'" 4 rul~r 01ttJ 11j'Mdlf•• '"w .,,...,
Dv y oM >f'/111/ t u k ill trtl'-~1)'Ott Ailf('j tltt' 1Ito•pt i11N
, .....,.'l'd,y"! ·
Aci!S7.W bod..3.1 Nnw 'llltl~n (nny yc.-au bad )»'Jtd.. ~N ll.~tgo•l llptM'fFI'd to HiKoric:tl
IIliN in th~' '~~~'ildtrnu.'l of M<:J~~uu Sinai. in, j111nuujjirtt iJJ
(I brt.1h.
ACill7.li.J1 f.\nd.. 3.6 Wbm Mll<\e.i :s.:aw it h.: v.'(mdcrc-:1nt 1hc ~ighc and a• he Hillloric:tl
~· n(:trto look. the voice: ohh.: Lnrd <:W'III'. 'I""' tltf.' Gmt
ofJ•tm r/lll.lti'J'J, th l' G'od fi/A broJir111N ll.lfi nfl.1fMlt 111ri nf
JM,•olt.' And M!!M<.t tm'llbled Mil did Mt da~ to loilk.
Appendix 2. Erplicil Old Testament Cit<11ions in Luke-Acts 143
I.AI\(1'-A(I$ Sour«-
.:\co 7. .lJ l~lloll 3.5 .'\r'Kilh~ Lord .uid to him. ' T"k•• fljftbo./t.M$fr- ,'IYNir Hi,.mi.:~
F..,.t,furtlr•· plsr4' wlrt-r.•,..,,. ,,.,$ll'llldilfg fr htdyzrrwml. ·
.Acb 7..14 E:wll. 3.7.S. 10 I Jt~m.• ·""rdy $"" tM il/.tr•'WIIN"-Ifl fl/tnJ' p~p/4' tlrt~t 11rl' itt Hi~tori.:lll
El(f'pl i'IJJII ,,• .,,.4
t htirgiYPfJitllfg, ""d I 1'111'1..- t:om"df.IOfff t u
ddiwr ,,,.,., A.m l 1um•com~. I .,·IJI • . , .,J
JW.. t& f.'to•pt.
.:\('1) 7.}5 E:wd. l .l.t Thi• Mo~<:JI whonl tbey rcfull«<. 11.\yin£.. · lt'hn m.t~·"'* 11 m,.ori.::ll
tlll.-.rturll Ifjrtlf34'"!' God Jenl11.' OOtb ntl<t'und dtlh't'r«b)'
lhc lumd ofdte lln£..:1 thal UppNI'I'd 10 him in lh.: buJh.
.:\cu. 7.!7 O~u.1. LS.I5 Thi• i~ the- M ru.:• who 1ilid to the J mdit~. ·c~ m11 rl'lif~ Hi,.;oriul
upfur J"'l' <1 pr&plr.-JjrUJ~t J'drtr btwlrrt'.li4W Mrl'liw•!d »U
up:
E:wd. 31.1. 13 ""Yins to .<\uron. '.lfllkf'f"r tt.s ~Qdl u• &n 6tft~r.- n.~: tujnr Hi~tori.:lll
t hi\' .Mn,...,. "*"I~ '" tJfdfrom 'If"
lll.lfi of EGYpt, "'" -'n ,.,,
kJWW ll'bll/ /oll,\' ~..,ffff' l l jllfiN:
Ac-u 7.J2-4.l ,.\miX'! 5.15-17 But Ci..xlt\lna~d and gnc lh~m C"'«to wor:<hip 1~ h'-'11 o(
h..-u,~. uJ it i ~ wri rhm in the book of the pn,!Phtlll: ' /)jd JWif
off" In,.._, J.liUn bo'f!StS urJ UJtrijkn.fn"J'JW'flo' itr th•

IO'iiJnJJ~, 0 lwrtS~fljfl..r/NC .•Nd J'UU l twk ffp tlt_, lo!lll nf
M<>I«-IJ. tmd th~ Jlffroftl'll' p Rl'ph/'111, I hi'Jig¥Yo'.\' Klflt:h
YMI INmi.:o t u Wdfll'lip: OlNd I Hill f;!JJifWI' )'<IU bo'J'Wtll
B llbJ1tm. .
A.co 7.J9.SO bu. 66..1.2 Yet tb:- M<aJI 1-Jigh d~J PllC d\1.~11 in hou~<: ~ 11\lde with Hi,.;ariul
hand,.; :u dte r raJ?bcl u:y" . u....v••,. fr ""J' IlinN•"· "'"d 4Yrrtlr
"'1 ftHHYJnn/. n'llm hofn.o' ,.•ill1NI hllil<lfor m.-, $liJW tltto
Lnrd, or wlrtlt fr 11ft'. piUti' &fINyro•J.t!' DiJ """ "'1 1'/.and
lfl.l'lk•• ;,II thno• tlli1J!t."1'
AnJS. .ll-ll bu. 53.7-8 Now til~ p;a.~JUJ:!~ o(lhc ..:ript\ltC' whirh he w:u ~adin.g ""11" Pmph.:tic 1C)
tl!!!!: ·.u u 1./tnp lid 1n1hto slffMjthto-rnrtt /limb bifnn.._ lt-r
$bHri'J' fr 4 uw b, 141 /Ito_ fiP"-tM' Ilni lli1 , tH;t/J. I N lli1
humi/i(lfit~~• jN.'itltto ..,,.,. drni H 1'/lm. lt'hn -.wrt dncrib.o lrir
gM,.,fUiJJN"! F~J¥ /Jislifi• is t4ltM upfrtm~ tlt" •wrtlr.·
.<\t'ld wh~n he hud ~\'C'd him. he- naii'lt'd up ();avid tObC'
Jh~i rking: of ""b.'lm h~ tt.nifac.d und .'Uid. ·I 1'/11'1..- fmmd in
lhlvid th.._ $0-lr &fJ.-.u~·
M IJ ll.l2° I Sum ll.U · u 1Nlllf <ljttr lftJ' lr.wrt. who w ill W nil my will.' Hi,.;ariul
.:\C'IJI 1).3) p,, 2.7 thi ~ h.: b.u (ulfilkd toe> u;~ their ~hildrcn by mi~ing J o:J~uJ: !!! Pmph.:tic 1C)
nbo il b wriucn in the J~C<:ond p:oa.lm. ' TI'Ioffllrt my Sutt,
t~lf)' I htto'# bcgtwt M tlrN.'
AC'I) 13.34 bll. 55.1 And aJI far the fm-tlh:ll hC' rniM'd him from the ~..t. oo n»R
10 RIUm lol <:!lml'lian.lt... 11p.:oi:C' in lhi~ Wll\. 'I will Sh'<' J'(Jif
' "" /Jnly nml $¥1., IIW1shrgs 11jDtto•id:
M ill ll.3S p,. lti. Jn TbtreforC' ht .sa\'' ubo in lllllllh~r JUnlrn. · T1tuu wilt nm 1to1
thy J/11/y OJ•~ , ,.,. c-u"'tpt ion.·
Rl"wnre. dlcrtfaw. k<J! dtcl'l: corn~ upon )'011 -r.tam i~ .tnid iro Prophetic (J}
Jhe ptyi!hct'l: •B.Wntd, JVI" $('{1fftrs, _,,4 ,.VJiftih•r, fllrJ
Proph~tio: tR)
pNiyb ; fur I dn a lko'fl ill J'Uifr J,J$, " d.WyON •rillno•ow
bdl" "• if<lffl' d td11rn lt tn J'<IM.'
AC'It. IJ.A7 bll. .t9.6 Nlr )1(1 th<' lard hu <:<lll'llmnndtd w . .u.vinl!. ·1 ,,,..~ t~'l JVI~
I ll /MM light ft~r II'/I.! C~NtifC~, thi'IIJW.. WIIJ' fwilfJZ IIT/IW.tif>N
111 tl•r fiiUriNn.•t porus .,ft./to• owrtlt:
144 Appendix 2
.:\ciJ 14. 15 • E.\ud.. 20.11 : PJ.. Men. why •rc you U.Oi ~ tllill! We ubi) ~fl: men.. (!(like 1).-lcninul
I.Hi.6 namn: wilb )'\lll. und bring )'Q\1good nc'l>.>;i, thnl you Jbould
1\llll fron)dte~e vainlhi ~J,oa livios Clod ..w n motdll' tlt.-
lft.tn- """ tlu ~11/J rmJ tlt" .W.!If tmJ (l/1 tlflft it IN tll~·m .
Actli i ~. I S-l7 :\mo.t9. JI.J2 :\nd " •hh thi.t lhc \\U«b of 1M pl'!?flh~tt ll!l,T)O'I; .11.~ it 4 'olorin••'fl. Propll..-tic (S)
·.-tfla- tllh I ,.iJ/ Iftlt,..,. aml/ ll'ill IWNiild thll' dn...-1/inJI Pj
Proph.:tic (U)
lhlo•id, wlrklr llfl'1follf.,w: I " 'ill rm,.ild lt.•· ruitfS, g /fJ I ,..,'11
:tn It rtp, thllt t/1' r~·J.t 11jllf<!lf mo1y SN~o· th• J.ur4, aml 11ll tll••
CMtiln wlru "'" t.~ll"-d by .Itt) ' """'"• UJY:t tlh• Lord, ,.•/Ju
lun ...,d., 1/uw" tlriltgJ..'
Aclll 15.18. bu. 45.2 1 kllUIO'IJ frt>IN flj gffl. Ptoph..-tic IS)
Ac" ll.S E.\ud.. 2'2.28 :\nd Puul Ja.id. 'I did 001know. btcthnon. thou he wa~ the h igl:l l.c-s~l
(21.27 ur. u.xJ ptit.n: fct it i• wri w:n., _,,. ,. Ml;,/1ttflt <~Jkwk .-oil r1{ If rn/tr 11j
Y f'ftt p~pJ,:··
Aclli 2S..25..27 bu. 6.9-10 So. u they dillastffd tonwng thenuch-c.t. they dC'pan...-d. ati..-r Proph.:Lic IJ)
P11ul had tMdc one .tliUcmct~: 'Tb: H91Y Spiril Willi rish• in
Proph.:Lic tR)
!S!Yi9£ to your futhcn thn.w.u:.b LutiMi tbc l!f'?{'h<'l: ..C 11 111 rhi.t
fNY1pl _., <1Nd Jfl;'l', fDoll 111<11/ iiJd;.....J ,...,, btd II"'""'
NIJJI!I'~oloM4, tllttfyn• J,/r<llf ihli.<!•.tf U... bNJ Nt"''l'-r p..'JYcil-,,
f ' t>r t/Ji.··~lo•'~oll<'<lrllllr~ /(fd .nr dill/, t~IJJ tll.oir ~ .,,..
llt.tnyofh•'fJri~. flhfi tlo.ri.r ~ Ill•'}' }r.,,,. dl1.(t.d; , .,. ., 111"1
.th <~ald P"-"<'lfio~ ,.ojJ/~ t/t .ri.r .,..,., <lNd lt....,.r whit th .ri.r ..-tl'$,
(IJJI/ lfhJ,•fflfiJJd wit/t t/t<'J't ltf.'!f1.rl~ tiJJi llfftffdt »Uit> hMJ
thf'IN: · Le1 it be- l:oown t.:o you !hen that thU .tah'a-ti.:on .:of God
hiu bo:..-n mu to 1M 0..-ntiks: the)• willl utm:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aaldci'S. Gerh::.rd Ch. Gcmesis. 2 vok Biblc-Stu<knl'!t Commcnt:uy. Grand Rapids: Zondc"'an.
198 I.
Abc:gg. Monin. Jr.. et al. 17re- Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. New York: HarperCollins. 1999.
Al'cordance. \'cn;..ion 6.9.2. Altamonte Springs. Fla.: Oak Tree Software. 2006.
Achtcmcier. Eliznbc.'1h. 'The Book ofJoel: lntrodUC"tion. Commcnttlry. and Rcflcccions.'. Pages
299- 336 in vol. 1 of The New lme-rpreu•r'.-; Bible. Na<;lw illc : Abingdon. 1996.
Adna. Jostcin. 'Die Hciligc Schrift all> Zwge dcr Hcidcnmission: Die Rczcption von Amos
9 . 11·1 2 in Apg 15.16· 18•. Pages 1-23 in £mnge/ium, Schriftaw:/eguJJg, Kirclre. Edite>d
b>' Jostein Adna. Scott J. Hofc-mann and Ocfricd Hofius. GOt1ingcn : Vandenhocck &
Ruprecht 1997.
- -. ·James• Position at th-e Summit Meeting of1hc Apostles and Elders in Jer\IS9Icm (Acts
15)'. Pages 125-61 in Tlte Mis.sion q{the £ar6' Clmrcluo)e'I,'.HIIId Gentlles. Edited by
Jostein Adna and Hans Kvalbein. T6bingcn: Mohr Sicbcck. 2000.
Aland. Bnrbara. et nL 00s. The Greek New1eJtament. 4th rev. cd:n. Stuttgan: OcUischc Bibci-
£C$Cllschaft. 1993.
- -. cds. ,fl/o~'l/111 Teuamemum GratYe. 27th rev. cdn. Stu ng:~n: De-utsche Bibclgescllschaft.
1993.
Aldrich. Willard M. 'The l ntt~rpre-tation of Acts 15: 13 -IS'. BSac Il l (l9 S4): 3 1 7- 23.
Aleltandcr. Desm-ond. 'Funh<r Obsewations on the-"'Seed'' in Genesis'. T,111 Bu/ 4S ( 1997):
363- 67.
Ale-xander. Jo-s<ph Addison. Commemmy an tlte A£•1.\' ql tlte ApoJtles. 3rd e-dn. New York:
Scribner. Armstrong & Co.. 1875. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Zondcrvan. 1956.
- -. Commerltaryatlthe Prophecies ofIsaiah. New and rev. cdn. 2 vols. Ne.w York: Charles
Scribner's Sons. 1865.
Aleltandcr. lovcOOy. n1e Pr~face to Luke "sGospel: Literary Com-emtonmtd Soctal Come:rt in
Luke I. 1--4 a11d Ads 1.1. Society for New Testument Stud ~ Monograph Sc.rie-s. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993.
Allen. Leslie C. Tlte BookJ ofJoel, Obadiah, Jonah, 011d Mkolr. New Inte-rnational Commen-
tary on the O ld Testnmcnt. Gmnd Rapids: Eerdnuns. 1976.
Allis. Oswald T. 'Tile-Blessing of Abraham'. PTR 25 ( 1927): 263-98.
- -. The Um'tyoflsaialt: A Study in P,YJphecy . Phibdclpbia: Prcsby1erian and Refonned. 1950.
Amsler. SamueL L 'Ancien Teswment dans l'£glise: £.f.Wii d'ltermhu•lttique cltritiemle. Ncu-
chStd: Ddudtnu.x & NiestiC. 1960.
- -. David, Roi et Me.fsie: La tradition d(llidique dcms I'Atld£>11 TeJICimetlf. Callier ThC-
ologiqucs 49. Neuch:itd: Dcloehaux & ~ies1 l t . 1963.
Ande-rsen. Francil> I. and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Trctmlation with lmraducuon
and Commentar,l'. Anchor Bible 24A. New Yori:: Doublcduy. 1989.
Arche-r. Gleason L nnd Gre-gory Chiric.hingo. Old Testamem Quotcuicms iittlle New Tesramem.
Chic~go: Moody. 1983.
Aunc. Oa,~d B. Tlte New Te.(fament ;, Its Literary £m·lronmenr. Edited by Wuync A ~·leeks .
Librory of Euriy ChristillJlity. Phil:!!ddphia: \Vcstminsler. 1987.
146 Bibliography
&Jdwin. Joyoc. Haggai, ZedariaJJ. Malaclu': Anlntrodttt:limt tllld Omtmerrtary. Tyndak Old
Tcst:uncnt CommcOiaric:;. Downers Grove.. Ill.: Inter-Vorsity, 1972.
&ltur. Kious. Deutero·fsai<th: A Cmmmmfti')'Oill.taialt 40-55.TmnslatOO by Morgn.re~ Kohl.
Hc-m1eneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.. 2001.
Eklrrcu. Charles K. A Critical mrd Exege1ica/ Commemmy 011 the Acts ll/the Aposdes. 2 vols.
lmcrnational CritJc::~ l Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Cla!t:.. 199-1--98.
- -. 'The Gentile Mission ns an Eschatolo,gicnJ Phenomenon'. Pages 65-75 in &rJJaJology
m1d tlle Ne1t• Te.\·tament: £.(.fa)'S ill f.lo11or qfGeorgl! Raymo11d Bea.\·/ey-Murn1p. Edited
b)' W. Huliu Cloer. Peabody. Moss.: Hendrickson. 1988.
- -. 'Lukc:/Acts'. Pttges 2.31-44 in lt Is JJ'I·luetJ: SrripmreCitill,t; Saiptw·e. Edited by Donald
A Carson :md Hugh G. M . Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. 1988.
&mad. Hans M. 'The-Futureofd1c ··scnrantSong>10: Some RcAectionson the Rd:uionshipof
Biblical Scholnrship (0 Its Own Tradition'. Pages 261- 70 in Ltmguage, Theology, ami 1he
Bib!.~: Essays in HollOurq(lame.\· Barr. Edited by Samuc:l E. Balentine and John Banon.
Oxford: Clarendon. 1994.
&tth. Markus. £plu!simts: A New Tnmslatiou ll'ith bunxluctimr and Commemary. 2 vols.
Anchor Bible 34-34A. Ncw York Doubleday. 1974.
&ssler. Joueue-M. 'A Man for All Seasons: David in Rabbinic-.nnd NewTcS*ament liternturc·.
/m40(1986): 156-69.
Eklucl:ham. Richard. ·Jomcs and the Gentiles (Acts 15. 13·21)'. Pages 154-84 in Histmy , Ut-
er·atun, 1.111d Societ;v i111he Bonk nfAcJ.r. Edite-d by Be.n Witherington Ill. Cambridge:
Ct1mbridge Univcrsit)' Press. 1996.
- -. "Jomes Md theJerusaJem Chureh'. Pages 415-80 in 'flte Book ofActs ifJ Its Palestinian
Setling. Edite-d by Richard Bauckhrun. Grand Rapids: Ee-rd.mans. 1995.
Eklyct. Hans F. ·christ-Centcre'd Esdwtology in Acts 3:17-26'. Pages 236-50 inJestu ofNa-:-
arelh: Lord cmd Christ. E.fsays 0 11 the H/.ftorical Je.nrs ami New Testamel/t ClwiJtology.
Editc.d by Joel B. Green and Max Tume.r. Grnnd Rtlpids: Ecrdmans. 1994.
- -. 'The Preac--hing ofP-t-lcr in Acts'. Pages 257- 74 in Witites.s to the Go.fpe/: nte- Tltrology
ofActs. Ediu~d by Jan HoWtlrd Marshall and David Peterson. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans.
1998-.
Beale. Gee<'~ K. and D. A. Corson. cds. Comm~tntaryotlthe New Teswment UseojJhe Old Te.wa·
ment. Grnnd Rapids: Bttl:cr Academic-. 2007.
Ben-oit. Pierre. cc al. Le:; grotte.f de- .li(urablxt'at. 2 vols. Discoveries in the. Judron Oese-n II.
Oxford:Ciarcndon.l961.
Benson. Alphonsus. '"•. . From the Mouth of the Lion": The Mcssit1nism of Amos•. CBQ 19
( 1957): 199- 212.
Ekwe-r. Julius A. ·commenlary on Jod '. Pt1gcs 47- 144 (part 2) in A Crilicol and £xegeticol
Commemaryon ,1./im}r. lepltanial!. Nolwm. Habakkuk. Obadlalt andJoel. lntcnwtional
Critic-til Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1911.
Bloss. Friedrich. et al. A Greek Grammar oftlte Nell' Teswment and Other £arly Chrim'an
Lil~tromre. Chicago: Uni\'crsity of Chicago Press. 1961.
Bloc--her. Henri. Songs oftlte St-n·am. Downers Grove. Ill.: Inter-Varsily. 1975.
Bock. Dane.! I L A~1s. Baker Exegetical Commemary on the New Testament. Gmnd Rapids:
Bt1kcr Academic. 2007.
- -. ' Evangdicals and the-Use of lhe-Old Teslmn cnl in the New: Pan.s I and 2'. RSac 142
(1985): 209-23. 306-19.
- - . L~tke. 2 vok Baker E.xcgctical Comme-ntaty on dte New Testame:.nt 3. Grnnd R3pids:
Boker, 1994-96.
- - . Proc/ammimtfrom Propltecyand Patter'tJ: LJtMn Old Testament Chn'.ftology. Journal for
the-Study of the- New TeS*amenl Supple-ment Series 12. Shd'fidd: Shcftidd Academic
PrC$S. 198?.
Bibliography 147
- -. 'Proc.lamation from Prophecy and Pnnc-m: Lukc•s Use of the O)d Testnmcnt fOJ
Christology and Mission•. Pngcs 280-307 in The GoJpels atJd tile Scr·ipmres ofIsrael.
Edite-d by Craig A. E\'nnsand William Ric-hard Stegner. Journal for Lite Study of the.Ne-w
Testament Supplement Se-ries I 04. She--ffield: She-ffie-ld Academic Press. 1994.
- -. ·sc-ripcure and the Rea.liz:uion ofGod's Promi ses'. Pagc-s4 1-62 in Wlmess to the GoJpe/.
Edited by Jon How:uU Marshall nnd David Peterson. Gmnd R:lpid.!t: Eerdmans. 199&.
- -. T he Use ofche Old Tc.stamcm in luke- Acts: Christology :md Mission'. Pages 494--5 11
in Society ofBiblical Lirerawre Seminar Papers, /()()(). Edited by Edward J. Lull. Adnnl.o:
Se-holors Press. 1990.
- -. 'Usc of the Old Tc~amcn1 in the- New•. Pngcs 97- 1H in Fmmdwions for Biblical
/merpretation. Edi1cd b)' DavidS. Dockery. K. A M:uhcws nnd Robert Bryan Sloan.
Na~h villc : Brondman &:. Holman. 1994.
Boer. Harry R. Pent~.-"CCJt and Missions. Grnnd Rapids: Eerdtoons. 1961.
Bolt. Peter G.· Mission and Witness'. Pages 19 1- 214 in Jl'ime..(.f/0 tlt£>Gnspel: 11ce nu•nlogyof
AcK Edited by lan Hov.11rd Marshall and David PelcGOn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998.
Bouerwed :. G. JohnnllC$and Helmer Ringgrc-n. eds. Theological DictfmwryoftlreOid Te$1ll·
merll. Translated by John T. Willis. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Da\~d E. Gnxn nnd Doug_las
W. Slott. IS vols. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans.. 197-l--.
Bovon. Fro~oi s. L11ke 1he- Tlwologim1: 11rirty.Three Yeors ofResearclt ( /950--!983). Trans·
latcd by Ken McKinfl(y. Allison Parle Pn.: Pickwick Publica1ions. 1987.
Bowkc:--r. J. W. ·speeches in Acu: A S1udy in Proem and Ydammedenu Form'.N7S 14(19b?):
96-111.
Bratdlr-r. Roben G. Old Testament Quoratimts lt1tlle New Testamem. 3rd rev. edn. Helps foe
Translo1ors 3. l ondon: United Bible Societies. 1987.
Braun, Michael A. •James• Use of Amos nl the Jerusulcm Council: Steps towtud n Possible
Solution of the Textual and Theologu:·.al Problems•. J£TS 20 (19?7): 113- 21.
Brnwky. Raben L · Abr.ilinmic Tr:tditions nnd the Char~tcrizntion of God in Luke-Acts'. Puges
109- 32 in Th<• Um·ly ofLukt:"-ActJ. Edited by Jozef Vccflcydcn. Bibliochcen Ephcll'Kridum
thcologi-carum lovttnicnsium 142. Leu\'en: L<-U\'Cil University Press. 1999.
- -. Luke-Acts and tlte Jew.o:. Society of Biblical Literature Monogrnph Series 33. Adanta:
Schol:us Pre-ss. 1987.
- -. Textro Text Pours Forth Spe(-ch: Voices q(SC'riplliiY! in Luke-ANs. Editc.d by Hc-cbcrt
Marks and Roben Pob,;in. Indiana Studies in Biblical Litcrnlurc. Bloomington: Indiana
Univcrsit)' Press.. 199S.
Bright. John. A Hi.ftOY)' of/.froel. Philadelphia: Westminster, l972.
- -. · Jsaiah- 1'. Pages 489-5 1Sin Peake 's Commentary o11the Bible. Edited by ~·1o nhe.,_.,_.
Block. Sunbu.-y·oo·Thamcs: Thomas Nelson, 1962.
- -. The Ki1wdmn ofGrxl: The Biblical Umcept mtd Its Meatting}(Jr 1he Ch11rclt. Nasln~lle:
Abingdon. 1953.
Brooke. Alan E. nnd Norman Mcl ean. cds.. GeneJis. Vol. 1: 1. The Old Te.(tam ettt ln Greek
a<X"ordillg to the Text ofCodex Pctti<-amiS, SJt/J/)Iememedfrom Otlre-r· Uncial Mamucript.f,
wlllr a Critlro/ Apparo111S Comaming the Yarumt.o: ofrhe ChiefAnclettt Alltltoririt>sfor
lite Text ofthe Septuagfl/1. Cambridge:--: Cambridge University Press. 1906.
Brooke. George l. Exegesis 01 (lumrmt: 4QF/orih-gium ln lrs Jewislt Coote.:w. Joumnl for the
SIUdy of the. Old Testnmcm Supplement Serie-s 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1985.
Brown. Colin. cd. D1e Nt>w lmemmimral DictimtaryufNew Testament n1eo/ogy. 4 \'Ois.. Grand
R~pi ds: Zondcrvon. 1975- 85.
Brown. Francis. et al. A Hebrew mrd £ng!iJ!t Le.\ic-011 oftlte Old Testamelll. Corrected cdn.
Oxfocd: Clare-ndon. 1972.
Brown. Ra)'mond E. The Birtlt o/lhe Mt>ssialt: A Comme11Uuy <m tlu? J,fancy Narrruil'i'S intlte
Gospe/.o: ofMatt!trt~' and Utke. New updated edn. New York: Doubleday. 1993.
148 Bibliography
Bruce. Frederic*: F. Tlw Acu of!Ire ApoJtle.f: 11r~? Greek Textwitlrlmroduclion tmd CotJmtert·
tmy . 3rd rev. and cnl. cdn. Grand Rapid:>: Ecrdmans., 1990.
- -. The Book ofdre Acts. Rev. edn. New huemational Commentary on l.ht-. New TcstamcnL
Grond Rapids: Ecrdm:m:i.. l9&8.
r
- -. Commemaryon '"" Book oftilt! Acl.e The £nglisiJ e.\'1 witlt lmroductitm, £.vptJSUimr and
Notes. New lnlenmlional Commcma.-y on the NewTC$bmcnt. Grond Rnpids: Ec.rdmans.
1954.
- -. 'nil! Defonse of tht> Gospel i11 tlU! New TeJtament. Gr.md Rapids: Ecrdmt~ns. 1977.
- -. TM £pisde to the Galwitms: A Commentary on tire Greek Text. New lntc.m:uional Greek
Testame--nt Commcn1ary. Grand Rnpids: Eerd:mans. 1982.
- -. ' Eschatology in Acls•. P3gcs 5 1-63 in £.rch(llo/ogy a11d the New Testamem: Es.tUJ"S ill
Honor ofGeorge Roymo11d Beasley-Murray. Edi1cd by W. Huliu Glocr. Peabody. M:tSS.:
~fc.ndrickson. 1988.
- -. Paul: Apostle ofthe Hean Set Free. Grand Rapids: &rdnun~. 1977.
- -. · paul's Usc of the Old TC'Stamcnt in Acts'. Pages ?l- 79 in Tradition and lmerprewtlon
in the New Testament. Edited by Gerald F. H"wthome nnd Ouo Bet:t. Grand Rapids:
Eerdman~. 1987.
- -. Peter, Stephen, James and John: Studies in Early Non -Pauli11e Orm:uanity. Grnnd
Rapids: Ee-rdmans. 1979.
- -. "Prophelic. l nt~rprelntion in the-. Sevtuagint•. RIOSCS 12 ( 1979): 17-26.
- -. Tile Speeches br lire Acts oftiU! Apostles. london: Tyndalc: Press.. 1942.
Brueggemann. Walter. Genesis. lnterpr<:«ation: A BibkCommentary for Teaching and Preach-
ing. Adama: John Knox. 1982.
- -. Isaiah. 2 vols. Westmmstcr Bible Companion. Louisville: We-stminst~r John Knox. 1998.
Burnside. Wnher F. Tlre Acts q_{Jite .4poJtles: The Greek Edited witlr Jmroduclion tmd l•lmesfor
lire Use f?{St:hools. C:.mbridge: Cnmbridge University Press. 19 16.
Burrows. Millar. cd. Tlte Dmd Sea Sc,.ol/s of St. Mark•s Mont1ste1y. 2 vok New Haven:
American Schools of Oriental Research. 195 1.
Bun on. Ernest De Witt. A Critlcal and ExegeTical Commentatyon the Epistle to the Galatians.
lnlernational Critirol Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1921.
Buttrick. George-A. T11e JmerprY!Ier :f Bible: T11e Holy Scnjmtre.f in the King James and Re\'i.fed
Standan1 Ver.fions •dth General Articles and Introduction. £rege.ft:f. £tpo.fitimrfor EoclJ
Book oftlle Bible. 12 vols. New York: Abingdon. 1951- 58.
- -. cd.lmerpreter"s Dirtionmy q{tlle Bible. 4 \"Ok Nashville: Abingdon. 1962.
Csdbury. Henry J. The Mttking ofLuke-Acts. 2nd e.dn. London: SPCK. 1958.
- -. "The.Sprcches in Act!:'. Pages 402- 21 in vol. 5 of n1e Begimtillgs q{Ciwistianity. Part 1:
17te Act.f of the Apo.wles. Edi1cd by Fre<kric.k J. Fo.'lkcs Jnckson and Kirsopp Lske.
London: Mncmillan. 1920-33. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Boker. 1979.
C:.lvin. John. At<l.f 1- 13. Translated by John W. Froscr and W. J. G. McDonald. Edited by
D:t\'id W. Torrance and Thoams F. Torrance. Cal\'in's New Testament Commenlaries.
Grilnd Rapids: Eerdmans. 1995.
- -. ANs 14-28. TranslatC'd by John W. Fra~cr. Edi1ed by David W. Torrance:.nd Thorms F.
Torrance. Calvin's New Testamc.nt Commenlaries. Grand Rapids: E<:rdnum.s. 1995.
- -. Comme11taries Ott tlte Tweb•e A1hror Proplreu. Calvin•s Commen1arics l4. Grand Rapids:
B:.ker. 1979. Reprin1of Calvin Translation Soc:iecy edn.. Edinburgh. 1845- 56.
- -. CommeiiUIJ')' 011 tlte Book of tlte Prophet l.mfttll. Colvin 's Commcntnries 8. Grond
R:.pids: &kcr. 1979. Reprint of Colvin Translation Society cdn.. Edinburgh. 1845- 56.
Cnrroll. John T. "The Uses of Scripcure in l uke- Acts'. Pages 5t2-28 in SOC'1ety ofBib/teo/
LuttralllfY! &mbtar P(lpers. 1990. Edi«cd by O:lvid J. lull. Athmtn: Sc.holnrs Press. 1990.
Csshdan. Eli. 'Mnlochi'. Pages 335-56 in n ut T~t>eh~ Prop/reu : Hebrew Text. English Trtur.fla-
lion andCommentatJ'· Edited b>' AbrnhamCohcn. Soncino Books ofthe Bible-. Bourne-
m-oulh: Soncino. 194&.
Bibliography 149
Chance. J. Bradlc.y.JeJ'ItSU!em.lhe Temple and lh£> New Age ln Lukl'-Acl:>. Macon. Ga.: Mcn.'\¢r
University Press. 19&8.
Chapman. Otlvid W. 'A Supcrobun<Wnccof Biessing:: The Discou~W lntcni of Joel J: 1· 5 and IL"
Cnnonic.nl lmplic:uions'. M.A. thesis. l'rinity Evangelicsl Divinity School. 1996.
Charlesworth. James H. The Old TeJftttllf'llt P.w~udepigraplta. 2 vok New York: Double-day.
1983- SS.
Chcstc.r. Andtew. ·citing the Old Te-stamtnt'. Pages 14 1- 69 in II Is Writtell: Scnj>trm• Cilbrg
Scriptllre. Edited by Donald A. Carson nnd Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press. 19&8.
Childs. Brevard S . l.miah: A Commenwry. Old Testament Libr.uy. louisville: We-stminster
John Knox. 2001.
Clarke. William Kemp Lowther. 'The Use ofthe Septuagint in Acts'. Pages66-105 in vol. 2 of
Tht> Begilwings t?lChriJtiam·w. Part 1: nrt> Acts of!Ire Ap<Udes. Edited b>' Frederick J.
Fookes Jac-kson and Kii"Sllpp U.ke. London: Macmillan. 1920-33. Rcprint.Grnnd Rap1ds:
Bt~kcr. 1979.
ClemenlS. Ronald E. Abrolwm a11d Dtwid: GeneJis XY am/Its ,I,{Nming in /sraeliu.' Tradition.
SIUdiC$ in B i bli~l Theology. Second Seri~-s 5. London: SCM Press. 1967.
- -. Isaiah 1- 39. New C<:nlUI)' Bible.. Grand Raptds: Ecrdmans. 1980.
- -. Proplre-cy OJtd Covenant. Studies in Biblical TheolOJ.')' ~3. l ondon: SCM Press. 1965.
Clowney. Edmund P. Tire Church. Contours ofChristi:m Tb<ology. Downers Grove. Ill.: !me-r-
Varsity. 2000.
Cohen• ..-\brnMm. The Sondno ChumaJh: The Fi\•e Books ofMo.fes willt f.lapluaroth . Soncino
Books of the Bible. London: Soncino. 1947.
- -.. e.d. The Tweb-e Propl1ets: f.lebrew Text. Eugli.~lt Tnm \.·/ation and Commcmtm:v. Soncino
Books of the Bibk. Bournemouth: Soncino. 1948.
Cok-. Alan. The New Temple: A Smd)'in t!Je Origins ofJhe Cotet·heticai'Fonn 'oftiU! Cllurch
bt lite New Tesumwlll. London: TynOOJc Press. 1950.
Collins. Clifford John. 'GalntiansJ: 16: What KindofE:tegete Is Paul?' T.mB•,/54 (2003): 7>-
86.
- -.·A Syntactical Notc.(Gen<:sis J: 15): Is the Woman's Sc:ed Sin~'llbror Ptural?' TyiiBu/48
(1997): 1 ~ 1-48 .
Collins. John J. The Scep1er and tire Star: The Me.~.n·alls of the Dead Sea St:ro/1:; ami Other
Ancient Literatun. Anchor Bible Reference Library . New York: Doubled.'ly. 1995.
Conze-lm:mn. Hans.. Acts ufthe Apostles. Tronslntcd by James A. Limburg. Thomas Kr:wbel.
and Doot~Jd JueL Hcrmene-ia. Philadelphia: Fonrc.s s. 1987.
- -. T7tt>alagyofSt. Luke. Trom•lated by Gcoffre-)' Buswell. Nev.-· Yotk Harper&. Row. 1961.
Creed. John Man in. Tlte GoJpei accordiJtg to S1. Luke: T11e Greek Text wb!J lntroduC'tion,
Notes, ond /ndlces. l ondan: t\·1acmillan. 1965.
Crc-nsh:lw. James l. J«l: A New Translmion ll'ilh lntroductioo cwd Comme11tary. Anchor
Bible 24C. Nc.w Voti:: Doubleday. 1995.
Crim. Keith D. The lnteqmtler's Dictimrary oj1he Bible. Supplemelllary Yolume. Nashville:
Abingdon. 1976.
Cripps. Richard S. A Critkal & Exegetical Cormmmuny <m lhe Book q{ Amos. New York:
S PCK. 1929.
Dahl. Nils A. ·A People for His Name (Ac.ts XV.I4)'. NTS 4 (1958): 324-25.
- -. 'The Pur1>0sc of luk~Ac•s' . Pu..gC$ 87- 98 in Jesus i11 the Memmyoftlre Early Church.
Minneapolis: ..-\ugsburg. 1976.
- -. 'The S•oryof Abrnhnm in Luko--Ac.ts.•. Png-C$ 139--58 in Swdles 111 LukE"-Acts. Edited by
Lct~nder E. Kcck :.nd J. l ouis Martyn. Nash...·ilk: Abingdon. 1966. Reprint. Miffl imown.
Pa.: Siglar Press. 1999.
Danby. He-rbcn. The MM111ah: Translated/rom lite llebr~w 'ltiJh lmrodtJctionand Brittff:rplo.na-
lory /1/ores. Oxford: Oltford University Press. 1937.
150 Bibliography
Danker. Frederick William. A Grcek- £JJg!Mr Lexicmt ofthe New Testltmt>rll 011d OtJter £arh•
Christian Literomre. 3rd cdn. Chicago: Univcrsit)' of Chicago Press. 2000.
Davids.. Pc1cr H. The Epislle of.Jame.(: A CrnmMtttary 011 the Greek Text. Ne.w lnlcrnational
Greek Text Commentary. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1982.
Davidson. Richard M. 'The Eschatological Struc1ure of Biblical Typology•. Papcr pres~tcdat
the-annual mceling of the. Evangelical Thcol~lgical Society. 19 No\'cmbcr 1999.
- -. ' Is Biblical Typology R ~Jiy Predicti\'e? Some Possible Indicntorsoflhc Existcne<.nnd
Prcdic-tivcQualityofOTTypcs-•. Pnpcr presented :u th<: midwestern regional meeting of
the Evangelical Theological Society. St P:ml. Minn.• 26- 27 Fcbmary 1999.
- -. 'Israel Typolo.<.;.y'. Papcrpresente.d :u the annual mee1ing ofthc Ev:mgcliCt~l The.ologieal
Soc-iety. 16 November 2000.
- -. Typologvin ScripM¥!: A Snulyofl.Jerm(!J1f?U(iMI w~ro.;SmictiWS. Andrews Univc.rsil)'
Seminary Doetorol Dissenation Series 2. Berrien Springs.. 1\·lich.: Andrews Universil)'
Press. 198 I.
Dclitzsch. Franz. /soiah. Edjtcd by C. F. Kell nnd Franz Ddi1zsch. Commentary on the Old
Testamr.nt. G1-and Rapids: Eerdmans. 1975.
- -. NewComm~ntaryon Genesis. Translated by Sophia Taylor. 2 \•ols. Cltlrk's Foreign Tilco-
logical Library 36-37. Edjnburgh: T&T Clark, l88S-&9.
Ocnova. Rcbc~. The TT!bt~ Act'{)mplislret/ Among U\·: Proplwtl<' Tradl1ion tmd 1he S/11jCfllral
Pouem of L~tke-Acts. Edited by Stanley E. Pone-r. Journal for the. Study of the; New
Testamc.nt Suppleme-nt Serie-s 141. Sheffield: Sheffie-ld Academtc Press. 1997.
deS il vt~. David A ' Paul's Semton in Antioch ofPisidia'. BSoc 151 ( 1994): 32-49.
de Wruud. Jan. A Compamti\'e Study ofthe Old Te.,·tament Tex1 in the Dead Sea Scrolls and i11
tire New Testamem. Studie-s on the Texts of the Ocscn of Judnh 4. leiden: Brill. 1965.
de Wa..vd. Jan and William A. Smalley. A Translolor's Hmrdbock 011 the Book ofAmos. Helps
for Trnru;lators. Stuu.gan: United Bible Societies. 1979.
Dibclius. Ma11in. S111dies ill lire AciS o/lhe Apostles. Edited by Heinrich Gre<ven. Ne\o,-· York:
Chartes Scribner's Sons. 1956.
Dillard. Roymond B1ynn. ·Joel·. Pages 239- J 13 in The Mlnor Prop/lets: All Exegetical o11d
£xposilionol ComJIWIIIOJy. Edit<d by Thomas Edward McComiskey. 3 vols. Grand
Ropids: Bnl:er. 1992.
Dodd. Charle-s H. Acrordittg 10 the Scnptures. London: Fontana & Ilks. 1952.
Doc.vc. Jan W. Je..·i.fh Hl!nJ/f'Jif:utics ilt lire S.nroplic Go.fpelf and Acu.. Assen: Vnn Gorcum.
1953.
Donaldson. Terenee-L Judaism and 1he Gemiles: J€'wislr PoItems ofUm'lY!rsolism (to I 35 CE}.
Woco: Baylor University Pr<ss. 2007.
Oonfrlcd. Ksrl P. •Attcmpcs at Undc-rsumding the Purposc.ofluk<-Acts: Christology and the
Salvation of the C'.cntiles'. Pages 112- 22 i:n t""hristologicol Perspectiws: f.f.W)'S ln Hmror
ojHan'f!y K. McArthm·. Edi1ed by Robcn F. lk-ri:.ey and Snrah A. Edwards. New York:
Pilgrim Press. 1982.
Donneyer. Detle-v and Florenzio Galindo. Die Aposlelgeschichte. E/JJ Kommemar .!iir d1e
Praxis. Stuugart: Vcrlog K:u.holischcs Bibclwerk. 2003.
Driver. St~mucl R. 11re Book of Gene.fis willr /ntroductlon ond Note.f . 3rd edn. London:
Methuen. 1904.
- -. All Introduction Jo the LileiYIIW'C q(llre Old Te.ftamem. I I th rev. and en I. OOn. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons. 1905.
Duling. Dennis C. 'Tile. Promises to Dtwid and Their Entrance into Christianity: Noiling Down
t~ Likely Hypothe-s is'. /l.rrs 20 ( 1973): 55-77.
Dunn. J::.mc.s D. G. Tile Acts ofIhe Apostles. Valley Forge: Trinil)' Press lme-rnal:ional. 1996.
- -. Bap1ism in Jhe Ho~r, Spmt . Pbil"dclphla: Wesuninstcf Press. 1970.
Bibliography 15 1
Duponl.Joe-qucs.. ·Apologe-tic Usc ofthe Old Testament in the Spccchcs of Acts'. Pages 129-
59 in 17te Soll•a1ion ofthe Gentile.(: £ ..,·says on the Acts q{the Apostles. Translmcd by
J ohn R. Keating. Nc.,.,: York: Ptlulist. 1979.
- -. £rudt-s .m r les Actes des Ap<itn•s. Pari:i: Ccri. 1967.
- -. · ..Jc. rab:itirai lncabanc de David qui est tombCe''(Ac 15. 16 - Am9. 11 )'.Pages 19- 32 in
Glaub(! und £<cltatologie. Edjtcd by Eric-h Grisscr and Ot1o Me-lt:. Tilbingc.n: 1. C. B.
Mohr. 1985.
- -. ·Jc_ t'ai Ctabli lumii:rc dcsnntions (Ac 13. 14. 43-52)'. Pngcs343-49 inNouwdles £tud(!s
.wr Jes Ac1es d(!s Ap6tres. Pari,;: Ccrf. 1984.
- -. 'Ln portC.c-chrismlogiquc- de l'cvangCiisalion des notions'. Pages 37- 57 in NfJuwlles
Etudes $W ' /es Acres de.f Ap6tres. Pnris: Ccrf. 1984.
- -. ·AAOI ,.E=. 'E0 NQN (Acl. xv. H )'. NTS 3 ( 1956): 47- 50. Reprin1. p:tges 361-65 in
Etudes sw·/es Actes des Ap6mts. Paris: Ccrf. 1967.
- -. Nou\·elles £tudes sur /es Actes des Ap8tres. l cctio Divinn l iS. Paris: Cerf. 1984.
- -. ·un pcuple d'entrcles nations (Actes 15. 14)'. N1:s' 31 ( 1985): 32 1- 35.
- -. ·The. Salvation of the Gentiles nnd the Theological Significance of the-Book of Acts•.
Pages 11-33 in Th~t Salmtitm of tire Genfiles: £sro.J'S 011 drt> Act.f of the ApoJtle.(.
Trnnsln1cd by John R. Keating. New York: Pauli:it. l 9?9.
- -. The Salwttion ofthe Gemifes: Essays mt the Acts oflire Apostles. Translated by John R.
Ke:tting. New York: Pnuli:it. 1979.
Easton. Burton Scolt. The Pwpose q{At:rs. 'Thoology' Occasiont~ l Pnpcrs 6. London: SPCK.
1936.
Ecke)'. Wilfried. Die ApostelgesduCJue: Der Wegdes £wmgt>liums \'OnJem.mlem naclt Rom. 2
vols. Neukirchcn·Vluyn: Neukirchencr. 2000.
Eissfdd. Otto. T11e Old Tt>.ftament: An lntrodut:timt. Tmnsl:tted by Pe1er J. Ackmyd. New York:
Harper & Row, 1965.
Ekblad. Eugen< Roben. Jr. Isaiah's Sen·am Poem.( ltcconling to tlte Sepmaginl. Lcuven:
Peters. l 999.
Elligc-r. Karl and Wilhelm Rudolph. Biblia J.lebraiclt Sumgonensia. -lth corrected cdn.
Smugart: Ocul:>ehe Bibclgesellschaft. 1990.
Ellis. Edw:ud Earle. ' Biblical Interpretation in the. New Tcs:t:uncnt Chure.h'. Page-s 691- 725
in Mikro: Text. Tranl·latimt, Reading and lnterpl'f'tatlon oftlw Hebrew Bible i11 Ancient
Judaism and fltr/y Chn'Jtitmity. Edite.d by Monin Jan Mulder. Compendia rerum lud:ti·
carurn nd Novum Tes1amcn1urn 2.1. Assen: Van Gorcum. 1988.
- -.'Isaiah and the E.sdlntological Temple'. Pages 52-61 in Clrri.H lmd lire Future i11 New
TeJtomellt Histm)•. Edited b}' Edwnrd Eork Ellis. Suppkm<:nts to No\•um Te!«amcnlum
o/1. Lcickn: Brill. 2000.
- -. '1\Cyt.\ KUpto; Quocations in the New Te~amen1 ' . Pages 182-87 in Prophecylmd fler-
metwfllic in £or/y Chrisrianity. Gr:tnd Rapids: Ecrdnmns. 1918.
- -. 'Midrnshic F~ 1ures in the Sp«chcs of Ac.ts•. Pages 198- 20& in Prophecy and Herme-
II E'llliC' ;, £arty Chri.wionil.v. Grand Rtlpids: Eerdmans. 1978.
- -. 'Midrnsh. T:trgum and New Testament Quotattons'. Pages 6 1- 69 in Neotestmmmuca et
Semitir'o. Edited by Edward E.:lrlc-Ellis and Mox Wiloo:t. Edinbur~h: T&TCinrk. 1969.
- -. Paul'.\· Use ofthe Old Te.W(Inrenl. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmnns. 1957.
Epp. Eldon J:ty. 17te 71reological TendencyofCWex Bczae Cmrtltbnglensis i11 Acts. Society for
New Testament Studies ~·1 onograph Serie-s 3. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni.,·ersil)' Press.
1966.
Evans. Craig A. 'The Function of the ElijahiElisha Nart\llivcs in Luke' s Ethic of Elccc:ion'.
Pages 70-83 in Luke and Scripture: Tlu• Ftmction qf Sacred Trodltlon bt Lulw--Acts.
Edite-d by Cmig A Evans and Jac.k T. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress.. 1993.
- -. ' Prophecy and Polemic: Jews in Luke's Scriptural Apologetic•. Pages 17l-21 I in Luke
152 Bibliography
(tnd Scriptllre: The Funcrion l{Sacred Tradilio11 ilt Lukt<-A~ts. Edited by Craig A Evans
ond Jorru:s A. Sanders. Minnc.upolis: Fortre.ss. 1993.
- -. ·The Prophe-tic Seuing of the Pentecost Sermon•. Pag_es 2 l2- 24 in Luke cmd Scripturt>:
1Y1e Function q{Sacrtxl Tmdilimt ln Lllke- Acts. Edited by Crnig A Evans and Jack T.
Sandc:rs. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1993.
- -. ·The Twelve Thrones of Israel: Scripture :.nd Politics in Luke 22:24-30'. Png-1:$ 154- 70
in Luke a11d &riptu.ro: The Punrricm ofSacred Trodifl'ou ln Lulw- Acl:f. Edited by Cntig
A. Evans and James A. Sonders. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1993.
Evans. Craig A. and Jack T. Snndc-rs. £ar~v Christlanlmerweurtlon oflire &ripttu"i's ofIsrael.
Journal forth<: S tudy ofthe NcwTesL'lmcnt Supplement Series 148. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press. 1997.
Evans. Craig A and Jmncs A. Sanders. Utke 011d Scripture: The Fu1tcaon ofSacred Trodilion
in Luke- Acts. Minnc-:.polis: Fortress. 1993.
Fcc. Gordon D. T1te Fir.(/ £pl.(t/e 10 the CoriJtlhlans. Nc\.,.. International Comme--ntary on the
New Te-stament. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmmu:. 1987.
Filbcd:. David. Yes. Godqfilte Gentiles, Too. Wh~ton. lll.: Billy Graham Center. Wheaton
Colkg-c-. 1994.
Fischer. Bonifmio. et nL cds.. Bib/i(l Sacm IJL'@ Vulgamm Versio11e111 . 4ch cdn. Stu!1gan:
Deutsche Bibelgcscllschtlft. 1994.
Fishbanc. f\·lichacl. 'U:>c. Authority and l nterprc~ation of Mikrn nl Qumrnn•. Pages 339- 77 in
Mi/;ra: Text. Trmulation. Reading Ctltd brtet]Jretaticm of tile Hebrew Bible iii Andem
Judaism and Early ClrriJticmiry. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. Compendia rerum
lucbiearum sd Novum Testamentum 2.1. Assen: Van Gorcum. 1988.
Fitzmyer. Joseph A. Tlte Ac1s ofthe Apostles. Anchor Bible. 3 1. New York: Doobleda>'. 1998.
- -. 11reGo.fpe/ cuxonling to Luke. 2 vok Anchor Bibk.28- 2SA. Garden City. NY: Double-
day. 1981- 85.
- -. ' Index of Biblical Pnsst~ges•. Pnges 152- 71 in 77re DeadSea Scrolls: Major Publirotlons
and Tool:ofin· Slue~I'. Sources for Biblical Study&. tl.·1issoultl. Mont.: Seholnn Press. 1975.
- -. The U:>c of Explicit Old Tcs1.1mcnt Quotation:> in Qumran Literature and in the Ne.w
TC$t:tment". NIT? (1961): 297- 333.
Fon.kC$ Jackson. Frederick J. and Kirsopp l ake. cds. The Beginnings of Christianity. Parr 1:
T1re Acts oftlte Aposlles. 5 vols.. london: Moemillan. 1920-33. Reprint Grand R!lpid:>:
Bnkcr. 1979.
Franklin., Eric. Chrisr the Lord: A Swdy i11 the Purpose and 71teologyofLulw-A ~Is. Philtldd·
phia: We:>tminst« . 1975.
Frein. Brigid Curlin. ' N:1rrnti\'c Predictions. Old Te:>lamcnt Proph<ciC;S and luke"s Scn:>e of
Fulfill ment•. NTS 40 ( 1994): 23- 37.
Gallagher. Robcn Land Paul Hcrtog. Missio11 itt Acu : Anci(!fl/ Narrati~'t'S iii Contemporaty
Comext. Amc--rirnn Socict)' of Mi.s:>iology Series 34. M:uylmoll. NY: Orbis. 2004.
Galling. Kurt. ·Die. Ausrufung des N:.mcns als Rechtsakt in lsrocl'. TLZ 8 1 ( 1956): 66-68.
Garcia Marlinb-L Florentino and EiblcnJ. C. Tigchelor. ITu' Dead Sea Scrolls Srudy Edition. 2
vok Grnnd Rapids: Ecrdman:>. 1997- 98.
Garrett. D.tm-c. A. Hosm. Joel. New Ame-rican Commentary 19A. Nash\-·illc: Bro:..dman &
Holmt~n. 1997.
Gasque. W. Ward. 'The Spced te:> of Aces: Dibeliu:> Reconsidere-d'. ~gcs 222- 50 in New
Dimensions iii New Testamem Study. Edited by Richard N. longe:ned:e:r and Merrill C.
Te:-nncy. Grand Rapids: Zondcrvan. 1974.
Gempf. Conrad. "Public Sprnking and Published Accounts' . Pages 259-303 in The Book of
Acts ill hs Anciem Literal)' SeuitJg. Edited by Bro-tt W. Winter and Andre\\' D. Clarl:c..
Grnnd Rapid:>: Eerdmans.. 1993.
Bibliography 153
Gcrstmp:r. Robe-n Henry Madison. 'The Gentiles in l.ukc.-Acts•. Ph.D. diss.• Duke University.
1995.
Gesenius. Fticdrich H. W. Gesemus' Hebrew Grammar. Translmcd by Arthur E. Cowley.
Editc.d by Emil K:mtzsc.h. 2nd English cdn. Oxford: Clare-ndon. 1910.
G ibbs. Jeffrey A. 'l:>rael Standing with lsrac-1: The Baptism ofJesus in ManhC\'•·'s Gospel (~,.lou
3: 13-17)'. CBQ 64 (2002): 5 11- 26.
GO<kt. FrCdCric. A Commt>rlf(IJ)' 011 the Gospel oj S1. Luke. Tn~nsltucd by E. W. Shnldcrs and
M. D. Cu:>in. 5th cdn. 2 vols. Clafk•s Foreign Thc.ological Librnry. Edinburgh: T&T
C lork. 1957.
Goldingay. John. lsai(IIJ. New lntemntional Biblical Commentary on the.Old Tcst.1mcnt 13.
Pc3bod>·· Mass.: Hendrickson. 2001.
- -. T1te Message oflsaiall 40-55: A Litera')'· noological Commentary. London: i & T Clalk.
2005.
Goldingay. John and O.wid Payne. A Critical tmd Exegetical Commentarytm lsalah 40-55.
huemational Criucr~ l Commema.-y. london: T &T Cl::.rk. 2006.
Gooding, David. A ccordii~g to Luke: .4 New £.\]XMititm of tile Tl!lrd GosJWI. Grand Rttpids:
Eerdmans. 1987.
Goppe-lt. Lconh::.rd. Typos: Tlte Typologicttl fme,prewtion ofthe Old TeJitlment ln the New.
Trans.ln1ed by Donnld H. Mndvig. Grnnd Rapids: Eerdmans. 19&2.
Green. Jod B. 17re Go.fpel of Luke. New lntem:uional Conun<:nlory on the New Tc~ament
Grand Rnpids: Ecrdmans. 1997.
- -. · "rrodaiming Re-penttmec and Forgiveness of Sins to All Na1ions": A BiblicaJ Persp«-
ti\'c. on the Church's ~·1 i ssion ' . Pages 13-43 in 17re Mis.,·ion ofthe Churd1 in Metlux/i.-;t
Perspecti~-e: The World {s Jl·()•PoriJ!r. Edited by Alan G. Padgett. Studie-s in the HiSiory
of Mission 10. lewiston. NY: Edwin ~·h:llen . 1992.
Green. Joel B. and Miehad D. McKeever. Lr~lw-Acts and New Testament Historiogmplry. IBR
Bibliographies 8. Grond Rapids: Baker. 1994.
Grd oL Pierre-. 'Note sur Ae-les.. XIII. 47'. RB 88 ( 1981): 368-72.
Griineb<:rg. Keith N. Abmltam. Blessing and tlte Natimrs: .4 Plrilolagical aud Exegencal Study
ojGe11esis J2:3 in Its N(lrratlt-e Co11tex1. Bcihcfte zur Zcitschrifi ft.r dic.alnestamentliche
Wisscnschnfi 332. Berlin: Waltc-.r de Gruyter. :wen.
GutJuic. Donald. New Tesfame11tlntroduction. 3rd rev. «ln. Downe-n> Grove. Ill.: Inter-Varsi1y.
1970.
Hac-nchcn. Ernst. The Acts oftire AJXJstfes: A Comme11t01:r. Translote-d by R. Mel. Williams.
Philoddphia: We-stminster. 197 I.
Hamilton. Victor P. Tire Book ofGeneJis. 2 vols. Nc:w International Commentary on the.Old
T<:$1nment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1990-95.
Hammershtlimb. Erlmg. The Bookq(Amos: A Commentary. Tronslatcdby John Sturdy. Oxford:
B:~sil Blackwell. 1970.
Hanford. W. R. ·ocutc--ro-Js.1iah and luke-Acts: StraightfotWllrd Univc-rsalism·?· CQR 168
0967): 142- 52.
Hanson. Paul D. lsaiah 40-66. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Tct~cbi ng and Preach-
ing. Louisville: John Knox. 199S.
Harpe-r. William Rainey. A Critical and Exegettc(l{ CmnmeJltat~' O't .4mos a11d Hosea. lntc-r-
ntllionnl Critieal Commc.ntary. Edinburgh: T&T Cla.t. 1905.
Harris. Rober! Lttird. e• al. Tlleo/ogical Wordbook of the Old Testamem. 2 vols. Chirngo:
Moody. 1980.
Harrison. Roland K. JmnxluctimtiO tile Old Testame/11. Grand Rt~pi ds: Ecntmans. 1969.
Hasd. Gerhard F. The Rem11am: The Historya11d 11reology ofthe Re11ma11t fdeajrYHII Genesis
10 /samh. Berrien Springs. Mich.: Andrews Unive-rsity Press. 1972.
154 Bibliography
- -. Unde,·.wandblg the Book of..Jmos: Basic Issues in C1m·em hrterprelmions. Grand Rapid:;:
B..'lkcr. 1991.
Hatch. Edwin Md Henry A. Rc.dpath. A CtmcordatJN! to lire Septuagilll and tlte Other Greek
YeJ'sions ofthe Old Testllment (iltduding tile Ap«1)1Jhal Boob). 3 vols. Oxford: Clar-
endon. l897. Reprint. 3 vols. in 2. Gmnd Rapids: Baker. 1983.
Hays. Ridwrd B. £rhoes ofScripiW'e ill il1e Lt•Uer'S ofPaul. New Haven: Vole Univcrsily Press.
1989.
Hayward. Claude E. 'A Study in Acts XV. 16-ts•. bQ 8(1936): 163-66.
Henderson, Ebc-lK'?.cr. Tlte Book oftlw Twe/1-e Alinor Prophf!ts. BOSion: Draper, I859.
Henderson. Su7.:tnnc Wntts. "The Messianic Community: 11tc l\·1ission of Jesus ns Collccti\'C
Christology•. Popcr prcsentc.d nt the AAR/SBL Annual Meeting. San Diego. 2007.
Hengel. Martin and Daniel P. Bailey. 'The- Effecti\·e History of Js.'liah 53 in the Pre-Christian
Period'. Pages 75- 146 in Tlle StrOi>ring S(!rwuu: l.wiaiJ 53 ill JewiJh wrd Chri.(tian
Sour<Ys. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmaeb.cr. Translate-d by Danie-l P.
Bt~ile)•. Gr.md Rapids: Ecrdmans. 2004.
Herbrn. ArthurS. The Book ofthe Prophet Isaiah: Chapters 40-66. Cambridge. Bible Com-
mmtory. Ct~mbridg_e: C:.mbridge University Prcl\s. 1975.
Herric-k Gregory C. 'Isaiah 55:3 in Acts 13:34: Luke's Polemic for EqunlityofGc-.ntilc:.P:utici·
p:ation in Oa\~di c Promise·. Ph.D. diss.. Dallas Theological Se-minary. 1999.
Holtz. Traugott. Umen·ru·hun-gen iiberdiealttesumremlichen Ziuue bd Utkas. Texte und Untcr·
suchurt:gcn zur Geschichte-&.~r ahchristlichen Litr-mtur I 04. Berlin: Akndc:mie Ve-rlag.
1968.
Hooker. 1\•Jorn:a D. Jesus and Jh(! Sermm: Tht:> lt~/fu(!m:e of the Ser\'aJ/1 CmrcepJ of Deutero-
Jsaiah in the New TeJtamenJ. london: SPCK. I 959.
Hornblower. Simon and Antony SpawfOfth. Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd tdn. Oxford:
OxfOfd Uni\'el'$ity Press. 1996.
Hubbard. D:avid Allan. Joel mrd Amos: Au lntroductlon (111d Commellt«(V. Tyndale Old
Testamcnl Commcruarics. Oowneu Grove. Ill.: Jntrr-Varsit)'. 1989.
Humme-l._Horoce D. 17re Wm·d Bt-">Comlng Flesh: All Introduction to the Origin. Purpose and
Meanlng ofthe Old Testament. St Louis: Concordia. 1959.
bno\o,.·ski. Bernd and Pc-1cr Stuhlmac.he.r. cds.. Tht> Stif/'erlng Sermm: /saurh 53 in }el'.isiJ mrd
Christian Scurce.f. Tran$lated by Dtlnid P. Baile-y. G1'3nd R:.pids: Ecrdm:ms. 2004.
Jeu-mins. Joachim.JeJus' Pronu'st:< to the Nations. Trnnsla!ed by S. H. Hooke. S1udies in Bib-
lical Theology 24. Naperville. Ill.: Alle-nson. 1958..
Jeremias:. JOrg. 17re Book of Amos: A Commemary. Tran$laled by Douglas W. Stou. Old
Testament Librnry. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 1998.
Jer\'ell. l:acob. Dle Aposrelgesclriclrte. Kritisc.h·excgctischer Kommentor Uber das Neue
Tesl:lment. GOuingcn: Vandenhoc:d & Ruprce-hl. 1998.
- -. ·ne Ccnter ofSe-ripcure in Luke'. Pages 122- 3'1 in The Ut~!wown Paul: £s.mys otr Luke--
Aclstuul £m•JyCIIriJtian Hi.\·tory. Trnnsbted by Roy..-\. Harrisville. M i rm~poli s: Augs-
burg. J9S4.
- -. 'The-Divided People ofGod: The. Restoration oflsrncl nnd the Sal\'alion of the Gcntiks'.
Pages 41- 74 in Utke t111d tire People of G<XI: A New Look at Lulw- Aas. Minneapolis:
Augsburg_ 1972.
- -. ·James: The Defender of Paul'. ~gcs 185- 207 in LtliU!fmd the People ofGod: A New
Look at Luke- Acts. Minn~polis : Augsburg. 1972.
- -. Ltdre m1d the People ofGod: A New Look at Luke- Acts. Minneapolis: Aug$burg. 1972.
- -. Tile Tlu'Y>Iogy oftire Acts ofthe ApoJtles. New Testament Tbcology. C:.mbridge: Cam-
bridge- University Press.. 1996.
- -. 'The Twdvcon Israel's Thrones: Unde--rstanding the Apostol:tte'. Pages 75-1 12 in Luke
tmd tire People oj'God: A Ne'h' Look Ul Luke-Acts. Minneapolis: Augsburg. 1972.
Bibliography 155
Jobes. Karen H. and !'.,.loisbs Silvtl. fm·ita~ionJo the &,uuagilrl. Grnnd R:~pids: Baker. 2000.
Johnson. Dennis E. •Jc:rus Agninst the Idols: The Use of Jsaianic Scr..,am Songs in the Missi-
ology of Acts' . WTJ 52 (1990): 343- 53.
- -. Tile Me.f.mge ofAcl:; in !Ire History of RedemptioiJ. Phillipsburg. NJ: P &: R, 1997.
Johnson. Fmnklin. The Quotolion'i oft!re .flw'ew Testamentfrom tile Old Cmrsidered ill lire Light
ofGe11ero/ Literature. Philadelphia: Ame-rican Baptist Publict~tion Soc.icty. I896.
Johnson. luke Timo-~hy. 'nte Acu of the Apostles. Sacra Pogina 5. Collcgcvilk, Minn.:
LiiUrgicnl Press. 1992.
- -. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra Pogin:.. 3. Cotlege.,ilk -. Minn.: Liturgical Press. 1991.
- -. Thi' Leuer q{James: A Neh' Trmr.f!aricm with Jmroduclio11 and Commemmy. A nchOJ
Bible 37A. New YOt'k: Doubleday, 1994.
- -. SepwagiJIIal .~1idrasiJ m the Speeches oj'Acts. The PC:.re Marquette l ec-ture in Theology.
Mi lwaukee~ Marquette-University Press. 2002.
Jones. Donald L 'The Title "Servant" in Luke- Acts'. Pngcs I48-6S in Luke-Acts: Neh' Per-
Spt.->cm•es fmm tlte Society ofBiblical Liferamre Seminar. Edited by Charic-.> H. Talbe-11.
New York: Crossrood. 1984.
Jo(ion. Paul. A Grammar ofBib/i('a/ Ht>brew. T.-anslnted by T. ~·1 urookn. Subsidi::. Biblicn 14.
Rome: Pontificnl Blblicallnstrlute. 1991.
Just. Arthur A .. Jr. Luke. Edited by Jont~thttn f . Grothe. 2 vols. Conc.ordin Commentary. St
Louis: Concordia. 1997.
Kaiser. Wnher C .. Jr. 'The Bk$sing of David: The Ch:trter for Humanity'. Pages 298-318 in
T1re Low and the Prophets. Edite.d by John H. Skilton. Nutley. NJ: Presbyterian :.nd
Reformed. 1974.
- -. ·T1tc Davidic Promise and the lnclus•on of the Gcntilcs(Amos9:9- l Sand Acts 15: JJ.J8):
A Test Passage-iorTheologicaiSystems' .JETS20 (1977): 97- ll l. Reprint poges I 77- 94
(with revisions) in The Uses oj1he Old Tesramt>m in the New. Chicago: Moody. 1985.
- -. n1e Mt>ssialr in 11ft> Old Te.wameru. Studies in Old Tcsltlmcnt Biblical Tilcology. Grand
Rapids: Zondcrvnn. 1995.
- -. Mi.(.(/011 ill tire Old Testame111: Israel a.t a Light to 1he ,t./ations. Gmnd Rapids: Bake-r.
2000.
- -. 'The Promise ofGod nnd the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit•. P>.1ges 109- 22 in Tile Lin'ng
and Acthoe H'ordofGod: Studies in !loJiorofSamue/J. Sdutl:. Edited by Morris Inch and
Ronald Youngblood. Winona take. Ind.: Ejse.nbrouns. 1983. Rcprim. pngcsS9-100(wlth
revisions) in Tl1e U.tt>s oftl•e Old Testoment ill the New. Chicago: Moody. 1985.
- -. Tile Use.( oft/1(! Old Te.~t<mli'Jlt in the New. Chicago: Mood)'. 1985.
Kapclrud. Arvid S. Cemral Jdeos ill Amas. Oslo: Oslo Univcrsit)' Press. 1961.
Keck LC'tlnder E. and J:unes Louis Manyn. eds. Smdies in Utke-Acts. Nashville: Abingdon.
1966. Reprint. Mifflintown. Pa.: Sigler Press. 1999.
Keil. C:.rl F. Mi11or Proplu1s.Translated by Jomcs M!l.rtin. Commentary on the Old Tcsl:tlmcnt
Grnnd Rapids: Ecrdmans. I973.
KidllC'-r. Derek. Ge11esi:r: All 111mxlllctio11 aJidCommeiiiOiy. TyndaleOldTcstamcnt Commen-
taries. Downers Grovc. lll.: lnte-r-V:.rsity. 1967.
Kilpa1rick. George D. ·some Quotations in Acts•. Ptlges 8 1- 97 in Us Aclt>S <les ApOtres: Tradi-
liowo, rMacfion.lltOO/qgie. Edite.d by J. Kremer. Bibliothcca Ephemeridum theologies rum
Lovaniensium ~8 . leuvcn: J. Duculoc. 1979.
Kimball. Charles A .Jt:Sus' £rpoJition ofthe Old Tes1ame11t in Luke's Gospel. Edited by Sl:tlnley
E. Porter. Jourtml ior the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 94. Shc:-ificld:
Sheffield Ac.ade.mic Prcs.s. 1994.
Kiuc-1. Gerhard nnd Ge-lftard Friedrich. e.ds. 11reological Dictionmyofthe New Teslamem.
T.-anslotcd by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vok Grnnd Rapids: Eerdmans. 1964-76.
156 Bibliography
Knight. George A. F. Serwuu Tlreo/ogy: .4 Commentary on the BoolwflsoiaiJ 40-55. Rev. cdn.
lmcrn:tlional Thcologirol Comme-ntary. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 198-l.
Koehler. Ludwig and Wnltcr Baumganncr. n,e f/ebrewond Aramaic Lexicon ofthe OldTesur-
mi!nt. Tnmdatcd by Mervyn 1:. 1. Richardson. Study cdn. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. 2001.
Kook. Jan L Isaiah. Pan 3. Trnndatcd by Anthony P. Runia. 3 vols. Historical Commclllary
on the Old Testament. Kampen: Kok Pharos. 1997- 2001.
KOstcnbergcr. Andreas J. and Pctc-rT. O ' Brien. Salwttioll tu tlte £11ds ofthe Eonh: A Biblical
17teologyofMission. ~ew Studies in Biblical Thc.ology I I. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-
Varsity . 2001.
Krodel. Gerhard A. Acts. Augsburg Commcntal)' on the New Tc:tlament. Minneapolis:
A ugsburg.. 1986.
Kummd . Werner Georg. lmroduction unlre New Te:;Taiiii!IU. Tmn:olatedby Howard Clark Kec.
Nashville: Abingdon. 1975.
Lad(l. Goorgc Eldon. A Theology ofthe New Tes10mem. Grand Ropids: Eerdroons. 19? 4.
Lo.ke. Kirsopp. ·The Apostolic Council of Jemsakm•. Pages 195- 212 in Additional Noii!S to tlte
Commel/tat"y. Edited by Kirsopp Lnkc and Henry J. Cadbury. VoL 5ofT/te BeginningJof
CllriJtlanily. Pan 1: The Acts ofthe Apostles. Edited by Fre<krid: J. Foakes Jackson und
Kirsopp L:tke. london: Mocmillon. 1933. Rcprim. Grand Rapids: Baker. 19?9.
- -. Th£> Apostolic Pmher.-;. 2 vols. loeb Classical Libm.ry. Cambridge. Mll.Ss.: Hamtrd Unj-
\·en;ity Press. 1912- 13.
lane. Thomas J. L11ke and tlte Gentile .J.b:(.(/on: Gospel Anticipai(!S Ac1s. European University
Studies. Series XXIII 5 71 . Frankfu rt am M"in: Pe.t<·-r l:mg. 1996.
langford. Norman F. "The Book of Jod: Expo:ojtion•. Pages 727-60 in ~·ol. 6 of The lnter·-
preter 's Bible. Edjted by Goorgc. A. Buttnck e-t al. New York Abingdon. 1956.
l ali:in. William J. Acu. lVP NewTc~amen t Commentary Series 5. Oowner:.Gt\l\'c. IIL: !mer-
Varsity. 1995.
- - .·Toward a l·lolistic Description of Luke•s Usc-ofthe Old Testament: A Metllod Desc-ribed
nnd lllustmtcd from luke 23:33-38. 44-49'. Jn £mngelic-a/ Thoologlcol Sode(v Paper·s.
Portland. Ore.: T1toological Research E:u.·.hangc Ne(work. 1987.
l aSor. William Sanford. ct :~L Old Testament Sun't'y . Grand RapKk Ecrdmans., 1982.
Lehrman. Simon M. "Amos·. Pages S0- 124 in 77re Twe!l'e Prophets: Hebrew Text, £ng!iJh
Tr(IJIS/ation aJUJ Cnmmtmtary. Edited by Abraham Coh-en. Soncino Books of the Bible.
Bournemouth: Soncino. 1948.
- - . ·Joe-l '. Pages 5~79 in The Twttl\'e Prophets: Hebrew Te.w. £ngUsl1 Tnm.dlttion and
Commemwy. Edited by Abraham Cohe-n. Soncino Books of the Bible. Bourncmooth:
Soncino. 1948.
L6onas. Alexis.· A Note on Acts 3.25-26: The MC".'lning ofPetc:r'sGenesis Quototion'. £TL 77
(2000): 149- 61.
Liddell. Henry G.. et nl. A Grm-£nglish Lexicon. 9th cdn. Oxford: Clarendon. 1996.
Lindtlrs. Barnabas. New TeJflmretrt Apologetic. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1961.
Lindblom. Joht!nnes. Tile Sermm Soogs in Derttenr/saiah. Lund: Gl.ccrup. 195 1.
l indse.y. Fronklin Duane-. The Senwm SolfC,!. Chicago: Mood)'. 1985.
Litwak. Kenn<ch D. f l'lroes ofScripwre ill Luke-Acts: Tt~llillg the HistlJr)' of GodS People
lmem•xmally. Joum:tl for th-e Study of the. New Tc~amen t : Supplement Series 282.
london: T&T Cla.t. 2005.
Longenecker. Richard N. ·Acts'. Pugc:s 205- 573 in vol. 9 of The £xplJSitor$ Bible Commen-
tary. Edited by Frank E. Gttebclein. Grand R:~pi d.!t: Zonderwn. 1981.
- -. Biblicltl £rege.;,·is in 1he Apostolic Periocl. 2nd edn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1999.
louw. Johannes P. nnd Eugene Albert Nidu. Groek- Englt'Jh Lexicon of the Nell' Te.(f(lfl/('111:
Bast>d 011 Semmrtil' Domai,s. 2 vok New York: United Bible.Socretics. 1989.
Bibliography 157
MacNaughton. Gail Thomt~s.. 'An Examination of the Se.rvani Songs of Isaiah with P:miculor
Reference to the Servnnt's Role in the Promise to the Nation:>'. M.A. thesis. Coven:tnt
Theologies! Se--minary. 1984.
MacRse. Allan A. 'The Scientific Approoch to the Old Tcsuuncnt'. BSac 110 ( 1953): 309- 20.
MOOdox. Robert. T1re Purpose ofL•tke-Acls. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1982.
MalWII. lan Howard. The Act.f oftlJe Apostles: An Introduction ond Commcmtary. Tyndnle
New Te-stament Commenta1ies. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans.. 1980.
- -. The GosJNI q(Luke: .4 CommcmtO(I'On the Gr~k Text. New lnlernntional Gree-k Tcsttl-
mcnt Commemary. Grand Rapids: Ecrdm:ms. 1978.
- -. L11ke: I.JiJtorian and Tlteol~iall . 3rd cd n. Downers. Gro\'e. Ill.: lnterVnrsity. 1988.
- -. ·The Signifk:mce of Pcmecost'. SJT 30 ( 1977): 347-69.
Marshall. lan Howard and David Peterson. eds. Witness m the Gospel: Tlw Theology ofActs.
Grond Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998.
Manin. Ralph P. Colossi011Stt11tl Plrilemon. Edited by Ront~ld E. Clements and Manhcw Black.
New Ce-mury Bible. London: Oliphants. l 974.
Manin-Aehn.rd. Robert. A Light to tire Nations: A Swdy of the Old Testomi!nl Cmtcepli011 of
Israel's Mi.fsioll ro tlti! World. Tronslntcd by John Penney Smith. Edinburgh: Oliver &
Boyd. l962.
Mnuchlinc. John. 'Implicit Signs of a Pcrsistc.nt Bclk.f in the O:widic Empire'. VT20 ( 1970):
287- 303.
Mauro. Philip. "Building the Tnbcrnad c of David'. £,'(}.9 (1937): 398-413.
Mayor. Joseph B. nre £pistle ofSt. Jomt!s. 3rd edit.. Nc\•.' York: Macmillan. 1912.
Mays. Jomcs Luthe-r. Amos: A Commemmy. Old Tc-s toment Library. Philaddphio: Westmin·
stc:r. 1969.
Mcl ay. R. Timothy. The Use of thi! Septuagml in New Tesramelll Res-t!ttrclt. Grand Rapids:
Ecrdmans. 2003.
Mcl e-an. John A. ' Did JC$1JS CoiT«t the DiscipiC$' View of the Kingdom?' BSoc I Sl (1994):
2 15- 27.
McNeill. Alan Hugh. T7te Gosp-i!l dccording Jo St. Matrhew: The Greek Ti!XIII'ith hrtroductitm.
Notes. ond ludiros. ~tw York Mocmillan. 191 5. R~pri nt. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1980.
Mc-Nicol. Allan J. ' Rcbuildmg the House of David: The-Function of the Bcncdictus in luke-
Acts•. ResQ 40 ( 1998): 25- 38.
Menzies, Rob~11 P. EmpmwrY!tlfor Wime.u: Die Spirit;,. LJtke-Acts. london: T&T Ciork.
20!>4.
Me17.gcr, Bn•ce M. 'The Fonn ulns Introducing Quotations of Scri~urc in the NT nnd the
M ish n:~h'. JBL 70(1951): 297- 307.
- -. A Te:wml Commentm:v 011 1he Greek New Testomi!m. 2nd t'dn. Stuugan: De-utsche
Bibelgcscllschaft. 2002.
Mitc.hcll. Cluistophcr Wright. Tile Meamng of BRK 'To Ble.f.f' ilrrlte Old Testami!nt. Socie1y
of Biblical Literature DiS5ertation Se.rics95. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1987.
Moessner. O:lvid P. ''Ill<: Ironic Fulfi llment of lsrocl's Glory'. Pages 35- SO in Luke-Acls ond
theJewi!ih Pc-np/e. Edited by Joseph B. Tyson. rvlinnenpolis: Augsburg. 1988.
- -. Lord ofthe Bonqui!t: Tlse Litemry tmd nreological Sig~tific:mJce ofthe Lllknll Trol'td Nar-
ratiw. Minneapolis: Fortr<:ss, 1989.
- -. ed. )e$/t.f and thi! Heriwge of !.~rae/: Lrlke 's Norrari\-e Cf(lJm upOJt Israel's Legacy.
HarTisburg_. Pn.: Trinity Prtss International. l 999.
Moore. Thomas S. ' Luke's Use of Isaiah for thcGentik Missron and Jewish Rejection Theme
in the.Third C".ospd'. Ph.D. diss.. Dallas Thc.ologicnl Seminary . 1995.
- -. · "To the End of the. Earth": Tbc Gcogrophic~J and Ethnic Uni\'ersalism of Acts I:8 in
Light ofl$3ianic Influence on luke•. JETS 40 ( 1997): 389- 99.
Morgenstern. Julion. 'The Rest of tile Nations'. JSS 2 ( 1957}: 225-3 I.
158 Bibliography
Morris. L~on. Tht" Gospel ctccorditlg 10 John: T7re £nglis!J Text wiJh /mroductimr, £rpo.fifion
atJd Notes. New lntcmmionnl CommenL<tt)' on the Ne.w TescamenLGr:md Rapids: Ecrd-
mans. 197 1.
- -. T1rt> Gospelaccording 10 S1. Lrt.ke: An lmroduc1ion and C.ommentary. Tyndtlle New Testa·
ment Commcn1arics. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1974.
Mocycr. J. Alec. The Day oj'tlte Uon. Downers Gro\'C. IlL: Inter-Varsity. 1975.
- -. lsakth: A11 lnrroductio11 <mdCommemmy. Edited by D. J. Wiscamn. TyndtlleOid Testn-
mctu Commcmarics. Downers Grove. Itt: lnterVat$i1y. 1999.
- -. T7re Proplu•cy oj'/saiah. Downers Grove. 111.: lnterVarsity. 1993.
Moult. CMrks F. D. The £pi.~tles to lire CofossiOJI.fand to PhilcmwJI. Edited by Charles f . D.
Moulc. Cambridge Gr«k Teslnmcnt Commcnlary. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Pl'C$!:. 1957.
Moullon. James Hope. cc at. A Grammar of."lew TeJtamenr Greek. 4 \'Ois. Edinburgh: T&T
Cl ~rk. 1906-76.
Muilcnbcrg. James. 'The Book of Isaiah: C~pt crs 40- 66'. Pages 381- 733 in vol. 5 of The
/metpreu:r '.f Bible. Edited b)' George A. Buttrick et nl. New York: Abingdon. 1956.
MUller. Mogcns.. 'The Reception of the OldTestnrncnt in Mnnhcwand Luke- Act-;: From lntcr 4
prctation to Proof from Scripture'. NovT 43 (2001): 3 15- 30.

Monck Johannes. The At·ts oj1he Apostles. Anchor Bible 31. Garden City. NY: Doubleday.
1967.
- -. Poul and thtt Salwuion ofMankind. TransJated by Frn.nk Cl:utc. london: SCM Press.
1959.
Muraoka. Takamitsu. £mphalic Word.r tmdStnJ<'IIfrf!S in Biblicol f/ebff'w. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press. 1985.
N3gde. S.<rbinc. /.auhluitte Dtm'dr rmd Wollumso/m: £bw auJ!egullgJgeschichtliche Studie : 11
Amos 9, // in der jridisdren rmd cltrisdichell £t.£>gese-. Arbeiccn zur Geschiehte des
ontikcn Judcntums und des Urohristenturns 24. Lcidcn: Brill, 1995.
Neusne.r. Jnc.ob. W/mt Is .4/idraJh? Guides to Biblical Scholar~i p. Philadelphia: Fonrcss. 1987.
The Neh' huerwetttr ·s Bib/~: Ge11eral Anlcles & lmroducliou. C.otl/lllemary. & Refiec'lionsfor
Each Book oftlte Bible, lncluditq: the ApQC'ryphaUDeuterocatumical Books. 12 vols.
Nashville: Abingdon. 1994-2004.
Niehaus" Jeffery. ·Amos'. Pages- 3 15-494 in nu· MiMr PrYJPlwrs: An E.ugeticttl am/ £tpo.n' 4
tiona/ Commeltlary . Edited by Thooms Edward McComi:J:~y. 3 vols. Grand Rapids:

&ker, 1992.
Nogalski. J ~m~s D. 'The Problc-ma1ic Suffixes of Amos IX I I'. YT 43 ( 1993): 41 l- IS.
Noonan. Benjamin J. 'Abraham. Ble:ssing. and the Nations: A Proposed P;.1radigm•. Ptlpcr pre 4
scnted at tile annual meeting of •he E\'angelict~ l Tt!cological Socie-ty. San Diego. 2007.
Nonh. Chrislophcr R. The S1{/)ering SenYJnt ill Deutenrlsaialr: An J.liJtoricol mtd Ct'ilicol
Study. 2nd e.dn. l ondon: Oxford University Press. 1956.
Odcndaal. Dirk H. Tlte £.rchatnlogicttl £xpectation oflsaitth 40-66 with Sp«ia/ Reference w
Israel attd tht~ NatloiJs. Nu11cy. NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed. 1970.
Ocsterlcy. William 0 . E. Studies ill lhe Grt!ek and Latbl Ver.fiotLf ofthe Book ofAmos. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge-University Press. 1902.
Orlinsky. H ~rl)' M. ' The So·Calkd ·'Servant of the Lord" and "Suffering Servant" in Second
Isaiah' . Pages 1- 133 in Swdies 011 lite Second Pari oftlte Book oflsaialt. Suppleme-nts to
VetusTcstamentum 14. Leiden: BrilL 1967.
Oswuh. John. Tl•e Book ojl.faiah: Chapter.\· 1-39. New International Comme.ntory on the Old
Tcstnmem. Grond Rapids: &rdmans. 1986.
O'Toole. Robcn F. 'Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covemuu of Pentecost'. JBI. 102 (1983): 245- 58.
- -. Tht' C!rl'iJtological Climax ofPmll 's Deferue. Anafc.:ca Biblien 78. Rome: Biblical lnsti·
tuce Press. 1978.
Bibliography 159
- -. Thi' Unity of Lr1ke 's n1eology: An Arwly.<:is (Jj Luke-Acu. Edited by Robert J. Karris.
Good News Studies 9. Wilmington. Del.: Mic.hacl Glazier. 1984.
Onley. Riehard R. The Boolwfl.miah crcconlit-s JoJht>Sepumgi111(Codex Ale.wuulrilws). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. 1906.
Pt~o. David W. Acts and the /.mimric New £rodus. Wisscnschafllichc Untersuchungen ;;.um
Neuen n.•st:unent. 2 Rc ihc 130. Tiibingcn: Mohr. 2000. RcprinLGrand Rapids: 83kcr.
2002.
PauL Shalom M. Amo.s: A Um111umtaryon the Book q{Am(l.(. Hcm1cnei::.. Minnc.t~poli s: Fortress.
1991.
Pesch, Rudolf. Die Aptu·telgeschicltte. 2 vok Evungclisch-lwtholischc:r Kommcntar:.-:um Neur.n
Testament. Ncukirch<:n-VIuyn: Neukirc.hc-.ner Verlag. 1986.
pfciffer. Robc-n H. lntroduclirm toth£> Old Te.ftomelll. New York: Horper & Brothers. 1941.
Pieper. Augwu. l.toioll II: An £xpositio11 ofIsaiah 40-66. Translated by Erwin E. Kowalke..
Milwau.ke<=: Nonhwestem. 1979.
Plummer. Alfred. A Cr'ilicol and £regetical Commentary 011 the Gospel according w S. l.uk~.
5th edn. lntemruional Critical Commcntnry. Edinburgh: T&T Clali:. 1922.
Polhill. John B. Acts. New Amcricsn Commema1y 26. Nashville: Broodman. 1992.
Polley. Ma:t E. Amos and lf1e- Davidic Kingdom: .4 Socio·Historical Approach. New York:
Oxford Uni\·ersity Press. 1989.
Roabc. P:~ul R. Obadiah: A New Tirm.\·1<11;011 with lntmdu('fion OJtdCommentmy. Anchor Bible
24 0 . New York Doubleday. 1995.
- -. 'The P!lnicula.rizing ofUni,•crsal Judgment in Prophetic. Discourse·. CBQ 64 (2002):
652- 74.
Rnbin. Chaim. The Zadokite Docwmmts. 2nd rev. cdn. Oxford: Clarendon. 195&.
R::~ckham. Richard B. T11e ANs ofihe Apostles. Westminster Comment:lries. Grand Rapids:
Bt~ker, 1978.
Rnhlfs. Alfrcd.. Septuagima. Stuttgan: Deutsche Bibclgesellseh:..fi. 1935.

R::~vens. David. Luk£- mtd tile Re.~torotion ojiJroel. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Journal for the
Study of the New Tesmment Supplement Series 119. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
1995.
Rcsc, M:..rtin. Alltt!JtamenJ/iclle Moti\·e in der Clrristolog;t! des Lukas. Studicn zum Nroc.n
T cstamr-nt I. GUtc.rsloh: Gcrd Mohn. 1969.
- -. 'Die Funktion dc-r alucstomcntlichcn Zitalc und Anspiclungcn in den Roden dc-r Apostd-
gcs.chichtc.'. Page$ 61- 79 in L£-s Acte.f des Ap6u-es: Tradiriot~s, r&laction, tMologle.
Editc.d by J3cob Kremer. Bibliothecs Ephemeridium thc.ologicarum Lovaniensium -lS.
Lcuvcn: lCU\'cn Univcrsit)' Press. 19-79.
Re\·i.ted Standard Yerskm. New York: DivisionofChri ~:ian Eduauionofthe N3tional Coun<:il
of the Churches of Christ in the. United Stmcs of America. 1973.
Richlrd. Earl. ·The Creative. Usc of Amos by the Author of Ac•s'. NovT 24 ( 19S2j: 37- 53.
- -. ·Tbc. Divine Purpose: The Jews and the-Gentile Mission (Acts 15)'. Pages 188--209 in
Lllkt--Acts: New Perspccriwsfrom the SodetyofBiblical Lireromre Semi11ar. Edited by
Chartes H. Talbe11. New York: Crossrotad. 1984.
RicOOrdson. H. Nc.il. ·SKT(Amos 9:11): ..Booch" or ..Succoth'". JBL 92 ( 1973): 375-81.
Ridderbos. HermanN. The Speeclres ofPder i11 tl!e Ans of the Apostles. london: Tyncble
Press. 1962.
Riddcrbos. Jn.n. lsaiah. Translated by John Vricnd. The Bible Student's Commcntory. Grnnd
R~pi ds : Zondc.-vnn. 1984.
Ricsner. Rainer. 'James's Speech. Simeon's Hymn.t~nd Luke's Som·cC$'. Pages263- 78 inJes1u·
ofNa:drelh: Lord and Christ. Edited by Joel B. Green and Ma:t Turner. Gnnd Rnpids:
Ecrdm:..ns. 1994.
Ringgrc-n. Hdm~·r. · Luke's Use of the O ld Tcsttunent•. HTR 79 (1986): 227- 35.
160 Bibliography
- -. 7'/re .J.1essiah i111he Old TeJtamellt. Studies in Biblica111tcolog)' IS.I.ondon: SCM Press.
1956.
Robcns. Jimmy 1. M. 'Thc:-Okl Tcstammt's Contribution to Mes$ianic Exp«'tation·. Pt~~s 39-
51 in 'nre Messiah: Developmems in EarliestJudaismcmdChristiani(v. Edited by Jnmcs
H. Charlesworth. 1\·linneapolis: Fortress. 1992.
Robertson. 0 . Palmer. 'Hcrmc-.nc-utics ofContinuity'. Page-s 89- lO& in Cmrtj,mityand Dlscmr-
li'ttuity: Pe,.specth·es on the Relationship 1Mtween tire Oldand New TestaiiWIIIS. Edited by
JohnS. Feinberg. Wc~chcstc-r. Ill.: CI'O$Sway. 1988.
Robinson. Hcruy Wheeler. CmporaJe Penonality in A11ciem Israel. Rev. edn. Philadelphia:
Fonress. 1980.
- -. Tile Cross in the Old Testamwu. London: SCtl.•l Pr(S$. 1955.
Rogers. Cleon L. Jr. 'The- Davidic Covenan t in Acts - Revelation•. BSa!' I 51 ( 1994): 71- 84.
- -. ·11tc.Promises to David in E..1rly Judnism•. BSac 150 (1993): 2 85 - 302.
Roloff. Jiirgcn. Die Apo.ftelgesclliclue. Dns Neue. Testament Deutsc.he-. GOI1ingen: Vanden·
hoeck & Ruprecht. l 981.
Rounenbcrg. Hymnn J. Amos of Tekoa: A Swdy inltuerpretmim1. Ne.w York: Vantage. 1971 .
Rowley. Harold H. The Scrmnt ofthe Lord ond Other £s.fO)'S 011 drt> Old Testomeni. Oxford:
Blackwe-ll. 1952.
Rudolph. Wilhelm. Joe/- Amos-0/xtdia-Jona. Kommcntar zum ..-\hen T~ame-nt 13.2. Giiters-
loh: Gerd Mohn. 197 1.
Rusam. Dieuieh. Das Al!e Testamf"nr bei Lukas. Beihefte.zur Zcitschrift fUr die ncutcstamem-
liche Wisse-nschaft 112 . Berlin: de Gruyte-r. 2003.
Sondc.rs. Jack T. 'Isaiah in luke'. Page-s 14-25 in Luke and Scrti>turo: The Func-tion ofSm·n~d
Tntdition i11 Luke-Acts. Edited by Cmig A. E\'ans nnd Jac.k T. Sandtrs. Minnct~polis :
Augsburg. 1993.
- -. ·Tttc Jewish People in luk~Acts' . Pages 1 1- 20 in Luke- Acts 011d llre J f"wish People.
Edite-d by Joseph B. Tyson. ~·1inneapolis : Augsburg. 1988.
- -. "The Prophc,ic Use of tft<:_Scriptures in luke-Acts'. Pages 191- 98 in £arly Jewtsh mrd
Christian £:-cegf!sis: Smdies ill MemmyofWilliam Brownlee. Edited by Craig A. Evans
and William F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Schol:m Press, 198?.
Schnabc::l, Ecl:hardJ. Ear~I• Ciwf.(tiarJ Missum. 2 vok DownersGro\'e. lll.: lmerVarsily. 2004.
Sehnci &.~r, Gerhard. Die Apostelgesclticlue. 2 \•o ls. He-rders Thrologischcr Kommentnr zum
Neuen Testament Frc-iburg: Herder. 1980--82.
Schuben. PiluL 'The Struc-ture and Signilie-ane< of Luke 2-l'. Pages 165-86 in Neme.ftamelll·
licltett Studiett.fiir RudolfBultmmm. Edited by Walther Eltes!c-r. lkihc:-fte zur Zcitsc.hrifi
far die neutcswmcnllichc Wissenschaft und die KUnde ckr Shercn Kirchc 21. Ekdin:
Alfre-d TOpehnann. 1954.
Schwanz. Daniel R. "The Futility of Preaching Moses (A«s 15.21)'. Bib 67 (1982): 2 76-&1.
Schweizer. Eduard. 'The. Concepc of the Davidie- "Son of God" in Acts nnd Its Old Testamenl
Bnckground'. Pnges lS6-93 in Studies ht Utke- Acts. Edited by l e-ander E. Keck nnd
Jame-s Louis Manyn. Nashville: Abingdon. 1966. Reprint. Miffl intown. Pn.: Siglar Pr(SS.
1999.
- -.·conc-erning the St)C«hcs in Ac-ts'. Pages 208-16 in Studie>s in Luke- Acts. Edited by
L-ct~nder E. Kc.c-k and James Louis Martyn. Nnslwillc: Abingdon. 1966. Reprint Mifllin·
town. Pa.: Siglar Press. 1999.
Secoombc. David. ·nte New People of God'. Pngcs 349-72 in Wime.fs to Jht' Gospel: The
Theo/og:~• ofActs. Edited by Ian Howard Marshall nnd ~vi d Pcterson. Grand R3pids:
Eerdmans. 1998..
Sellin. EmstandGcorg Fohrcr.lnmxlllcritm 10 the Old Te.(ramem. Nashville: Abingdon. 1968.
Selwyn. Edward Gordon. 71ft> Fir.(I £piJtlt> ofPeter: 11re Greek Text witlt lmroductimt, Notes
tmd £smys. 2nd cdn. l ondon: Macmillan. 1947.
Bibliography 161
Sikcr. kffrc-)' S. Disinherlling the Jews: Abraham ill £orlyChristicm Comrow!.rsy. l.ouis\•ille:
Wc:nminstc.r John Knox. 1991.
Slotki. Israel W.ls.aialr: H(!brt>w T(!XI aJtd £ngli.dt Tra11slmum witlt an lmroductioll and Com·
mi!ntar)'. Edited by AbrahamCoheon. Soncino Bool:s of the-Bible. London: Soncino. 1949.
Smith. Billy K. ·Amos·. Pages 23- 170 in Amos, Obadiah, Jonall. Edited by Billy K. Smith :md
FrankS. Page. ~cw American Commcmal)' 198. Nash,~tk: Broadman & Holman. 1995.
Smith. Gary V. Amos. Rev. nnd e-xpanded c-dn. Fearn. Ros;s-Shire: Mt.ntor. 1998.
Smith. Mark "Bcrit Am/Bcrit Olam: A New Proposal for lhc-Crux of I s:~ 42:6'. JBL 100
(l981): 2-JJ-43.
Snnith. NolllUln H. "Isaiah .J~6 : A Study of the Tcncbin.g of Second Isaiah nnd h1> Con·
sequences•. Pages 135- 264 in Studies on the Second Pot'l ofthe Book ofIsaiah. Supple-
ments to Vctus Testamentum 14. Lcidcn: Brill. 1967.
Soards. ~·lorion L The Spe~.->t'hes ofActs: 171f!ir Comem. Cmtre\·t. tmd Concerns. louisville:
Westminstc.r John K no:<. 1994.
Squires.. John T. The Pion of God in Luke- Acts. Edih:d by Margaret ThralL Societ)' for New
T C$ln~n t Studies Monograph Series 76. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni\-crsity Press. 1993.
Stanley. Christophe.r D. ·aiblicnl Quocations os Rhc.torical Devlces in Paul's letter to the
Galatians•. Pages 700-30 in Society ofBibliro/ LiterotW't! Seminm· Popers, 1998. Pat'l
Two. Atlontn: Scholars Pre-s s. 1998.
- -. · ..Pc:t~rl.; Before Swine'': Did Paul's Audience-s Understand His Biblical Quocattons?•
No,•T4 1(1999): 124-H.
- -. 'The Rhccoric ofQuotcujons: An Essay on Method'. Pages 44-58 in Early Chrisliau
/merp,.ettltion oftlte Scr'ipmre.f ofIsrael. Edited byOaigA Evnns:.nd James A. Sanders.
Journal for th<: Study ofthe NcwTcsL'lmcnt Supplcmenl Series 148. Sheffic:ld: Sheffield
Acade-mic-PreS$. l997.
- -. ·nc Social Environment of .. Frce" Biblical Quotations in the. New Testament'. Pages
18- 27 in Early CltriJti011 lnterpretalimt ofJhe Scriptw-es oj'IJroel. Edited by Craig A.
Evans and James A. Snndet'S. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supple-ment
Series 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Aet~dcmi c Press. 1997.
Stein. Robert H. Luke. New Ame-rican Commentary 24. Nashville: Broadman Press. 199'2.
Steyn. Gc-n J. Septu~illl Q11mations In the Contexr ofthe Perrme and Paullne SpeecheJ oftile
Acta ApoJtolomm. Contributions to Biblicsl Exegesis and Theology 12. Kampen: Kok
Pharos.. 199S.
Stolt. John R. W. 71te .ll(essag.:- q(Acrs: T1te Spirit, tire Clturch mrd the World. Bible Speaks
ToOOy. Downers Grove. Ill: lnlerVarsity. 1994.
Stowasscr. Manin. ·Am 5.25-27: 9. 11f. in dcr QunuanUbc:rlit'fcrung und in der Apostcl-
geschichtc'. ZNW92 (2001): 4 7-63.
Strauss. Mark L. The D{l\·idic Messiah in Luke-Acu : The Promise and Irs Ful{illmem in Lukan
Esch(llo/ogt•. Journal for the Study of the New Tcst:unent Supplement Sc.ries I I 0. Shef-
field: Shdlleld Academic Press. 199S.
Su:tZicich.. John. J«l's Us~ q{ScnjJtJtreand Scripture's Usetl/Joel: Appropriation mrd Reslg-
rtifimtitm ill Set•tmd Temple Judaism and Early Chri.ftitmity. U.ide-n: Brill. 2007.
Strong, David K. 'The Jerusalem Council: Some Implications for Contextuali7-'ltion'. Pages
1 9~20& in Mi.uitm in Acts: Ancient Narmtiws in CmuemJ)()nu:'' Co111ext. Edited by
Robe-11 L Gallagher and Paul Hertig. American Soctet)' of Misstology Series 34. Mary-
knoll. NY: Orbis Books. 2004.
Stuart. Dou.gln.s L Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31. Waoo: Word. 1987.
- -. ' Malachi'. Pn.gC$ 12-JS- 396 in The Mi11or Prophets. Edited by Thomas Edward
Mc-C omiskcy. 3 vols. Grnnd Rapids: B:.kcr. 1998.
Stuhlmueller. CaiTo II and Dont~ ld Senior. Tlte Biblical Fmmd(llimrsfor Mis.si011. Maryknoll.
NY: Orbis. 1983.
162 Bibliography
Sukcnik. E. L The Dead Sm Scrolls ofthe }/(!brew Uniw•rJil;v. Jcru1mkm: M:..gncs. 1955.
Swan:wn. R-e-uben. ed. Tlte Actsojtlte Apostles. in New Tesurmem Greek Mmruscnj>ts: VaJ'idl/1
Readin~ Arnmged ill Jlon':oma/ Lilies Agabrst C(}(/ex Yalicanus. Shdlidd: Sllc:-ffidd
Academic Pr~ss. 1998.
Talbc11. Charles H. 'Promise :tnd Fulfill ment in lucan Theology'. Pages. 91- 103 in Luke-Acts:
Net1' Per.>JNCtiw•sfrom the S(')('lety ofBiblical Luemtun Seminar. Edited by Charles H.
Talbert. New York: Crossroad. 1984.
- -. ed. Luke-Act.(: New Perspecti\'e.fjrom the Sodety ofBiblical Literature Seminar. NC.\'t'
York: Crossroad. 1984.
Tanne-hill. Robe-rt C. T11e- Nm·rati,·e Unityqf Luke-Acls: A Litentry lmerpretatiou. 2 vols. Phil:t·
ddphia: Fonress. 198~90.
- -. 'Rejection b)' Jews :~nd Turning to Gentiles: The Pattern of Paul's Mi:osion in Acts'.
Pages 83- 10 1 in Luke-Acts and 1he Jewish People. Edi1cd by Joseph B. Tyson. Min·
ncspolis: Au.gsburg. 1988.
Tasker. Randolph V. G. nu• Old TeJtament in tlte New Te.ftamem. 2nd ~v. edn. London: SCM
Press. 1954.
Taylor. Justin. Les acte.f des deux apOtres: Commeruaire ltistorlque. EBib41. Paris: J. Gabalda.
2000.
Taylor. Vince--nt. The Names of./esiiS. london: M~cmillan. 1953.
Thompson. John A. '11lc Book of Jod: lntroduc1ion nnd Exegesis'. P:tgC;S 727- 60 in \•ol. 6 of
T1te lntf'I1>Nier ':; Bible. Edite-d by Grorgc. A. Buttrick c-t al. 12 ~·ols.. New Yor\:: Abing·
don. l9S6.
Tiede. David L Prophecy and 1/is1my ;, L11l:.e-Acts. Phibdc-lphia: Fortress. 1980.
T orrcy. CMrlcsCutlcr. T11e Composition and Datt~ q{A cu. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard Univcr·
sity Press. 1916.
Tov. Emanuel. ·TheScpcut~g;inl' . Page-s 161- 88 in Mikra: Te.\'1. Tnmslotion. Reoding(lftd lmer-
pnwtton of the UebrtM Blble in A11C'iem Judaism a11d £ar{v Clwi.(tlanit)•. Edited by
Martin J:tn ~·1ukler. Compcnditl rerum ludaicn.rum ad Novum Testame-ntum 2.1. Assen:
Van Gorcum. 1988.
Toy. Crawford Boward. Quotatimrs i11 the New Teswment. New York: CMrlcs Scribner's Sons.
JSS4.
Trcrcr. Daniell. ·nrc Fulllllme-m of Joei2:2S-32: :-\ Multiple·LensApproach•.J£TS 40(l997):
13- 26.
Tum~·r. Max. Po-...V!t/romoll High: The Spirit in /.mtel's Res10raticm 011d Wimc.u ;, L1~l:.e-At'K
Sheffield: Sheffield Ac.n.dc-mic- Press, 1996.
Turpic. Onvid McCalman. Tire New Testllnlt>rll View q{ the Old: A Comribuaon to Biblical
lmroduction and £w-gesis. London: Hodder & Stoughlon. I 872.
Tyson. Joseph B. 'The- Gentile Mission and lhe ..\ uthorityofScripture m l uke-Acts'. NTS33
(1987): 619- 31.
- -. ed. Luke-Acu and 1he-Jewlsh Pe-ople: Eight Crilico/ Penpecth·e-.(. Minneapolis: Aug>·
burg. 1988.
Ulrich. Eugene. •JndtxofPassagcs in the Biblict~l Scrolls'. P:tg«:$649--05 in vol. 2 of The Dead
Sea Scrol/.fajter Fifty Years: A Comp,.eltell.siveAsses.mre/11. Edited by Pctcr W. Flinl and
Jomc.s C. Vandc-rk:un . 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. 1998-99.
Van ckn Eynde. Sab ine~ ·children of the- Promise: On the LilA 9HKH-Promisc- 1o Abr-aham in
Lk 1.72 and Acts 3.25'. Page-s 469-82 in The- U11ity qf Luke-Acts. Edited by J. Ve-r-
he-yden. Bibli othect~ Epllcmeridum the>ologicarum Lovnniensium 142. lcuvcn: Lcu,·en
Univcrsity P~ss. l999.
Van d-« Mcrwc. Christo. c.l nl. A Biblical Hebrew Re-fonmce Grammar. Shcllidd: Sheffield
Acade-mic. Press. 1999.
Bibliography 163
Van de Sondt. Huub. ·An Explanation of Acts 15:6-2 1 in the-Light of Dcutcronom)' 4:20-.lS
(LXX)'. JSNT 46 ( 1992): 7.1-97.
- -. ·-The ft~tc ofthc Gcntii«:S in Joel and Acts 2: An Jntc-rtextual Stud)". £TL 66( 1990): 55-
77.
- -. 'The Quotations in Acts 13.32-52 ns a RcAcction of l uke's LXX Interpretation'. Bib 75
(199-1): 26-58.
Van Unnik. Willcm C. ' ''The Book of Acts"- The-Confirmation ofthc Gospel'. Pages 340- 73
in Spm:sa Co/lecw: nr(' Collecwd £ss(I)'S of W. C. vo11 Unnik. Part One: £w.mgelia,
PauUna. Acta. Suppkmcnts to Novum Tc-stamcmum 29. Lciden: Brill. 1973.
- -. 'Ocr Ausdrud : f:~ iO''Y,U:tO'U 1'~; )'~ (Apostelgeschic-htc-I. 8) und scin nhtcstamcm-
lichcr Hintcrgrund'. P:.gcs 386-40 I in Sparsa Colleda: The Collectt->d Wn'ling.-; ofW. C.
w.m Umrik. Part Om!: £wmgelia. Poulina. Acf(7. Suppk-ments to Novum Testamentum
29. Leiden: Brill. 1973.
- -. ·Rcmnrks on the Purpose of lukc.>s Hissorienl \Vriting (Luke I 1-4)'. Pages 6- 15 in
Spt~rsa Collerttl: T1rt> ColleNed f.f.tct)'.f ofW. C. W.llf Urmik. Part One: £wmgelitl. Paulina.
Acla. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 29. Lei d~: Brill. 1973.
VanGc-rnc-ren. Willem. lnter]>relllrg the Prophetic Word. Grand Rapids: Zondc:rvan. 1990.
- -. ·Tbc.Spirit ofRes~orotion'. WTJ 50 ( 1988): 81-102.
Vawter. Bruce-. On Gcmesi.-;: A New Reading. Ne\o,' York: Doubled:ly, 1977.
Verllc.yden. Jozcf. ed. Tlte- Unity of Lrtke-Acu. Bibliotheca Ephemc.ridum theologicarum
Lovnniensium 142. Leuven: leuvcn University Press. 1999.
\·on R3d, Gcrh:trd. Ge11esis. Translated by John H. "·lnrks. Old Testament L ibnry. Philacklphi!l:
Westminster. 196 1.
- -. Old Te.tlamemTlleology . Translated by D. M. Starkc.r. London: Oliver & Boyd. 1965.
Von Tisc.hendorf. Constantine. cd. Novum Testamtmtunr Graece. 2 vols. Editio octavn critiea
nmior cdn. Leipzig: Giesecke & Denient. 1872.
Vos. Geerhardus. · rhe Eschatological Aspect of the Poulille Conception of the Spirir'. Pag_es
91- 12 5 in Red('mptiw l·ll.fJO(Vtllld Biblicallmerpretalion: The Shtmer WrilitlgS ofGeer-
hardlls Vos . Edited by Richanl B. Gaffin. Jr. Phillipsburg. Nl: Prcsb)1crion and Reformed.
1980.
Wnll. Robert. · Israel and the Gentile Mission in Acts and Paul: A Canooic3l Appro3Ch'. Page-s
437- 57 in Witness lolhe Gospel: The Theoi()!..'VOj Acts. Edited by lan Howard ~·1orsh311
and Oa\'id Pe~erson. Grand Rapids: Een:lnmn:s. 1998.
Wnhkc. Bruce K . and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commtmlary. Grund Rnpids: Zon<kf\•an.
2001.
Wnhke. Bruc-e K. and MicMd P. O'Connor. An lmroduNi<m 10 Biblical Hebrew .S:vmax.
Winona Lake. Ind.: Eisenbraun:>.. 1990.
Wnns. John D. W. /saiah 34- 66. Word Bibltcnl Commentary . Waco: Word. 19&7.
Wehmeier. Gerhard. ·The Theme...BI'C.'SSing for the Notions" in lhe Promises to the Patrinrc.hs
and in Proph~ical Liter.uurc'. Bcmgalon: T/leologica/ Fomm6(1974): 1- 13.
Wellhausen, Julius. Die kldne Propheten iihersel:f und erk/Ort. 4th cdn. Beriin: Vandenhoec.k
& Ruprecht 1963.
Wenham. Gordon J. Gene.tls. 2 vok Word Biblical Comme-ntary 1-2. \Vnco: Word. 1987- 94.
Wcnthe-. Dean 0. 'Amos 9: 11-15: T1l<: Blood ofJesus in the Booth ofDovid'. Pages 23-44 in
J/ear1he Word ofYah'tl'f')J: Essays 011 Scnpture and Theology in Honor ofHorace Hum-
mel. Edited by lkan 0 . Wend\C'. Paul L Schrieber nnd Lee A. Maxwe ll. St louis:
Concordia. 2002.
Wc~c04t. Brooke Foss and Fenton John Antllony Uon. cds. Tl1e New Testamem in lire Original
Greek. New YOJk: Macmillan. 1947.
Wc~crmtuln. Claus. Gem•sis 11- 16: A Commenwry. Trans..late-d by John J. Scullion. Minn-e-
apolis: Augsburg.. 19&5.
164 Bibliography
- -. l.miaiJ 40-66. Trnnslatcd by l>.'lvid M. G. St."ll ~ef. Old Tcl\tament Librnry. Philadelphia:
Wcsuninster, 1969.
Wcvers. Jolm William. Genesis. $(ptungintl: Vccu:s Tes1amcntum Groe.cum I. G&tmgcn: Vnn-
denhocck & Ruprec.ht. 1974.
Whybra)'. Roger N. l.wialr 40-66. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants. 1975.
- -. T1re Second Isaiah. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1983.
Wilcox. Mnx. ·ThcOidTcstaiU(.nt in Acts 1- IS'. ABR 4 (1956): 1-4 1.
Williams. Charles S. C. .4 Conl/1/t!tiiOIY on the Acts oflite AposllC!s. Harper's New Testament
Commentaries. New York: H:u per & Brothe-rs. 1957.
Williams. Da\'id J. Acts. New Jntc.motional Biblict~ l Commcntnry on the New Test:unent 5.
Peabody. M:J.Ss.: Hendrickson. 1990.
Williams. Ronald J. Hebrew Synta'l(: An Outllnt>. 2ndcdn. Toronto: Uni\'ersity ofToronto Press,
1976.
Williamson. Hugh G. M. Vuri(l(itm.( 011 a Tlunn~: Ki11g. Me.f:>iah and Serwmr in the Book of
Isaiah. The Didsbury lectures 1997. C:arlisle: Paternoste-r. 1998.
Willis. John T. 'Exclus i\~~ic and lnd usivistic AspcciS of the Conce-pt of ..The People ofGod"'
in th-e- Book of lsabh'. Re:;Q 40 ( 1998): 3- 12.
Wilson. Stephe-n G. T1u• Gentile.( tmd lire Gentile ,lo.(is.(ion i11 Lu/i(;'--A~IS. Society for New
Tcsln~m Studies Monograph Series 23. Cambridge: Cambridge Univctsity Press. 1973.
Winter. Bruc< W. and Andrew D. Cla.tc. eds. TJw Book ofActs mluAndem Literary Setting.
Grond Rapids: Eerdm:ms. l 993.
Witherington. Ben. Ill. Tlte Ac·ts of the Aposde:>: A Sodo-Rh(!toricol Commenrary. Grond
R3pids: Eerd mans. 1998.
Wolff. Hans W:aher.Joeltmd Amos. Trnnsl3ted by Waldemar lanb!'n. S. Dean ~·l c Bri de. Jr. and
Charles A. Muenchow. Herme-ncia. Philade-lphia: Fortress. 1977.
Wright. Chri!>topher J. H. Know1ngJe.ms du·o•q:h the Old Testame111. london: Haq1CrCollins.
1992.
- -. 11reMi.(.fiOII ofGod: Unlocking 1he Bible's Grand Narro1i1•e. Downers Grove. Ill.: Inter-
Varsity. 2006.
Young. Edward J. Tl1e Book q{ /:;aiah. 3 vols. ~ew International Commentary on dtc. Old
Tcstame.nt. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1965- 72.
- -. Anlntroduc1ion to lite Old Testamem. Rc.v. e-dn. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. l 9<H.
Zdmlc. Rie.hlltd F. Peter '.f Penr(!('():>t Di..,course: Tradition and IAtkall Reimerpt'i'tation in
Peter ·s Speeclws ofActs 1 and 3. Soc-iety of Biblical Literature-Monogroph Se--ries 15.
Nash\'ille: Abingdon. 197 1.
Ziegler. Joseph. Duod(!cim PropiU!tae. Septuagirua: Ve.tus Tesuuncnnun Gruenun 13. GOt1ingcn:
Vandcnhoed: & Ruprecht. 198-l.
- -. Isaiah. Scptunginta: Vetus Testa.mt.ntum Gmecum 14. GOuingcn: V~ndenhoee-k &
Ruprecht 1983.
INDEX OF REfERENCES
BIDU
Old Tes1ament 124. 142 12.49 101

J'Cr.re refeiY!Jit:es are 26.6-11 11 8 13.2 IJ9
acroniing to 1/1e .liT (f!xcepl 28.4 120 1.3.12 139
where 11011!d) 28. 13 120 13.15 139
28. 14 73n. 125. 19.20 103
Genesis 11 4-20. 20.11 18 n.l l.
3.9 103 124 19. 142.
12.1 1 ~2 31.42 120 144
12.1·2 74 33. 17 6& 20.12-16 140
122· 3 117 35. 11 73 22.27 144
12.3 73n. 125. 35. 12 120 2.3.20 IS n.l l.
114-20. 36.3 1 73 107. 140
114 38.8 124n. 55 32.1 143
12.8 102 48.4 142 32.9-10 135
12.10-20 118 46.18 71n. 112 32.13 120n. 33
15.4 74 ~8. 1 5- 1 6 120 32.23 143
I 5.7 74 48.20 11 7 n.l3 33.1 120
15.13- 14 llSn. 73. 49. 10 73 35.30-3 1 103
142 50.24 120
15.18-21 74 LCI'itiCIIS
17.4-6 n £1:odus 5.11 139
17.4-21 74 1.8 142 10.9 IJ9
17.7-S 72 2. 14 142. 143 12.8 19. 139
17.8 142 2.22 142 11- 18. 90- 1
17.10- 14 78n. 149 2.24 120 19.18 19. 140
11.16 n 3.2 142 23.29 123. 142
17.20 n J.4 103 2422 101
18.18 114--20. 3.5 143 25.44-46 10ln. 42
124 3.6 19. 120. 26.12 12
20.1- 18 liS 140. 142 26A2 120n. 33
21.13 72n. 120 3.7-8 143
21.18 72n. 120 3. 10 14.3 JVumbt·rs
21.42 120 3. 12 63n. 4.3. 6.3 1.39
22.18 10- 11. 20. 128n. 73. 6.27 71
95. 114- 142 11 25-29 99n. 27
20, 124. 3. 15-16 120 11 .29 99. 104.
127- 9. 4.5 120 105
131-6. 142 6. .3 120n. .33 125 104
26.3. 24 120 6.8 120 15.15-16 101
26.4 11+-20. 12. 11 140 24.7 n
JVumhers (cont.) 12.28 72n. 117 16.1 68

24.1 7-19 73 13. 14 I'Jn. 15. 16.28 ll5n. 2
24J S 72n. 120 74. 143 17.1 I 124
31.18 10Jn. 42 16 74
32.11 120 18. 10 99n. 27 1 Chronicle.<
19.20-JJ 99n. 27 6.5 71
Delfli'IY.InOIItJ' 22.9 10 1 6.33 71
1.8 110 7.14 71
4.6-8 78n. 149 lS<mmel 12.13 71
4.34 79 6. 17 67. 68. 17.8-14 74
6.5 19. 140 7 76n. 137 18.21-22 99n. 27
6.10 120 7.9-16 74 20.6 73
6.1J 139 7. 11 69. 124
6.16 IJ9 7. 13 6 1n. 33 E:nr
&.3 139 7. 16 6 1n. 33 9-10 101
9.5 120 8.13-14 70
9.27 120n.33 8. 15 33n. 6 1 J'Vt:hemioil
10.20 139 11 10 1 9.6 18n. 12.
17.14-20 74 11. 11 61! 142
18.15 61n. 32. 12.28 70 9.30 99n. 27
113. 143 22. 12 61! I 3.23-17 101
18.15-16 142 2.1 1-7 74
18.18-19 39 24 10 1 Job
18.19 113. 142 36.29 68
25.5 140 I Kings
28.9- 10 73n. 125 8. 16 71 Psalms
28.10 71 8.41-43 103 2.1-2 142
29.13 120n. 33 8.43 71 2.7 44. 143
30.1- 10 35n. 75 10.9 JJn. 6 1 2.8 74
30.6 7Sn. 149 11 10 1 6.9 140
30.20 120 11.36 71 16.8-11 17. 141
34.4 120 14.2 1 71 16.10 19. 44.
18.36 120 141. 143
Joshua 20. 12 61! 18.11 68
6.25 101 20. 16 61! 21.8 l3
9.27 101n.42 21.22-23 99n. 2i 22.9 36n. 76
24.2, 3 120n. 33 21.19 141
1 King1 21.28 103n. 53.
Judges 1. 10 140 115
11.6 74 1.12 140 25. 13 70
2 1.25 74 2. 15 99n. 21 31.6 141
5.2 l Oin. 42 31.20 68
Rutlt 5. 17 103 42.5 82
1.16 103 13.2.3 120n. 33 50. 1 103
2.11 103 19. 15 18n. 12. 69.26 17. 141
142 71.6 36n. 76
I Samuel 23.27 71 72 74
3.4-S 103 72. 1 33n. 61
8.5. 7 74 I Cluu11irles 12.2 74
9 74 2..34-35 lOin. 42 72.3 74
10.6- 10 99n. 27 15. 1 61! 72.4 74
Index ofReferences 167
12.5 74 35. 144 35.5 33n. 56.

12.7 74 7. 14 51 139
12.8 74 8.22 33n.56 37.16 ISn. 12.
72.11 74 9 28. 39 142
72.12-14 74 9. 1 33n. 56 <W-55 21. 18. 39.
72.!6 74 9. 1-6 41n. 106 40
12.17 74 9.2 33. 42. 40-66 32
76.3 6Sn. 89 108n. 80 4<>.3 107
19.6 103 9.7 33n. 6 1. 74 4<>.3· 5 20 . 27n.
g·; 73,75 II 28.39 15.139
89.3-4 74 11.2 104 40.5 I On. 66.
89.19-37 74 11.3-S 33n. 6 1 41. 107-8
89.:20 19n. 15. 11.6-9 74 4<>.6 107-8
143 ILIO 14. 4<>.7 32n. 44.
9 1.1 1- 12 139 lll n.9S 32n. 45
96.7 115n. 2 12.4 102 40.15-11 73
98.2 4l n. 107 13.4 32 40.28 36n. 82
104.12 140 14.2 103n. 53 4 1.1-4 42n. 116.
105.1 102 14.26 73 43
109.8 77,141 15-16 68 4 1.5 36n. 82
110.1 77, 140. 16.5 33n. 6 1. 41.8 llOn. 33
141 68. 74 4 1.9 36n. 82
I lOA 74 1 9. 1 ~25 lll n.98 4 1.10 25n. 7
11 8..22 140. 142 19.23-25 13. 15 41.15 102
11 &.26 140 19.24-25 12n. 11 7. 42.1 33n. 58.
132.11 19.77. 141 120n. .34 40. 41n.
132.1J- 12 74 19.25 &4 116. 104
1.39.13 36n. 76 22. 15 14 42.1-4 28. 40n.
132.1 7- 18 74 24.4 32 101
146.6 ISn. II, 24. 19-20
,.. ,,
6&n. 87
,_
42.1-9 29- 34.38
19, 142.
144
-'·-'
25.6 36
42A
42.5
33n. 58
31n. 39.
25.6-8 104n. 59. 32.33n. 58
Prol'f!tbJ lll n.9S 42.5-1 28
18.10 102 25.8 36 42.5-9 28. 31n. 38
29.4 33n. 61 25.9 36 42.6 25- 34.38.
25. 10-11 72n. 121 4 ln. 106.
/saialt 26. 19 139 42.75. 108
1.8 67n. 81. 28. 12 35 4 2.6-7 25n. 7
6S.69n. 94 29. 18 33n. 56 . 42.7 34, 42. 43.
2.2 llln.98 139 49
2.2-4 75. 104n. 29.22 120n. 33 4 2.8 41n. 106
59 30.9 35 4 2.10 33. 36n. 82
'-··.' 33 30.26 33 42.12 33n. 58
4.1 71n. 111 32.1 33n. 6 1 42.16 25n. 7. 33.
4.6 68 32. 15 99. 104 42
5.20 33n. 56 3.1 17 108n. 80 42.18 139
5.26 109 33.20 108n. 80 42.18-19 33n. 56
5.30 33n. 56 34 12n. 121 42.19-2 1 28
6.9 20. 140 34.4 141 4222 32n.44
6.9 -10 27n. 15. 35.2 108n. 80 4 3.6 36n. 82
I.Wiiolt (cont.) 50. 10 33n. 56 66.16 100

4.3.7 71 51.2 120n. 33 66.23-24 100
43.8 32n. 44, 51.4 JOn. 32. 33
33n. 56 51.4-6 36. 41r•. Jer~miah
43.8- 12 42n. 116. 106 1.5 34n. 69.
43 51.4-8 28 36n. 76.37
43.10 22n. 27 51.9-16 28 3.1 7 104n. 59
44.1 29 52. 1 108n. 80 4.4 7Sn. 149
44.1-8 43 52.5 35 7.10 71
44.2 34n. 69. 37 52. 10 4 1n. 105 7.11 71. 140
44.3 99. 104 52.13- 53.12 28 7.14 71
44.5 102 53 39 1.11 35
44.8 42n. 116. 53. 1 42n. 116 7.30 71
43 53.3-6 40 9.25 7Sn. 149
44.22 37 53.7-S 27n. 15. 10.25 103
44.24 37 40. 143 12. 15-16 62.63.82-
45.21 63. 82- 3. 53. 11 42n. 116 3
90, 144 53. 12 40. 141 12. 16 91
45.22 33. 104n. 54.8. 35 14.9 71. 73n.
59 55.3 44. 11. 143 125
45.22-23 llln.98 55..3-5 43n. 119. 15. 10 35
453 33n. 56 74 I 5.16 71
46-48 34 55.4 22n. 27 15. 17-18. 35
46.13 41n. l OS 55.5 104n. 59 17.25 74
415 33n. 56 56.7 140 20.7-10 35
48.1 71 56. 10 JJn. 56 20. 14-1& 35
4&.14-16 28 57. 19 li On. 92 22.4 74
48.20 36n. S1 58.6 139 21. 13-17 75
4&.20-2 1 3-ln. 66 58.8 33. 41r•. 22. 15 33n.6 1
49.1 103 106 23.5 .33n. 61. 74
49.1-6 28 58. 10 33 1S.9 30
49.1- 13 34-38 59.9 33 25.29 71
49.2 42n. 116 59. 10 33n. 56 21.6 30
49.4 42 59. 17-19 41n. 106 30.9 74
49.6 10-11. N - 59.2 1 104 30-33 39
38. 40-3. 60. 1 33 31.33 72
-l5. 46. 47. 60. 1-3 41n. 106 31.33-34 99
53- 5. 75. 60.2 33n. 56 32.34 71
77. 79. 60.3 33 33. 15 74
111 .120. 60. 18-21 41n. 106 33. 17 74
126. 13 1- 60. 19-20 33 33.21 74
6. 143 61.1 104. 105 34.15 71
49.7- 13 28 61.1-2 19. 27n. 43. 10 30
49.8 27. -lOn. 15. 39. 139 52.3 35
101. 43 61.1-6 28
49.8-21 34n.66 62. 11 36n. 82 l.amenrati01u
49.9 33n. 56.34 63. 16 120n. 33 2.6 6Sn. 89.82
49.14 34 63. 19 71
50.4-9 28 65. 12 35 E:ekid
50.4- 11 34n. 68 66. 1-2 143 11.19 104
50.6 40 66.4 35 13.3 99n. 27
Index ofReferences 169
33.24 120n. 33 104. 110- 9 75. so.81.

34.23-24 39, 74 13. 13 1-6. 89
34-37 39 141 9.1 65
35- 36 72n. 121 35 102-4. 109 9 .8 65
365 7111. 109 4 10 1 9.9- 10 65
36.N-36 35n. 75 4. 1 99 9.11 67-69.75.
36.26-27 99, 104 4. 1-21 '18 80.82
31 74 u 109 9.11-12 10-11. 25.
37.24-25 39,74 56- 73.79.
38-.29 104 Amm so. 82.93-
1.3-23 65 -4. 131- 6.
[)(miel 1.6 66n. 13. 144
7.13-14 141 10 1n. 42 9.12 69- 73.79.
9 .18- 19 71 I.& 66 84.86.88
1.9 66n. 73.
HOlWl 10 1n. 42 Obadiah
1.10-2.1 65 1.1 1 66n. 13 15 10 2
2.8 65 2.1 66n. 73 11 102
3.5 62. 74. 82- 2.4 65
3 2 .6 65 Jonah
4 .2 64 2.6-7 64 45 68
4 .11 64 2 .7-8 64
4.12- 15 64 2.8 64 MicaII
4 .1 7 65 3.2 65 2.12- 1.3 65
6 .6 64 3. 12 65 4 .1-3 75. 104n.
7.16 65 4. 1 64 59
8.4 65 4.4-5 64 4 .1-5 65
10.5-6 65 -4. I I 65 4.3 109
10 .8 141 5.2 69 1.17 59n. 25
10 .13 64 5.3 65 7.20 120n. 33
11.2 65 5.4-6 65
13.1 65 5.10 64 Halxtkk11k
13.2 65 5. 11 64 1.5 20. 44, 81.
5. 12 64 143
Joel 5. 14-15 65
1.1-20 9Sn. 16 5. 15 66 Zeplltmia!J
2 98 5.2 1-!7 64 2.3 10 2
2.1- 11 98 5.25-27 62. 80. 143 3.9 73.
2.11 102 6.5 J; ll ln.98
2.12- 17 98 6.6 64 Zechariah
2 .18 99 6.9-10 65 1.16 63.81
2.18-27 98 7..3 65 2.14-1 5 (10-11 English}
2.18-32 35n. 75 7.6 65 104n. 59
2.28-32 see Joel 7.8-9 65 2 .15 (II English)
3. 1-SMT 7. 11 69 88. 91.
3 10 7 8.3 66 tOO. I l in.
3.1 99- 102. 8.4-6 64 98
108 8.9 66 1.11 99n. 17
3.1· 5 10- 11. 19. 8.9-10 65 8.20·23 59n. 25.
11n. 27. 8. 13 66 104n. 59
81,95- 8. 14 69 821 ll ln.98
Z«hariah (cont.) 13.20 107 3.12 40. 105

10.9 109 13.21 79n. 151 4 104
1.3.2 99n. 17 14.58 83 4.1 105
13.9 102 15.29 83 4.1 -2 1 19
14.16 104n. 59. 4.4 139
llln.98 Utk~ 4.8 139
14.18- 19 73 1- 2 l ln. 69 4.10- 11 139
1. 1 23. 128 4.12 139
M(llachi 1 . 1 -~ 21. I ll 4.14 105
1.4 &I 1.4 111.111 4.16-2 1 52n. 165
.u ISn. II. 1.1 5 105. 139 4.16-30 39
1<0 1.27 16. 83 4.17- 19 27n. 15.
1.6 1<0 1.30-.H 128.nH 5ln. l58.
1.32 76n. 136 139
Kew Ttslament 1.32-33 16 4.18 105
M(lttlrt·w 1.33 52 4.18-19 39n. 98
1.22-23 ISn. 13 1.35 105 4.43 Sin. 160.
2.2 ISn. 13 1.37 128.n '"' 16
2.17- 18 ISn. 13 1.4 1 105 5.27 50
2.25 ISn. 13 1.55 121. 128 6.1 -11 78n. 148
3.3 107 1.68-75 14n. I. 16. 6.20 16
4.1-J- 16 41n. 106 76. 137 7.9 76
5.14 41n. 106 1.69 76n. I 36. 7.18-23 39
5.17- 18. 78n. 148 83. 128.n 1.20-22 39n. 98
8.11 ISn. 13. 74 7.22 5ln. J58.
40n.IOI 1.70 118 139
9.17 39n. 98 1.71 128 7.27 !Sn. II.
10.5-6 45n. 126 1.13 121. 128.n 51n. l58.
12.17-2 1 ISn. 13 7' 140
12.18-21 40n. 101. 1.79 25n. 10. 8.1 16
~On . 102 40n. 102 &.10 20. 22. 140
12.22-23 39n. 98 2.4 16. 8-3 9.1 49n. l51
13.25 ISn. 13 2. 10-12 40 9.2 16
15.30-31 39n. 98 2.11 16 9.5 45n. 126
2 1.5 ISn. 13 2.23 139 9.6 49n. 151
21.14 39n. 98 2.24 19. 139 9.1 I 76
22.40 l ~n. I 2.25-27 105 9.22 40.5ln.
23.15 120 2.25 354
79n. IS4 160. 52
24.22 107 2.21 40 9.23 50
24.24 79n. 152 2.29-32 47 9.31 52n. 163
25.56 l ~n . I 2.30 41. 108. 9.31 -32 52n. 165
16.61 83 132 9.35 5ln. l58
? ,,
16.63-66 21 -·--'- 40. 41. 53. 9.54 140
27.9- 10 ISn. 13 54. Il l 9.59 50
27.40 83 3 105 9.60 76
28.12-1 5 21 3.4-6 20. 21n. 9.62 16
15. Si n. 10.9 49n. 151 .
Marf 158. 139 76
1.3 101 3.6 JOn. 66. 10. 11 45n. 126.
8-.22-26 39n. 98 41. 107 76
8.31-38- 49 3. 16 105 10. 18-19 49n. 151
Index of References 171
10.25-28 78n. 148 21.27 141 Ads

10.26-27 19, 140 21.3 1 76 1.1 Il l
10.27 140 21. 16 76 1.2 105
I 1.2 76 22.18 76 l.l 23. 76
11 .13 105 22.2~27 50 1.4 109
11 .20 76 22.29-30 76 1.6·8 76
11.21 105 22.31 40. Si n. 1.8 15n. 3.
I 1.37-41 7Sn. 148 160. 141 25n. 10.
12.10 105 22.69 141 43. 45n.
12.12 105 13..30 141 129.49.
12.32 76 23..34 141 51. so. 90.
1235 1<0 23.42 76 105.1 11 .
12.53 140 23.46 141 126
1.3.10-17 7Sn. 148 23.5 1 76 1.9-11 23
13.16 5 l n. 160. 24.7 Si n. 160 1.16 Si n. 160.
121 24.25-27 14n. I. 15. 105
13.19 140 137 1.16-20 77
13.27 140 24.26 Si n. 160 1.20 IS. 141
13.28 121 24.3 1 23 1.21 49
13.28-29 76 14.32 15 2 105. 110.
13.33 5 Jn. 160 24.3 ~52 23 128
13.35 140 24.44 51n. 160. 2.1-4 106. 113
14.1-6 78n. 148 54. 132 2.1-4 1 105
16.22-30 111 24.4449 14n. l.l 5. 2.4 II Jn.97
17.18 76 16. 137 2.13 106
17.25 Si n. 160 24.46 76 2.14 122
18.18-20 7Sn. 148 24.46-47 40n. 102 2.14-2 1 106
18.20 140 24.46-19 I. 22 2.16-2 1 21n. 27.
18.22 50 24.47 25n. 10. 10- 11.19.
UUI-33 l 4n. I. 16. Ill , 136 81. 13 1- 6.
m 2".48 49 I"
18.31· 34 40 24.49 10 5. 109 1.1 7 63. 10 7-8
18.32 53n. 165 2.17-2 1 95- 7. 106-
18.35-43 39n. 98. 76 Jo/111 n
19.9 11 1 1.14 51 2.19 79n. 152
19 .37-34 16 1.45 14n. 1 2 .19· 20 79
19.38 1<0 2.20-21 51 1.21 87. 108- 9.
19.46 140 3.3 108n. 80 136
20.16-1 7 13n. 76 4.48 79n. 152 2.22 52. 79
20 .17 140 5.39 14n. I 2.21· 36 106
20 .28 140 5.46 14n. I 1.25·2 8 14 1
20.37 19. 121. 8. 12 41n. 106 2.25-32 77
140 9 3%. 98- 2.30 77. 141
20 .37-40 113n. 47 9.5 41n. 106 2.30-31 19
10 .41-45 76 12.38.-41 40n. 10 1 2.31 14 1
20 .42-43 140 12.46 4 1n. 106 2.32 15n. 3.49
1 1.6 90 13. 13 9 2.33 109. 113
21.9 51n. 160 13. 14-15 50 2.33-36 105
2 1.:!0·24 14n. I. 16. 17.2 107 234 83
m 20.9 14n. 1 2.34-35 141
21.26 141 2.34-36 77
Acts (cont.) 3.26 40. 42. 6.10 llln.97

2.36 93. 111. 45n. I H . 6.13-14 90
IIJ 46. l B. 6.14 7Sn. 148
2.37-4 1 106 114. 115. 6.39 90
2.38 4-2. 105. 126. 127 1 19
109 3.36 11 1.3 142
2.39 96- 1. 109- 4. 1 Ill 15 142
10 ·U 112 1.6-7 142
2.43 49. 52. 4.4 112 1.1 63n. 43.
79n. 152 4.8 l OS 121. 128n.
2.47 93n. 242 ~. 1 0 42 73. 142
3 112 4. 11 13n. 76. 7.1 7 109. 121
3.1- 10 42, 122 141 7.18 142
3.5 Ill 4. 12 Si n. 160 1.21-28 142
3.7 49 4. 16 111 1.30 142
3.11 112 4. 18. 122 7.31-32 142
.u 1- 16 122 4. 19-20 122 7.32 121
3.13 40, 46. 77. 4.22 111 7.33 143
121. 123. 4.24 18n. ll. 7.34 143
142 142 us 143
3.14 16, 42n. 4.24-30 Ill 1.36 79n. 152
116. 123 ·U5 11 1.37 123. 143
3.15 15n. 3. 113 4.25-26 142 7.40 143
3.16 127 4.21 40. 46. 11. 7.42 62
3.1 7 122. 127 _,
p· 7.42-43 80. 143
3.1 7-2 1 122 4..30 40. 46. 11. 7.49-50 143
3.1 7-26 122 79n. 151. 152 14n. I. 16.
.3.18 14n. I, 16. 125 42n. 116.
122. 123 4.3 1 lOS. 128. 138
3.18-2 1 _,
p· l lln.97. 7.53 92
3.18-26 J4n. I, 138 122 1.55 lOS
3.19 16, 127. 4.32-33 93n. 142 8 24.80
119 4.33 122 8.4 24. 49n.
3.19·20 122 4.36 43 148
3.19·2 1 _,
p · 5. 12 49. 52. &.4-11 23
3.20 113 79n. 152. 8.6 42. 49. 112
3.21 16. 51n. 112 8.7 49
160. 5. 12-16 42. 93n. 8.12 49n. 148.
122.1 27 242 76
3.22 123. 125. 5. 15-16 49 &.1 3 49. 112
1 ~2 5. 18.-19 42 8.15 lOS
3.21-23 112. 125. 5.30 111 8.26 llln.97
127 5.3 1 42 8.26-39 23
3.23 IS. 11, 142 5.32 15n. 3. 49 8.28-33 27n. 15
3.24 J ~n. I, 16. 5.42 9Jn. 242 8-.29 lOS.
.,.
.),_ ;>
123
10- 11. 20.
6.2
6.3
49
l OS 8.32-33
llln.97
143
95, 114- 6.S 49. l OS 8.32-35 40
16. 121. 6.8 49. 79n. 8.39 lOS
112- 9. 152. 112 8.39-40 llln.97
131- 6. 142 6.8-1.60 49n. 148 8AO 49n. 148
9.1 109 11.12 lOS. 1.3.30·.32 44

9.2 109 lll n.97 LU I 15n. 3.49
9.10 llln.97. 11.13 19n. 154 13.31 44. 109
112 11.15 105 1.1.33 143
9.12 4-2. 112 11.17-18 42. 80 IJ ..H-37 44
9.13 109 11.19-20 lll n.97 13.34 143
9.14 109 11.19-26 24 13.34-36 77
9.15 23.25. 46. 11.20 49n. 148. 13.35 143
80 54 13.35-.37 77
9.16 ,_
-, I 1.20-21 25 13.36 13n. 76
9.17 40n. 98. 11.22 8<) 13.38 42. 109
52n. 165. 11.24 25. 105 1.3.38-39 44. 91
105 11.25 78n. 151 1.1.39 44
9.17- 19 41.49 11.26 25 13.40-41 20. 12. 44.
9.20 25n. S 11.27 100n. 31 81. 136.
9 .21 109 11.28 105 143
9.28-29 25n. S 12. 1-19 42 13.41 62
9.31 93n. 242. 13 43-6. 53. 13.42-43 44
105 94. 113. 13.43 25. 135
9.33-35 42 135 13.44 44
9.34-35 49 13-14 80. 134 13.45 25.44
9.36-42 49 13-15 134 13.45-49 46n. 132
9.40-42 42 13. 1 lOOn. 31 13.46 45. 126.
10 105. 110 13.2 24. 43. 46. 134
10.1-11. 18 23 105. I li n. 13.46-47 51n. 165.
10.3 llln.97. 91 Il l
112 13.4 24n. 6. 13.47 10- 11.24-
105 79n. 154 105. I li n. 7.40. 42.
10.9- 16 78n. 148 91 43-55.77.
10.15 7Sn. 150 13.5 25. 43 95. 110.
10.18 79n. 154 13.6 43 121. 13 1-
10.19 105. 111 13.7 43. 78n. 6. 143
10.28 78n. 150 151 13.48 25.46
10.32 79n. 154 13.& 43 13.48-4CJ 46
10.38 51. 105 13.9 24n. 6. 105 13.48-50 86
10.39 15n. 3. 49 13. 12 25. 43 13.50-5 I ,-
_,_
10.41 15n. 3. 49 13.13-14 44 111n.97
10.43 l 4n. I. 16. 13. 14 2; 13.52 105
41. 138 13. 14-15 44 14.1 _,-,
10.44 42.80 13. 16 25. 134 14.1-7 46
10.44-45 105 13. 17 12 1 14.2 25
10.45 111 13.22 19. 12 1. 143 49.52.
10.46 136 143 79n. 152.
10.47 105 13.22-23 77 112
10-11 22. 24. 54. 13.23 44. 109 14.4 48n. 145
78. so. Ill 13.24 25 14.5 _,-,
II 87 13.24-25 44 14.8-10 42.49
11.2- 18 78n. 148 13.26 44 14.8-2 1 46
11.4 21 13.27 14n. I 14.14 4Sn. 145.
11.5 112 13.27-29 16. 138 86
11.9 78n. 150 13.2·7-30 44 14.14-18 16n. 4
Acts (cont.) 15.23-29 liD l05.11ln.

14.15 ISn.ll. 15.25 18n. 151. 97
19. 144 92 19.23-41 136
14.19-20 42 15.28 &0. 92. 105 20.9-12 42,49
14.22 Si n. 160. 15.28-29 90 20.21 42
52. 76 15.29 79 20.22-23 105
14.26 46 15..30-34 liD 20.25 76
14.27 25. .J6. 53. 15..3 1 93 20.28 105
55, 77. so. 15..32 lOOn. 31 21.4 105
134 15..33 93 21.9 112
15 53.55. 77- 16.4-5 93 21.9-10 lOOn. 31
94, 111. 16.6 24n. 6 21.11 53n. 165.
113.134 16.6-7 105. llln. 97
15.1 78. 88. 91- l lln.97 21.21 7Sn. 148
2 16.9 liD 21.21-22 46
15.1-35 21. 23 16.9-10 112 21.25 79.90
15.2 78.91 16.13 46n. 131 21.27-36 46
15.3 25. 134 16. 14 liD 22 46
15.3-4 77. 78. so 16. 18 49 22. 14 42n. 116.
15.4 134 16.20-24 136 121
15.5 78. 91 16.23-10 42 21. 15 15n. 3.
153 78. 92 16.39-40 ll ln.97 42n. 116
15.7- 11 78 17. 1 46n. 131 21. 16 109
15.8 42 17.1-3 I .ln. I. 16. 22. 18 42n. 116
15.9 ss. 94, 135 138 22.21 23. 25n. 7.
15.10 78. S9. 90. 17..3 Si n. 160 42n. 116.
92. 94 17. 10 46n. 131. 109
15.12 25. 49. 52. l lln.97 22.21-22 94. 120
78n. 151. 17. 14 ll ln.97 22.21-24 22
79n. 152. 17. 17 46n. 13 I 23.5 144
93, 112. 17.2.2-31 16n.4 23.6 42
134. 135 17.30 42 23.21 109
15.13 Sl 18.4 46n. 131 24--26 46
15.13-1 8 42 18.5-6 46 24. 14-15 14n. I. 16.
15.14 135 18.6 13n. 76. 49 138
15.15 62 IS.9 Il l 24. 15 42
15.15-1 7 144 18.9-10 25n. 1 24.23 109
I 5.16 S0- 83 18. 10 liD 24.23-25 136
15.J6-18 10- 11.56. 18. 19 46n. 131 24.25 42
61-4. 77- 18.24-28 49n. 148 24.25-26 136
94. 95. IS.28 I.Jn. I. 138 26.6 109
131-6 18.3 1-33 16 26.8 109
I 5.17 58,83- 7. 19.2 lOS 26. 16 15n. 3.
90. 93 19.6 lOOn. 31. 42n. 114
15.18 64. 90, 144 105. 112 16. 16-18 25n. 7
15.19 24n. 2,S9 19.8 46n. 131. 26. 17 42
15.20 79. 90 76 26. 17-18 23. 25n. 7
15.21 91 19.8-9 46 26. 18 42.49
15.22 7Sn. 151. 19. 11 42. 49 26.20 25n. 10
so 19.2 1 24n. 6. 26.22-23 14n. 1. 16.
17.42.138
26.23 42n. 114. 1.29 107 Colrwimas

41n.l06
47. 53. 54.
132
3. 16
3. 16-17
51
8-Jn. 171
1.12
1.27
.,
,_
26.26 121 11.1 50 2.16-1 7 78n. 14S
28.8 49 15.3-1 14n. I
28.23 14n. I . 26. 15.20 125 1 Tfrem1loniam:
77,138 15..39 107 55 4 l n. 106
28.23-31 Ill
28.25 105 ~ Corinthimrs 1 Tfrem1loniam:
28.25-27 12. 27n. 1.20 52 2.9 79n. 152
15. 144 2. 12 1%. 152
28.25-31 46n. 132 4.5 4%. 149 1 Timo!lry
28.18 13n. 76. 4.6 41n. 106 1.1 1 49n. 149
40n. 102. 6.2 40n. 10 1 4.2 49n. 149
46 6. 14 41n. 106
28.31 77 6. 16 52. 83n. Hebrt'll'.<
111 1.1 14n. I
ROIII(InS 2.4 79n. 152
1.2-3 14n. I Galatia11s 13.15-16 83n. 177
1.16 46. 126. 1. 15 34n. 69
135 1. 16 49n. 149 James
1.17 49n. 149 1.17 25n. 8 2.7 86
2.28-29 78n. 149 2. 11 -14 18 5.14 109
.1.20 107 2. 16 107
3.21 14n. I 3.6-9 124n. 51 1 Pe1er
4.9-17 I N n. 57 3. 16 12.3 1.14 107
8.30 109 3.25-29 124n. 57 2.5 83n. 177
9-11 Z2 4.8-11 18n. 148 2.9 41n. 106
9.6 124n. 57 5.3 18 2.21 49
10.12- 15 m 5.22-23 78n. 148 4.17 83n. 177
10.12- 17 112
10.13 104. 109 £pht'JiOIIS 1 Prter
11 .28 136 1. 13 109 2.1 79n. 154
13.8- 10 7Sn. 148 2. 14-16 78n. 149
13.12 41n. 106 2. 17 109 I Jo/111
142-6 78n. 148 2.20 135 2.8 41n.l06
15.19 79n. 152 2.20-ll J!3n. 111
15.21 40n. 101 2.2 1-22 52 Rrrel,ltioll
16.26 14n. I 3.8 49n. 149 3.12 83n. 177
4.32- 5.2 49 11.1-2 83n. 177
1 Corimltians 19.18
1.2 109
5.8
5. 13-14
41n.
41n.
106
106 2 1.2
.,
107-8
,_
1.9 109 6. 1-3 18n. 148 21.3 72
1.17 49n. 149
123 21
OTHER A~OENT SOURCES
Apo<'r ypb• ~Esdras 1 Mouabee.f

Baruch 12.32 H 2.57 75
2.26 7Jn. 115 1.37 71n.l l5
176 Gentile Jliss1on and Old Teswmem Cit01io11s in Acts
Sinri 1&</mosJKWJi r,.slaJWrll of..hlti4A I I. 10--ll o1

+UI Ill 112- l 7S-6
·U.l5 75 2-'A. 6 lS- 6 <QJH (<QC......W.Ai
v. 1-4 75
Tobit O.ad S.a Scrl)ll1
13: 11 82 CD 1(!185 (IQSM)
V II 7S 5. 2 7l
r .umdt llfllr• llh• VII. 12- ll 67
1 Ermclt VII, 14- 17 so -IQ501 (-/QD;bllam'')
48:4 39 VII, 16 57n. ol. 6J 1- 1 1V. 6 15
4F.m
!l.l!. l4 75 1(!161 (<(}piS4'1 Rabbiak Tn1s
Psalms orSoSomo. Ill 11<!5 75 Jrcshai
17.2:1-*' 15 JIL&!r.l.l 71
I(}I U (I(!Fiolj
II SiD, 4, 6J.
6-ln. 54. 7S
I NDEX OF AUTHORS
Aalde--t.!>. G. C. 117n. 15 Cok.A. 83n. 186

Ach!emcic-r. E. 102 Conzcfltl3nn. H. 6
Adnu.J. 57n.9. 60. 64n.S5. 7 1n. ll 7. 8.7n. Crcn$haw.J. L 99. 102
210 Cripps. R. S . 88n. 21 S
Aldrich. W. S3n. 186
Alexander. J. A. SO. Ill Dahl. N. A. 2-3. 6. 13n. 80. 87n. 211. 121n.
Amskr. S.. 20n. 16 39.128
Andersen. F. I. 59n. 23. 65n. 6 1. 69n. 95. 70. Da"ids. P. H. 86n. 203
7ln. 110 Oa"idron. R. M. 51- 3. 132
Oclilz!iJCh. F. 28. 117
Ba.hzcr. K. 30 De \Vaard, J. 5&n. 14. 63
Barret!. C. K. 14n. 5. 45n. l:!iJ. 48. 61 . 6-in. Dibclius. M. 9 1. 12n. 1S
56. 83. 86n. 199.90. 105. 109. 125-6 Dillard. R. B. 98-100
Barth. rvt. 31n.41 Dodd. C. H. 9
Bauckham. R. 60. 82- 3. 85-1. 8.8.n. 2 12. 9 1 l)oc\'C:·. J. w. 60n. 21
Bayer. H. 124n. 55 Donaldson. T. l. 120n. 32
Benson. A. 65n. 64. 69n. 96. 86 Duhm. ll 2 &-9. 31. 34
Bew<:r. J. A. 102. 104 Dunn. J. 0. G. 44n. 12 1. 44n. 124.47
Bock. D. 1.3.5.7.14n. l.l8.2ln.22n.26. Dupont.J. 3-S. 15n. 3. 42n. 114. 43n. 117.
51. 106. J07n. 71. J09n. 84. 123n. 50. 71n. 116. 77n. 146. 79n. 155. 86n. 200.
124n. 56. 131 S7n. 211. SS. lOS. 125n. 65
Boer. H. R. 105
Bolt. P. G. 47. S9n. 220 Eckc:y. w. 126n. 67
Bo\•on. F. 17n.6. 76n. 136.S5n. 191. 90n. Ellis. E. E. 6 1n. 29. 19n. 157
226 Epp. E. J. 44n. 121. 97n. 6
Bow\:er.J. W. 81 Evans. C. A. 88n. 21S.I35n .2
Bralcher. R.G. 17
Braun. M. A. 58-n. 16.84 Fittmycr. J. A. J4n. I, 21, 47, 109n. 86.
Brawky. R. L 13. 122n. .f5. 128n. 74 I l in. 101. 123n. 53, 125n. 65
Bright. 1. 29 Foal:cs Jackson. F. J. 63n. Sl
Bruce. F. F. 12. 61n. 28. 64n. 53, 78. S4n. Franklin. E. -17. 76n. 140
188. 110. ll6n. 8 Frocdman. D. N. 59n. 23. 6 5n. 61. 69n. 95.
Brueggemann. W. 30n. 31. 33n. 55. 120 70. 71n. 1 10
Cadbury. H. I. 12n. 75. 6. 61. 91 G-amtL D. A. 10 1. 103

Calvin. J. 28-n. 20. 34n. 74. 50 . &!!.. &9. 110 Goldingay. J. 29- 33. 119n. 30
Carroll. J. T. 3 Goppdl.L 39n. 94.5ln. l5S.88n. 21S
Chapman. D. W. 9S Green. J. B. IOS-6. !lin. 101
Child$. B. S. 33n. 54 Grdot. P. 47
Cle-ment$. R. E . 66n. 69. 74n. 130 Griinc:be-rg. K. N. I 18- 19
Haenchen. E. 13. 84n. 190 Neusnc:r. J. 60n. 27

Hummcrschuimb. E. 66n. 66. 70n. 100 Niehaus..J. 51. 73n. 124
Hunfohi. W. R. 108n. 80 Noguhki. J. D. 57
Hanson. P. D. 32n. 49 Noonan. B. J. liS
Hasd . G. F. 70 North. C. R. 27n. 13. 29. 35n. 15
Hayward. C. E. Si n. 167
Henderson. E. 97n. 12. 97n. 14 Oriinsky. 1~ . M. 33n. 58. 34n. 62
Hohz. T. 61n.29 O'Took.. R. F. 7. 41n. 106. 42n. 114.50
Hooker. M. D. 39
~l ubbard. D. A. 7 1n. 114. 98.-9 Pao. D. W. 3-4. 24n. 4
Paui. S. 64n.57.66
Jeremias.. J. 91 Plummrr..·\. 4ln. 107
Jcn,d l. J. 2. 5. 13n. 80. 14n. I. 49n. 150. Polhill. J. B. 46n. 131. 85. 126n. 70
88n.2 18.94n.243.123n.51
Johnson. D. E. 15n. 3. 40n. 102. 42n. 116. Ra.abr. P.R. 7ln. 177.72. 101
43n. 118. 95n.2 Rockham. R. B. 46
Johnson. F. l7n. 7 Ravens. D. 11
Johnson. L T. 6. 79n. 154.87- 88.122n. 45. Rc:sc.M. 3.~7.112n. l03
125n. 60 Richard. E. 13. 61n. 32. 63. 80-1
Richardson. H. N. 67n. 82
Kaiser. W.C. 56.8ln. 168. 100--1.110.118 Riddc:rbos. J. 34n. 64. 38
Keil. C. F. 72n. 119. 100 Ric.sncr. R. 79n. 154
Kidner. D. 119 Robms. J. J. ~f. 66n. 70
Kilpauick. G. 0. 63n. 50 Robatr.on. 0 . P. 67n. 75. 69n. 99. 72n. 120.
Kinrl. R. 28 73.87.88n.218
Koolc. J. l. 33. 36n. 79 Robinson. H. W. 27n. 16
KOstcnbcrger. A. J. 37 Roloff. J. SSn. 214
Routtcnbcrg. H. J. 65. 73
L.akr .K. 61.63n.51.91 Rudolph. W. 28
LASor. W. S. 97 Rusan1. D. 40n. 104. 45n. 129. 87. 87n. 205.
Lindars. B. 2ln. 23. 115- 16 n. 210
Lindblom.J. 32n. 44. 32n.52. 37
Litwak. K. D. 3. 7, I 07n. 72. 12ln. 38 S:mdcrs.J. T. 2. 25n. 10. 84n. 188. 108n. 81
Luther. ~i. 67 Sdmabd. E. J. 24n. 2
Schubert. P. 1. 6. 7. 14. 22
Marshall, I. 1~. 48n. 139. 48n. 142. 106-7. Schw:tnz. D. R. 91- 2
126 Sc-hweizer. E. 11n. 75
Mauro. P. SOn. 162 Scccombf:'. D. 8Sn. 218
Meloy. R. T. 59n. 25. 6 Jn. 33. 6Jn. J..l. 62n. Se-nior. D. 15n. 3
39 Siker. J. S. 12 1- 2
Mc:b:g«. B. M. 63n. 47. 63n. 48 Smith. B. K. 6 5
MocssllC'r. D.P. 13. 40n. 99 Smith. G.\'. 69. 73n. 125
Moore.T. S. 39n. 96. 4ln. I09 Snai1h. N. B. 27n. 14. 33. 39-40.
Motyu.J.A. 31n.41. 72n. ll9. 72n. l20 Soards. M. L 109
Munck. J. 13 Squires.. J. T. 2n. 10
Stanley. C. D. 7-9. I 0. 21. 23. 80. 130
Niigc:lc. S. 58n. II, 60, 62n. 42. 67n. 85. Stcyn.G. J. 10. 96-7,11..._15.123,125
7ln. 115. 8J. 90-1 Stotl.J. R. W. 106
/11dex ofAutltors 179
Strauss. ).i. L. JOn. 67, 75, 77, 79. 83n. 181 von Rad. G. 116n. 7. 11 8-, 119
Suuicic-h. J. 95n. 2
Stuart D. L. 103n. 54. 110 WaH. R. 87. 96n . ..J
Stuhlmudlcr, C. 15n.3 Wahk<. B. K. 11 8-
Wchmeie.r. G. 11 7- 19
Talbcn. C. H. 6 Wdlhauscn. J. 65
Tannchiii. R.C. 11 . 2 1n.22. 95n. I. I06 W<:nb:un. G. J. liS
Ta~k(f. R. V. G. 10Sn. 82 W<:~tem1ann. C. 117n.9. 118n. 19
Taylor. J. ln. 10 . 77n. 146 Wh}~r.ty. R.N. J2n. 51. 35n. 7..J
Tic.de. D. L. 41 Wi lliam~on . H. G. )of. 3-0n. 34. 33n. 61
Totre)'. C. C. 8-5 Wilson, S. G. 2. 46n. 130 . 56 n. I. 8-7n. 2 10 .
Toy. C. 11. 107n. 73 126
Turner. M. 77. 123n. 46. 123n. 51 Witherington. B. 47. 90--1. 116
Tyson. J. B. 2 Wolff. H. W. 100-2. 104n. 58
Wright C. J. H. I lin. 100
van den Eyndc. S. 4
van de Sandi. H. 45, 7Sn. 149. 79n. 153. 87. Young. E. J. J l n. 41. 35n. 75
96n. 4. 136n. 4
van Unni.k. W. C. 21n. 19 Zc-hnlc. R. F. liOn. 92
VanGC'mcren. W. 98

(Library of New Testament Studies Volume 385) James A. Meek-The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

(Library of New Testament Studies Volume 385) James A. Meek-The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LI BRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUD IES

Text, Hermeneutic and Purpose

Published by T&T Cl ur~ International

British Library Catalog_ing·in-Publication Data

ISBN-10: HB: 0-567-03380·5

Trpcsct by 1SB T)·pescuing. Sheflidd

The Old Testament in Luke-Acts

3 The Servant and the Nations (Isaiah 49.6 in Acts 13.47) 24

5 The Spirit and All Flesh (loel3. 1-5 MT in Acts 2. 17-21) 95

6 Abraham's OftSpring and tJ1e Families of the Eanh

Appendix I Scripture Summaries in Luke--Acts 137

I .I The Old Testamelll and Gentile A1ission

Schubert notes that in this text.

I. Puul Sdwlx'rt. 'The.Structut( und Sjgnillc-ancc ofl uke24', in Nl!llli'SttliJU'tltlidren Silldienfiir

John T. Carroll has put the c-ase.even more strongly.

For CaJToll. the Christologic.al usc of .scripture in Acts 'stands in service of an

Their strong emphasis on Christological uses ofscripntrn1citations tends to overshadow

I .2 The Use ofthe Old Testament in Luke-Acts

fi·om the text? Is tlw hermeneutic controlled by assumptions thai imerpreters

25. Dupon1. ·Apologetic'. 139.

32. Schub.:-n. 'Situcntrc and Significance'. 176. cf. 178.

1.3 The Rhetorical Ure of Old Testament Quotations

examine the-background or original contexts of biblical quotations.5t Fewe1·still

1.4 Goals, Methodology and Assumplions

NT Ref~l<'lla Reyerence Jo Gemiles or Citalion

Each o f these is plainly marked as an explicit cita1ion by the use of an intro-

2.l Scrip/uri! Summaries

summaries in Acts appear in speeches toOl' description.sofencounters with Jews,

of the apostolic proclamation. Acts 26.22-23 indicates that Christ would. by

2.2 Old Testament Cilations

rept·ese.n1 a middle-of-the-road appronch (i.e. mot·e citations 1han some studies.

Whether or not we restric.t our analysis to citations with introductory formulas.

"the decision to introduc.e a direct quotation into a piece of discourse is a rhetori-

17. Stank y. "Rheloric'.57.

was an obstacle to Je.ws. as well as an emba1·rassme-nt to Gentiles.u Half of the

T HE SERVANT ANU THE NATIONS (ISAIAH 49.6 IN ACTS 13.47)

I. LukcTilllO(hy Johnson. The Arrsoftlre Aposdes(SP5:Colk gevilk . Minn.: Liturgical Press..

I.Wiiolt 49.6 MT lroialr 49.6 u :r .4cts !J.Ji

/soia/r-1~.6 u;x Acb·IJ../1

3.2 Isaiah 49.6

3.2.1 The Sen'alll Songs

.~~1' His Your l'a/rwdr 's Total

3.2.2 /saialr 42.6

'People' (Cii) in the expression ·a covenant to the people' is often understood

covenant is fulfilled. Goldingay understands the expression as a metonomy com-

3.2.3 Isaiah 49.6

10. Riddtrbos-. Jsoialr. 434-35: Young, l5aiah. 3.268.

Grnmmatically. the interpretation of lsa. 49.6 begins w ith v. 5. where the

89. Ridckrbos. b·aia/1. 437.

3.3 71" Expected SeJva/11

92. Hookcr.Jt>sus and thf" St>n-tlllt. 53.

3.4 Acts 13.47

This approach offers a theological explanation for the application of an appar-

There is a way in which to understand the applie3tion of lsa. 49.6 to both

152. C:tJ,•in. Acu 14-18. 391.

Bock understands typology to refer to ·a J>.1ttern within events that is to culminate

156. Bocl:. Prodam(lfion. 274.

Davidson's appropriated or ecclesiological typology offers a model for under-

THE K INGDOM AND T HE GENTILES (A~IOS 9. 11-12 IN ACTS 15.16-18)

Amru9.ll-I!JtT Amos 9.1/- J1 L..\.1' .4crs /5.16-l8(N.4-' 1)

4.4.1 Amos 9. 11-12

understood as a representative of them all.26

26 . Kaiser. 'Oavidic. Promise'. 103.