Part 1 of this series
I’ve already typed several of the articles that will be part of my series critiquing the book “In the Days of Those Kings”, by Bob Pulliam. But I decided to lead off with this one because there have been so many occasions where people have, in my presence, used the exact logic Pulliam uses on the first passage I’ll discuss in this post, and I’ve been saving my breath all this time because simply directing them to this post would treat them to a much more comprehensive response (not to mention, one that won’t be perceived as an interruption!).
So anyway, Pulliam makes a couple of interesting claims about three passages in Acts:
When Peter tells us that Joel 2 was fulfilled (Acts 2:14ff), we shouldn’t look for a further development 2,000 years later. When James tells us that the tabernacle of David has been rebuilt (Acts 15:13-21), we don’t second guess the way God did it, and wait for Him to add what we believe is lacking. Turning fulfilled prophecy into partially fulfilled prophecy is an interpreter’s way of “proving” his doctrine.
…When we turn to the New Testament, we find Jews gathered “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5), and the days “announced” by the prophets had come (Acts 3:24). What days had been announced? The days when the “sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers” would be fulfilled (Acts 3:25). The last promise of the Abrahamic covenant is applied to the first century (“in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed”). Peter tells the multitude, “for you first” these things had been done (Acts 3:26; cf. Mt 15:22-24). A “first” implies something later, and the Gentiles are what God had planned for after the “first” (Acts 13:46).
{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 36, 73. Italics in original.}
Did Peter say Joel 2 was fulfilled on Pentecost of A.D. 30? Did James say the tabernacle of David had been rebuilt by the time of Acts 15? Did Peter say in Acts 3:24 that the covenant God made with the Genesis patriarchs was fulfilled in the first century?
As you probably guessed, the proper first step in assessing these claims is to read the Acts passages in their original contexts. And doing so reveals something interesting:
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?… we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.”
But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this [nominative singular neuter form of οὗτος, G3778] is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says,
‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND [literally, “ALL FLESH];
AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY,
AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS,
AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN,
I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
And they shall prophesy.
‘AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE
AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW,
BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.
‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS
AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD,
BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’ (Acts 2:1-8,11c-21 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)
The lines in all-capital letters in this passage are quoting Joel 2:28-32a. Despite the fact that the actual word “fulfilled” (or grammatical variants thereof) is nowhere to be seen, Pulliam is clearly interpreting the boldfaced sentence (verse 16) as saying that the underlined statements before this verse are the events that fulfilled Joel’s prophecy. Indeed, this is a linchpin of his argument that the blood, fire, smoke, and darkened sun & moon associated with the Day of the Lord & Jesus’ parousia were never meant to be fulfilled literally {see his remarks on pages 34 & 205}. But while the people on the day of Pentecost were certainly speaking in tongues (which isn’t mentioned at all in Joel’s prophecy) and arguably “prophesying” in the process, where do we see them having visions or dreams here? And by what stretch of the imagination would the 120 people in the upper room (Acts 2:1, cf. 1:15) on whom the Holy Spirit was poured out before Peter’s sermon (2:33)–at a time when estimates for the global human population are in the range of 172-305 million {scroll to p. 168 in the PDF and see the row for “30”}–constitute “all flesh”? These are big discrepancies.
Why did I mention the parsing for the Greek word rendered “this”? You’ll probably figure it out as you read the context of the passage Pulliam brought up from Peter’s second sermon:
“And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence [literally, “the face”; πρόσωπον, G4383] of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until [achri] the period [literally, “times”; the word is plural] of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. Moses said, ‘THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you. And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ [Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19] And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these [accusative plural feminine form of οὗτος] days. It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.’ [Genesis 22:18, 26:4, 28:14] For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one [literally, “turning each”; ἕκαστος, G1538] of you from your wicked ways.” (Acts 3:17-26 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)
So in this passage, Pulliam is interpreting the phrase “these days” in the boldfaced sentence (verse 24) as referring to the time when the prophecies from Genesis mentioned after it were to be fulfilled, rather than the “times of refreshing” and “times of restoration of all things” mentioned before it.
This Is The Key — Literally, “This”
Did you catch that? Pulliam switched from interpreting οὗτος as referring to what’s mentioned before it to interpreting it as referring to what’s mentioned after it!
Pulliam himself talked in Lesson 12 as if this was a huge no-no! “If an inspired man said ‘this is that,’ meaning that something his hearers were witnessing was spoken by a prophet, we must respect that inspired declaration.” {p. 127} He explains in the footnote indicated at the end of that sentence that “Peter said ‘this is that’ regarding the events of Pentecost being a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32.” {Ibid. Fn 3.} Yet here he is, starting at the bottom of the very same page, making this switch without a second thought:
Let’s begin with the great hope held out for all families of the earth: “And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Gen 12:3) This is part of the covenant God made with Abraham. The Dispensationalist tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant must be fulfilled in an earthly, Millennial kingdom. Peter tells us that this is not true. He told his first century hearers that “all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days” (Acts 3:24). The days being announced was the fulfillment of “the covenant God made with your fathers,” including the blessing promise (v25). For all of the emphasis the Dispensationalist puts on the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, you would think this text would settle the issue. Peter clearly announced the fulfillment in his own day. Jesus fulfilled the blessing promise as the great Messianic King. {Ibid. p. 127-128. Italics in original, boldface mine.}
But despite this hypocrisy, Pulliam has actually stumbled onto something here. In fact, this is the key to explaining these passages in a manner that coheres with the rest of Scripture! You see, in ancient Greek, the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος, just like its English counterpart “this”, could be used either way! For instance, the singular form could be rendered “this”, referring to something mentioned previously, or “here”, referring to something about to be mentioned. Most of the time, the context makes it pretty obvious which way the term was intended (e.g., compare the English phrase “This is crazy” in response to some wild occurrence at a party, versus “This is (or “Here’s”) what you need to understand” before explaining something). But these are two of the trickier instances. (See how what “these” refers to is obvious in that sentence?)
So what happens if we flip around which way we take οὗτος as being used in these two passages?
Suddenly, “this” in Acts 2:16 (“but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel”) is merely referring to the prophecy of Joel that’s quoted immediately after this verse — as distinguished from the events of Pentecost, which is reinforced by οὗτος being used alongside the word “but” and the clear reference to the events of Pentecost in verse 33c as “this” with the additional qualifier “which you both see and hear” (1995 NASB, underlining added). Indeed, the LGV makes this more explicit by rendering verse 16 as “But here is what has been declared through the prophet, Joel:” {Boldface mine. Scroll to p. 5 in the PDF}.
On the other hand, “these days” in Acts 3:24 (“And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days”) is referring neither to the time in which Peter was giving this sermon, nor to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, but to the “times of refreshing” and “times of restoration of all things” — which are still future (per the use of the word achri, referring to the time intervening until something happens) from when “heaven must receive” Jesus (and as far as I’m aware, all Christians agree that Jesus is in heaven right now), and during which “every soul that does not heed [Jesus] shall be utterly destroyed from among the people”.
Linking οὗτος to what comes before it in Acts 2, but to what comes after it in Acts 3, makes these passages consistent with Pulliam’s position that Joel’s prophecy and the Abrahamic Covenant have already been fulfilled. Linking οὗτος to what comes after it in Acts 2, but to what comes before it in Acts 3, makes these passages consistent with my position that Joel’s prophecy and the Abrahamic Covenant are not yet fulfilled. Contrary to Pulliam’s claims, these texts on their own don’t settle the issue, and Peter didn’t clearly announce their fulfillment in his own day; Pulliam’s claims about both passages are equivocal. Therefore, additional information is needed to determine which way Peter intended the term on each occasion.
The Logical Next Step That Amillennialists Don’t Take
Now, what additional information was available to the original hearers (and thus, that they would’ve understood Peter’s statements in light of) that would enable us to settle this question? You guessed it: Biblical precedent. Bear in mind that both of these sermons were given to Jews. This means that whenever Peter quoted phrases from OT prophecies, his hearers would’ve internally recalled the fuller contexts of those prophecies (just as they were used to doing whenever rabbis in general quoted distinctive phrases from OT passages); hence, they would’ve understood Peter’s use of these passages in light of their original OT contexts. As noted earlier, Peter cut off his quotation of Joel 2 partway through verse 32 of that passage. In the Masoretic Text, the solitary Hebrew letter ס appears at the end of Joel 2:27, and the next time this happens is at the end of 3:8; hence, Joel 2:28-3:8 is all one continuous minor train of thought. So let’s look at that whole train of thought:
“It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind [literally, “all flesh”];
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
“Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
“I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth,
Blood, fire and columns of smoke.
“The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood
Before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.
“And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Will be delivered;
{Now comes the part that Peter left out, but that his Jewish listeners would’ve recalled in their heads:}
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
There will be those who escape,
As the Lord has said,
Even among the survivors whom the Lord calls.
“For behold, in those days and at that time,
When I restore the fortunes [literally, “the captivity”] of Judah and Jerusalem,
I will gather all the nations
And bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat [literally, “the vale of YHWH’s judgment”].
Then I will enter [Myself] into judgment with them there
On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel,
Whom they have scattered among the nations;
And they have divided up My land.
“They have also cast lots for My people,
Traded a boy [literally, “And then they gave the boy”] for a harlot
And sold a girl [literally, “And they sold the girl”] for wine that they may drink [literally, “wine, and then they drank”].
Moreover, what are you to Me, O Tyre, Sidon and all the regions of Philistia? Are you rendering Me a recompense? But if you do recompense Me, swiftly and speedily I will return your recompense on your head. Since you have taken My silver and My gold, brought My precious treasures to your temples, and sold the sons of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks [literally, “to sons of the Javanim”; i.e., to people of Greek descent] in order to remove them far from [literally, “from upon”] their territory, behold, I am going to arouse them [literally, “behold My rousing them”] from the place where you have sold them, and return [literally, “and then I will bring back”] your recompense on your head. Also [literally, “And then”] I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the sons of Judah, and [literally, “and then”] they will sell them to the Sabeans [a nation on the Arabian Peninsula; see Gesenius’ entry for the Hebrew word for further explanation], to a distant nation,” for the Lord has spoken. (1995 NASB, boldface added)
As if I even need to point it out, there are MAJOR PROBLEMS with the idea that this passage was fulfilled at Pentecost of A.D. 30! For starters, neither Judah in general nor Jerusalem in particular was in captivity “among the nations” on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 30 (and that the Hebrew word’s literal sense of “captivity” was intended, rather than its figurative sense of “fortune”, is clear from the fact that the Greek word in the LXX of this passage — which was translated at least 2 centuries before Peter’s statements and is therefore free of any Christian eschatological biases, whether premillennial, amillennial, preterist, etc. — always means “captivity”, but never “fortune”!). So how can they be restored from a captivity spent “scattered among the nations”, “in those days and at that time” when the prophecy would be fulfilled, if the time in question was Pentecost of A.D. 30?!
This is an especially good question in light of how often Pulliam uses the time when a prophecy was given as an excuse to bend the genre and/or language of the prophecy to his preconceived notions. For instance, he claimed at that Wednesday night Bible study I attended that Ezekiel 37:11-14 refers merely to the return from the Babylonian exile, based merely on the fact that there were living Jews captive in Babylon when Ezekiel saw the vision in verses 1-10 (his full argument was substantially the same as the one that Church of Christ minister — and amillennialist — Norm Fields presented on page 8 of this PDF; Tim Warner refutes Fields’ points on pages 12-14 of this PDF). Pulliam seems to think that this one fact is important enough to warrant abandoning the commonsense communication rule that you must explain what a metaphor or allegory means in literal terms; otherwise, you’ll just confuse your audience even further. Even Pulliam himself admits this when interpreting Revelation 17:18 as referring to the city of Rome: “This statement is an explanation of symbolism already revealed. An explanation of symbolism always requires a use of the non-symbolic. To use more symbolism would explain nothing at all. When we make mysteries out of explanations, we deny that an explanation has been given.” {“In the Days of Those Kings”. 235.} Yet Pulliam’s claim that the terms “open(ed) your graves” and bringing “up out of your graves” in Ezekiel 37:12-13 referred to God bringing them back from the Babylonian exile amounts to claiming that God explained the metaphor/allegory of verses 1-10 by giving another metaphor/allegory! I mention in my upcoming book that I went to great lengths to ensure that I never contradicted myself within its pages {HIDMF p. ###, Footnote ####}. Evidently, Pulliam didn’t do the same with his!
Also notice that, despite the geographic spread of the nations mentioned in Acts 2:9-11 (from which Jews had traveled to Jerusalem in order to observe the Mosaic holiday of Pentecost) — as shown in the map at the start of this blog post — the area covered by “Tyre, Sidon and all the regions of Philistia” isn’t covered — as you can see in the map on this webpage — and none of these regions are mentioned anywhere else in Peter’s sermon. Far from being a poster child for the idea that the Apostles took Old Testament prophecy mystically {scroll to definition 1a} instead of at face value, Joel 2:28-3:8 exposes the fact that Pulliam’s hermeneutic must utterly ignore whole swaths of pertinent information to have a semblance of feasibility!
On the other hand, it’s clear once you look at this map that the Jezreel Valley (which is right next to Megiddo, making it a viable candidate for the valley where armies will gather for the Battle of Armageddon, a battle that I peg as occurring on the Day of the Lord) is a prime candidate for “the vale of YHWH’s judgment”. This is especially true once you realize that 7.3 billion people can fit, with 10 people per square meter on average, in the land covered by New York City alone, which is only about 3 times the size of Jezreel Valley. Of course, it’s clear from reading the book of Revelation (in a straightforward manner) that the world population is going to decline dramatically during the apocalypse, so it’s quite feasible that all of the wicked still alive by the end of it could fit in that land. However, I suspect there will be plenty of wicked people around the world who don’t go up with the armies; note that Joel 3:2 says that the vale of YHWH’s judgment is where God will enter into controversy {scroll to the section on the Niphal form under the word’s Brown-Driver-Briggs entry} with the nations – this valley is where the judgment will start, but it will certainly move elsewhere (e.g., Zephaniah 2:4 {click on “Using the map” under “Read Zephaniah 2:4-7.”}; it’s significant that the cities being judged in this verse are in the present-day Gaza Strip, which is – as of this writing – inhabited by Palestinians, not Israelites).
Clearly, this passage is referring to events that a straightforward interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (which Peter had been present to hear, meaning Peter himself would’ve linked Joel 2:31 with Matthew 24:29) places at the end of the apocalypse and during its aftermath (except for Joel 3:4-6, which is referring to what Tyre, Sidon, & Philistia had done to Israel by Joel’s day, and 3:7-8, which had already been fulfilled some centuries before Peter’s sermon {Scroll to the last paragraph under “Joel 3:2”}; also, the human trafficking mentioned in verse 3 obviously starts well before the end of the apocalypse). Peter was simply saying that the miracles his audience was observing on the day of Pentecost in A.D. 30 was a microcosm of what would be the norm once the entirety of Joel’s prophecy has been fulfilled. Similarly, Peter was saying in Acts 3 that at that same time (when Jesus’ Kingdom has arrived and so everyone in all nations must answer to him), everyone who refuses to acknowledge Jesus’ authority will die then and there (because they’re guilty of treason against the King of Kings and Lord of Lords). Bear in mind that the people hearing Peter’s second sermon had also been present at Pentecost to hear his first one (after all, every devout Israelite man was obligated to be present at Pentecost!): they already knew Peter’s former pronouncements about the Christ’s kingdom going into this speech, so they would’ve understood Peter’s statements here in light of his statements there.
A Quick Exercise
So the next time someone tries to tell you the Apostles interpreted Old Testament prophecies allegorically when the original OT context of one would suggest it was meant literally, you can prompt them to think about it by asking them: “Can you give me an unambiguous/unequivocal example?” If they cite Peter’s use of Joel 2:28-32a, you can tell them what I just explained about the word for “this”, and conclude the explanation with: “So that’s an ambiguous/equivocal example. Can you give me an unambiguous/unequivocal example?” It’s my contention that they’ll never be able to.
(But if they can come up with one that stumps you, feel free to tell me about it in the comments; I understand the psychological pain that can come with obsessing over that stuff, so I’ll get back to you about it ASAP!)
Claims About James’ Quotation In Acts 15
Oh, and Acts 15:13-21? Ironically, Pulliam’s own argument concerning it tacitly admits that it isn’t airtight:
In addition, we need to consider the application of Amos 9:11 by James when he said, “And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘After these things I will return, And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, And I will rebuild its ruins, And I will restore it, In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name’” (Acts 15:15-17). At the time that Amos prophesied, David’s house was “fallen down” due to destruction and captivity. God told Israel, I have not forgotten about David’s house. It is a fallen tent now, but I am going to “restore it.” Putting the Messiah on David’s throne is how God would rebuild the tabernacle of David. The Dispensationalist agrees that Amos 9:11 refers to the Davidic covenant of II Samuel 7. What he fails to admit is that James declares this prophecy of David’s throne fulfilled. James quoted Amos 9:11 for a reason, and we need to determine that reason. In context, it was all about God doing what he said He would do. James did not make His point with a prophecy God had not yet fulfilled, or had even partially fulfilled. This important point depended on fulfilled prophecy, and James used it to great effect. {“In the Days of Those Kings”. 86. Italics in original. Underlining and boldface mine.}
For starters, Amos prophesied nearly two centuries before the Babylonian exile (Amos 1:1, which mentions that he prophesied when Uzziah/Azariah was king of Judah and Jeroboam II was king of Ephraim; see 2 Kings 14:23, 15:1,13), not during it; this point about the historical context means all the phrases underlined in that last quote are false. Not the most crucial detail to this discussion, but it certainly reinforces my point that Pulliam is rather cavalier about the context of Old Testament prophecy (so we should think twice before accepting his claims about what the context is in the first place); indeed, you’re about to see that he was equally careless with the textual context of the prophecy of Amos that James was quoting, and even the New Testament context in which James quoted it!
Also notice that James actually said “with this the words of the Prophets agree”, not “have been fulfilled”. The verb isn’t πληρόω (G4137; the usual Greek word for “fulfill”), but συμφωνέω (G4856; meaning “sound together”, i.e. harmonize, be in accord; the English word “symphony” is derived from this word). James’ choice of words notwithstanding, Pulliam brings up the Amos passage on two more occasions further into his book:
…Peter wasn’t alone in the early use of prophecies about the Davidic throne. James quoted from Amos 9:11-12, stating that the events of that time fulfilled God’s promise to “rebuild the tabernacle of David… that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.” (Acts 15:15-17) The “tabernacle of David” is agreed by all to refer to the “house of David” and had specific application to the Messiah taking His place on the throne of David. Peter and James say, “Prophecy fulfilled!”
…Many passages are used as “proof texts” of a future Millennium. Do they really prove what the Dispensationalist claims? We will use some of the more commonly used passages to briefly discuss prophetic fulfillment in Scripture. Several common passages will be omitted since they have already been (or will be) dealt with in this book (i.e. Isa 2:1-5; Jer 31:1-40; Amos 9:11-15; Zech 9:10).
{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 128, 158. Italics in original. Underlining added.}
The discerning reader will notice that the underlined claims in these two quotations entirely hinge on the boldfaced statements from the quotation preceding them! So if Pulliam’s interpretation on p. 86 is refuted, then so are all his other claims about Amos 9:11-12… er, 15?
The Context of Amos 9:11-12
Did you notice that the last time Pulliam cited Amos 9, he claimed that he’d already dealt with verses 11-15 — despite the fact that he only ever quotes verses 11-12 in his book? Once we look at all 5 of these verses together, it becomes obvious why he never quotes verses 13-15:
In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when the harvest shall overtake the vintage, and the grapes shall ripen at seedtime; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall be planted. And I will turn the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities, and shall inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and shall drink the wine from them; and they shall form gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them on their land, and they shall no more be plucked up from the land which I have given them, saith the Lord God Almighty. (BLXX, emphases added; since James’ quotation of verse 12a (“That the residue of men might seek after the Lord”) substantially agrees with the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text, which instead reads: “That they may possess the remnant of Edom” (1995 NASB) the Septuagint version of this passage should be regarded as preserving the original, divinely-inspired reading)
Again, Israel wasn’t in captivity at the time of the Jerusalem council; moreover, the Israelites weren’t rebuilding ruined cities (in accordance with verse 14) in Apostolic times. But even more importantly, verse 15 foretold of a time when “my people Israel” would be planted “on their land, and they shall no more be plucked up from the land which I have given them” — something that has never been fulfilled to this day (after all, the modern nation of Israel doesn’t possess all of the land that ancient Israel did; and the current political situation in the Middle East doesn’t allow us to confidently say they’ll never be “plucked up from the land” they do have again by the time of Jesus’ return)! Pulliam can’t explain away this passage by claiming that the “captivity of my people Israel” that God would turn back to the land was the Babylonian exile, since the Israelites were “plucked up from the land” after that by the Romans!
No wonder Pulliam tried to sneak in verses 13-15 as being fulfilled by the time of the Jerusalem council along with verses 11-12! It utterly disproves his claim that the Bible never promised a restoration for the nation of Israel after Jerusalem’s second destruction in A.D. 70 — a claim he had the audacity to make to my face! It’s clear that making this claim requires him to ignore or allegorize away the greater contexts of the very OT prophecies he relies on when making his case. If you ask me, Pulliam’s citation of verses “11-15” instead of “11-12” on p. 158 was either the most unfortunate coincidental typo I’ve ever encountered, or a deliberate attempt on Pulliam’s part to get his readers to skip past the facts that undermine his view!
But the question remains: why did James quote this prophecy at the Jerusalem council? Look back at the boldfaced statements in my quotations from p. 86 of “In the Days of Those Kings”; these statements suggest that the thrust of Pulliam’s argument is as follows: “Sure, James didn’t explicitly say that this prophecy was fulfilled by the time he quoted it here; but can you think of a better reason why James would’ve quoted this prophecy when he did?”
As a matter of fact, I can.
Why James Quoted Amos 9:11-12 LXX At The Jerusalem Council
This is where Pulliam completely overlooked the greater context of James’ quotation. I explain in Chapter 6 of my upcoming book that the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 settled, once and for all, the question of which Mosaic Laws carry over into the New Covenant (verses 19-20, 23-29). This question had been prompted by early Judaizers who were claiming that Gentile converts to Christianity should obey the Mosaic Law (verses 1-6); it was during the time that Paul and Barnabas disputed with these Judaizers (mentioned in verse 2) that Paul must’ve written his epistle to the Galatians, since it deals extensively with the topics of Jews & Gentiles in relation to the Mosaic & New Covenants, yet never once appeals to the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 — undoubtedly because that council hadn’t happened yet. Peter said at this council that one thing he’d learned from his bringing the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10 was that God “made no distinction between us [Jews] and them [Gentiles], cleansing their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:9c 1995 NASB) Also, you may have noticed that when Pulliam quoted verse 15a (“With this the words of the Prophets agree”), he failed to consider what “this” (the dative singular neuter form of οὗτος) referred to! The verses on either side of the quotation from Amos make it clear that οὗτος here refers to what was mentioned before:
Simeon [a variant of “Simon”; i.e., Peter] did declare how at first God did look after to take out of the nations a people for His name, and to this agree the words of the prophets, as it hath been written: After these things I will turn back, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, that is fallen down, and its ruins I will build again, and will set it upright — that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the nations, upon whom My name hath been called, saith the Lord, who is doing all these things.
Known from the ages to God are all His works; wherefore I judge: not to trouble those who from the nations do turn back to God,” (Acts 15:14-19 YLT, boldface and underlining added)
The word for “nations” here is rendered “Gentiles” in most other translations. All of this makes it clear that the real reason James quoted this prophecy at the Jerusalem council was to make the point that Jews and Gentiles had both been prophesied to participate in the Messiah’s Kingdom. As far as faith is concerned, God doesn’t make any distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. Therefore, James concluded, we in the church shouldn’t make any such distinctions either.
Nothing in the text of Acts 15 indicates whether the prophecy James quoted was fulfilled by the time he said it, or if its fulfillment was still future from the Jerusalem council. This question about the timing of the fulfillment can only be determined in light of other passages. And in any case, the immediate context of the prophecy James quoted indicates that there would come a time when faithful Israelites would be in their land, never again to be driven out of it — a time that didn’t come in the first century A.D. (indeed, exactly the opposite occurred then!), and still can’t be conclusively said to have arrived yet.
Conclusion
The interpretation of these passages that I’ve laid out in this post is perfectly consistent with the rest of the Bible, including OT prophecies when interpreted according to the grammatical-historical method (i.e., words are meant literally unless the genre or context demands otherwise). The only remotely good reason for assuming that prophecies as a genre are to be taken symbolically by default (rather than letting the context inform us on that point) was refuted in Tim Warner’s response to something that Norm Fields said in the course of their 2008 debate:
Fields: “What my opponent fails to acknowledge in his noble statement of harmony between Old and New Testament Scripture is that Old Testament Scripture must be understood in light of its New Testament usage.”
If I have failed to acknowledge this, let me do so now. Old Testament prophecy must be understood in the manner in which the New Testament writers interpreted it. However, what you will see from Bro. Fields is not clear examples where New Testament writers interpreted such prophecies allegorically (thereby diminishing their literal sense, which is essential to amillennial eschatology). On the contrary, New Testament writers understood Old Testament prophecy literally. What you will actually see is Bro. Fields imposing his own presuppositions on the Apostles, as he has already demonstrated in referencing Peter’s words in Acts 2:29-30.
Fields: “Premillennialism seeks to interpret New Testament Scripture so as to make it comply with Old Testament context. This is reverse to the manner in which proper interpretation is to occur. The Old is subservient to the New, not vice versa.”
What Bro. Fields actually means is you should violate the context and language of the Old Testament prophecies, under the supposed precedent of the Apostles’ doing so. But, the Apostles absolutely respected the contexts and language of Old Testament prophecy. They did not play fast and loose with Old Testament prophecy, as do amillennialists. Bro. Fields has indeed put his finger on the crux of this entire debate. But, he has not shown why his method is right. {Scroll to p. 7-8 of the PDF. Boldface in original. Italics mine.}
Neither has Pulliam. And as far as I can tell, Pulliam’s mindset (at least as it pertains to the passages in Acts I’ve investigated here) was excellently summarized by Warner’s latter remark: Pulliam feels free to “violate the context and language of the Old Testament prophecies, under the supposed precedent of the Apostles’ doing so” — a precedent that, on closer inspection, doesn’t even exist.