Ref: Heiser's Bible Podcast on Acts 15 (transcript PDF)
Bible translations into English vary some, but we recognize in the Old Testament the term "Chosen" referring to the Nation of Israel. There is no useful distinction between "Chosen" and "Elect". Yet, the term in the OT does not appear to point to the same thing in the NT. Heiser notes this often.
But I believe he misses the point. The name "Israel" itself does not refer strictly to Israel the People but Israel the Message (as I've said before). The Chosen were meant to personify God's revelation. The first batch failed. God sent His Son to correct that error and become His living revelation of truth. Jesus is the message. He is the Chosen of God, the personification of Election.
In that sense, He is the New Israel, just as any king of a nation might be called by the nation's name as a title. For example, wherever King David went, he was the pinnacle representative of Israel. Jesus is our king; He is Christianity. Whatever He decides and whatever He says is the word of the Kingdom. We are the New Israel because we are under His reign.
In Hebrew, this is not just vernacular usage. The whole orientation of the language is on the reality of the persons involved. It's not merely that Jesus is called "the Word of God"; He is the Word in the sense of His role.
Thus, the biblical concept of Election is a matter of who plays the role of the messenger of the Message. Who reveals the Word on God's behalf? That's the Elect, the Chosen. In the OT, it didn't actually apply to every human born of Jacob's DNA. It was never the circumcision of the flesh, but of the heart. The label applied to them in some titular fashion, but what God was keeping His eye on anyone who had Jacob's heart.
Thus, the difference between OT Chosen and NT Elect is only apparent if you misread the Hebrew text. That was the problem at the Jerusalem Council. In Acts 15, Peter says that circumcision of the heart among Gentiles meets the standard for calling them "Chosen" -- fit as citizens of Jesus' Kingdom (salvation). James, as the Moses of the Jerusalem church, rises to support this contention against the Pharisees among the church members.
Heiser makes much of how James quotes the Prophet Amos (ch. 9). It's not an exact quote from any text we have today. It's rather close to the Septuagint, which in turn is distinctly different from the Masoretic Text. Did James change the quote, or did Luke record it with some small error? We can't know, but we suspect James was doing something common among the Apostles, a form of referencing the Old Testament in a way that is not precisely a quote, but pulls in a meaning that God intended, a meaning that was not always obvious to the Hebrew people.
Recall that Jesus had to explain how it was necessary for Him to suffer according to the Scriptures, but that this concept was intentionally masked. God didn't want the rebel alliance in His courts to be aware of His full intention in sending His Son until the Son declared it. Otherwise, the crucifixion so necessary to address the Three Rebellions would not have happened. So, we find Jesus spending some of His forty days after the Resurrection explaining the obscure references in the Old Testament to His suffering. The disciples really needed a better lore to replace what they had.
The Apostles took this as a cue and applied the same kind of thinking to the whole of the OT in order to clarify God's priorities (Paul's "rightly dividing the Word"). In the case of this reference to Amos 9, we see the promise that God will restore the "tent/booth" (household) of David. It's the whole image of dynasty and the cause for which he was the chief shepherd of the Chosen. Jesus as Messiah fulfilled that.
It would appear that Amos refers to a restoration of the full Twelve Tribes. The Masoretic Text refers to reasserting authority over Edom and any other previously conquered territory ("all the nations who are called by my name" refers to nations claimed in conquest on His behalf). The issue here is not the nations that David or any of his descendants conquered politically, but the nations Jesus would "conquer" with the gospel message. That's what James is seeing here.
It so happens that the Septuagint says pretty much what James says in that the nations would seek the Lord. It reverses who seeks and who is being sought. Further, the name of Edom is changed to "mankind". It's a plausible mistranslation given a Hebrew text with no vowel points, because the Hebrew consonants for "Edom" and "mankind" (adam) are the same, and you would have to know by context which vowels go with it. But as noted already, you can get to the same place with either the Septuagint or Masoretic text if you pay attention to the extended concept of who is doing the conquering -- Jesus. It won't matter if it's "Edom" as a symbol or "mankind" directly.
The Lord had promised from the beginning that His Chosen should be a witness to all nations, and that the Gentiles would someday join the Covenant. You'll notice in Acts 15 that this recognition struck the Pharisees in the audience. They went along with it.
Finally, we come to the text of what James proposes to be the rules applied to Gentile Christians. I've often said it was abstracted from the Seven Noachide Laws, but I've always been guarded about it. We cannot be sure the Talmud records them accurately, but we do have one clear indicator: In Leviticus 17-18 we have a recurring phrase referring to the non-citizens living among the Israelis ("aliens/foreigners"). Regarding those alien residents in the nation, the same prohibitions are listed in the same order as they are in Acts 15.
Leviticus 17:8-9 -- offerings to any other god
Leviticus 17:10-16 -- blood must be drained from animals
Leviticus 18 -- sexual impurity
One small point: James refers to animals that have been strangled. So far as we know, this is a figure of speech covering animals that were not properly slaughtered so that they bleed out a much as possible. Thus, we have the reference in Leviticus 17 to animals that died of some other cause that could include strangulation.
What we are getting at here is James does not make these a law for Gentile Christians, so much as a means to keeping peace between Gentiles and Jews when they are in the same congregation. You'll notice Paul doesn't make so much of the business of food in some contexts where Jews have no significant presence, especially in markets where meat not offered to idols would be hard to find. Only the business of sexual purity applies universally. Again, we see how the primary reference is not in the words of the text itself, but God's priorities as clarified by the Holy Spirit through the text.
Bible translations into English vary some, but we recognize in the Old Testament the term "Chosen" referring to the Nation of Israel. There is no useful distinction between "Chosen" and "Elect". Yet, the term in the OT does not appear to point to the same thing in the NT. Heiser notes this often.
But I believe he misses the point. The name "Israel" itself does not refer strictly to Israel the People but Israel the Message (as I've said before). The Chosen were meant to personify God's revelation. The first batch failed. God sent His Son to correct that error and become His living revelation of truth. Jesus is the message. He is the Chosen of God, the personification of Election.
In that sense, He is the New Israel, just as any king of a nation might be called by the nation's name as a title. For example, wherever King David went, he was the pinnacle representative of Israel. Jesus is our king; He is Christianity. Whatever He decides and whatever He says is the word of the Kingdom. We are the New Israel because we are under His reign.
In Hebrew, this is not just vernacular usage. The whole orientation of the language is on the reality of the persons involved. It's not merely that Jesus is called "the Word of God"; He is the Word in the sense of His role.
Thus, the biblical concept of Election is a matter of who plays the role of the messenger of the Message. Who reveals the Word on God's behalf? That's the Elect, the Chosen. In the OT, it didn't actually apply to every human born of Jacob's DNA. It was never the circumcision of the flesh, but of the heart. The label applied to them in some titular fashion, but what God was keeping His eye on anyone who had Jacob's heart.
Thus, the difference between OT Chosen and NT Elect is only apparent if you misread the Hebrew text. That was the problem at the Jerusalem Council. In Acts 15, Peter says that circumcision of the heart among Gentiles meets the standard for calling them "Chosen" -- fit as citizens of Jesus' Kingdom (salvation). James, as the Moses of the Jerusalem church, rises to support this contention against the Pharisees among the church members.
Heiser makes much of how James quotes the Prophet Amos (ch. 9). It's not an exact quote from any text we have today. It's rather close to the Septuagint, which in turn is distinctly different from the Masoretic Text. Did James change the quote, or did Luke record it with some small error? We can't know, but we suspect James was doing something common among the Apostles, a form of referencing the Old Testament in a way that is not precisely a quote, but pulls in a meaning that God intended, a meaning that was not always obvious to the Hebrew people.
Recall that Jesus had to explain how it was necessary for Him to suffer according to the Scriptures, but that this concept was intentionally masked. God didn't want the rebel alliance in His courts to be aware of His full intention in sending His Son until the Son declared it. Otherwise, the crucifixion so necessary to address the Three Rebellions would not have happened. So, we find Jesus spending some of His forty days after the Resurrection explaining the obscure references in the Old Testament to His suffering. The disciples really needed a better lore to replace what they had.
The Apostles took this as a cue and applied the same kind of thinking to the whole of the OT in order to clarify God's priorities (Paul's "rightly dividing the Word"). In the case of this reference to Amos 9, we see the promise that God will restore the "tent/booth" (household) of David. It's the whole image of dynasty and the cause for which he was the chief shepherd of the Chosen. Jesus as Messiah fulfilled that.
It would appear that Amos refers to a restoration of the full Twelve Tribes. The Masoretic Text refers to reasserting authority over Edom and any other previously conquered territory ("all the nations who are called by my name" refers to nations claimed in conquest on His behalf). The issue here is not the nations that David or any of his descendants conquered politically, but the nations Jesus would "conquer" with the gospel message. That's what James is seeing here.
It so happens that the Septuagint says pretty much what James says in that the nations would seek the Lord. It reverses who seeks and who is being sought. Further, the name of Edom is changed to "mankind". It's a plausible mistranslation given a Hebrew text with no vowel points, because the Hebrew consonants for "Edom" and "mankind" (adam) are the same, and you would have to know by context which vowels go with it. But as noted already, you can get to the same place with either the Septuagint or Masoretic text if you pay attention to the extended concept of who is doing the conquering -- Jesus. It won't matter if it's "Edom" as a symbol or "mankind" directly.
The Lord had promised from the beginning that His Chosen should be a witness to all nations, and that the Gentiles would someday join the Covenant. You'll notice in Acts 15 that this recognition struck the Pharisees in the audience. They went along with it.
Finally, we come to the text of what James proposes to be the rules applied to Gentile Christians. I've often said it was abstracted from the Seven Noachide Laws, but I've always been guarded about it. We cannot be sure the Talmud records them accurately, but we do have one clear indicator: In Leviticus 17-18 we have a recurring phrase referring to the non-citizens living among the Israelis ("aliens/foreigners"). Regarding those alien residents in the nation, the same prohibitions are listed in the same order as they are in Acts 15.
Leviticus 17:8-9 -- offerings to any other god
Leviticus 17:10-16 -- blood must be drained from animals
Leviticus 18 -- sexual impurity
One small point: James refers to animals that have been strangled. So far as we know, this is a figure of speech covering animals that were not properly slaughtered so that they bleed out a much as possible. Thus, we have the reference in Leviticus 17 to animals that died of some other cause that could include strangulation.
What we are getting at here is James does not make these a law for Gentile Christians, so much as a means to keeping peace between Gentiles and Jews when they are in the same congregation. You'll notice Paul doesn't make so much of the business of food in some contexts where Jews have no significant presence, especially in markets where meat not offered to idols would be hard to find. Only the business of sexual purity applies universally. Again, we see how the primary reference is not in the words of the text itself, but God's priorities as clarified by the Holy Spirit through the text.
