The Church Is Not Israel

The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was a watershed event for God’s fledgling church. Thousands had come to faith in Christ, but they were primarily Jewish people who lived within the borders of the Promised Land. Now, however, after his first formal missionary journey into Gentile territory, the rabbi called Saul, or Paul, along with Barnabas, reported that more Gentiles were coming to faith in the Jewish Messiah.

Consequently, the church at Jerusalem debated how, if at all, these Gentiles should be included in the church. Some of the Pharisees who believed in Jesus claimed the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be included (Acts 15:5). This attitude may have reflected the hesitancy of Jewish believers to reach out to Gentiles at this early point in the life of the church.

After Paul’s report to the Council, James, Jesus’ brother, delivered the conclusion. He minimized what was required of Gentiles (they were not to be simply proselytes to Judaism) and quoted from the prophet Amos to make his point:¹

Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:

“After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up; so that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the LORD who does all these things” (Acts 15:13–17; cf. Amos 9:11–12).

Unfortunately, some interpret this quotation as suggesting that “the tabernacle of David” is the church. Furthermore, some even conclude from these verses that the church is the “new Israel.” Several problems torpedo this approach:

First, this view wrenches Amos’s words out of context. Though the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament can show additional application of passages to new situations, it cannot remove or revoke any promises God already has made. Otherwise, the original promise would be in error.

Second, it nullifies the passage’s national promises for Israel. Did God mean what He said when He promised that the Jewish nation would be reunited permanently (cf. vv. 14–15)?

Third, it tends to remove the passage’s promises of land for Israel. Did not God mean what He said when He promised that the Jewish nation would be in the land, never to be removed from it ever again (cf. v. 15)?

Fourth, it erroneously focuses on a 1st-century fulfillment of the Amos 9 prophecy when the entire passage points to the end-times. To refer to the “tabernacle of David” as the church and/or the “new Israel” is fraught with all types of possible misinterpretations.

A better, more biblically consistent understanding is to see James’s use of Amos 9:11–12 as bolstering the simple notion that no one should be surprised at Gentile inclusion. After all, God promised in the Old Testament in many places, including Amos 9, that non-Jews would be part of His coming Kingdom. Hence, “if Gentile salvation is to be understood as normative within the messianic kingdom, it should not be very surprising to anyone if Gentile salvation were to occur somewhat earlier.”²

Thus, the truth of Amos 9 can be seen in the 1st century without abandoning the precious promises God made about the future of national Israel and without wrenching the text out of context.

ENDNOTES

1. 1. Luke, the author of Acts, quoted from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew text.
   2. Steven Ger, Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series, The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2004), 212.