Rebuilding the Fallen Tent of David: Re-Evaluating a Pentecostal Interpretation from an Australian Context

Abstract

“After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up” (Acts 15:16 NRSV). This verse, quoting Amos 9:11, is part of James’ speech to the Jerusalem “council” considering the issue of Gentile believers and their relationship to the Law. In some Pentecostal circles, especially those influenced by the “Latter Rain” revival of 1948, this verse has taken on a different force based on the Greek skēnē, literally a tent or traditionally “tabernacle.” This teaching is based on the “tabernacle of David” as described in 1 Chron. 16:1–6 and other places and likely the venue in which some of the original psalms were performed. Their argument is that this is part of a model for experiencing the dynamic presence of God in worship and the restoration of the NT church. It forms a theological basis or rationale for contemporary praise and worship with the use of musical instruments, lifted hands, dance, clapping, etc., following the Psalms. However, this interpretation of “David’s fallen tent” seems to fail interpretive tests such as context, authorial intention and audience understanding. This article discusses the interpretive challenges raised by Acts 15:16, how skilled interpreters have understood the “tent of David,” and some weaknesses in these readings. The argument of “Latter Rain” authors on the “Tabernacle of David” is explained and evaluated in the light of some other contemporary research and hermeneutical principles associated with typology. The Latter Rain position is found to have considerable strengths but overreaches in some key points especially by making structure too central.

1. Introduction

Why do Pentecostals lift their hands in worship? Why do they sometimes “dance” or sing in tongues? Why are the singing segments in Pentecostal churches more drawn out compared to other Protestant churches? What is the theological rationale for this?

Consider this verse: “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up” (Acts 15:16 NRSV).

In a Pentecostal stream I was associated with for many years, that verse was central to what was being taught and practised in church. Moreover, the interpretation which was derived from that and related Bible passages has arguably influenced the liturgy of most of the Pentecostal and charismatic churches in Australia and beyond, and many non-charismatic churches too, often without them being aware of the source of what they were doing (Hutchinson 2010, pp. 279–82; Faupel 2010, pp. 260–61; Ruth and Hong 2021, pp. 23–24; Ruth 2023, pp. 24–25; Ottaway 2023, pp. 5–8).1

Modern Pentecostalism began at the beginning of the twentieth century with a series of revivals around the world, most prominently the Azusa St revival in Los Angeles (1906–1909). The movements that came from such events were known for their emphasis on an experience called “baptism in the Holy Spirit” with the “Bible sign” of speaking in tongues (K. J. Archer 2001, pp. 46–52; Oliverio 2012, pp. 31–82), their practice of healing and spiritual gifts, their uniquely unstructured liturgy (Dove 2009), their heightened expectation of revival and the second coming, and the way they read and interpreted the Bible, especially the Book of Acts. As Kenneth Archer states, “the book of Acts became the controlling theological document through which the rest of the Bible was read, because Acts was thought to be the definitive account of Apostolic Christianity” (K. J. Archer 2001, p. 67).2 They revived the practice of deriving doctrine and mandated spiritual practices from narratives in Scripture, for which they were roundly condemned, especially by evangelicals (Yong 2005, pp. 84–86; Keener 2016, pp. 22, 166–67).

After a few years, the Pentecostal movements (especially the Assemblies of God) quietened down, constructed creeds, buildings, bureaucracies and publishing houses, and became denominations, even allying themselves with the broader evangelical stream (Blumhofer 1993, pp. 149–202). But in 1948 a new Pentecostal revival in Canada challenged the Pentecostals to return to their roots and embrace the “Latter Rain” of the Spirit before Jesus comes again (Blumhofer 1993, pp. 203–10; Truscott 1969, pp. 348–53; Isgrigg 2019, pp. 439–57; K. J. Archer 2004a, pp. 45–49, 57–59; Knowles 2014, pp. 77–79). “Latter Rain” was a central theme of the earliest Pentecostals with roots in 19th century revivalist groups (K. J. Archer 2004b, pp. 100–10). But this new “Latter Rain” movement emphasized spiritual gifts, including personal prophecy, restored apostleship, laying on of hands to impart the Holy Spirit, “singing in the Spirit,” baptism in Jesus’ name only and an expectation of a great “end time” glorious church, contrasted with the dispensationalism that had crept into the existing Pentecostal churches (Blumhofer 1993, pp. 206–9; Holdcroft 1980, pp. 49–53).3 It was controversial; they called for radically independent local churches and rejection of denominationalism, and the American “classical” Pentecostals resisted it, especially the apostles and the call for re-baptism (Blumhofer 1993, pp. 210–11; Hutchinson 2010, pp. 265–67; Faupel 2010, pp. 239–63; Riss 1987; Cartledge 2000, pp. 48–54; Knowles 2014, p. 94).

Latter Rain groups were often blighted by authoritarian leadership and sectarian perspectives (Blumhofer 1993, pp. 206–8). But a more moderate form took on in New Zealand, where it was gradually accepted by the classical Pentecostals, leading to a more united Pentecostal movement (Knowles 2014, pp. 77–79, 94–95, 101, 117–26, 143–45). From there it was “exported” to Australia in the 1970s (Hutchinson 2010, pp. 267–79).4 A key influence from New Zealand took the form of music and worship. It started with “Scripture in Song” led by David and Dale Garratt who were part of the New Zealand Latter Rain stream (Knowles 2001, pp. 640–42). They and others promoted lifting up of hands, dancing in praise, use of instruments like guitars and drums, and other forms of praise (Truscott 1969, pp. 236–58). In particular, people started singing very simple choruses based on the King James Version of the Bible, a trend that may have started in North American Latter Rain groups and was embraced by the emerging charismatic renewal (Ruth and Hong 2021, pp. 47–48, 67). Certainly, similar developments were happening in the USA (Perez 2021). In this article, however, I am mainly focusing not so much on the origins of these trends but on their Scriptural basis.

2. The Tabernacle of David

The Scriptural basis for these praise expressions was largely found in the Psalms, especially Psalm 22:3, which in the KJV reads, “Thou art holy, O Thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.” The revelation of God “inhabiting” the praises of His people as a key to entering into God’s presence seems to have begun with American Reg Layzell in 1946 (Faupel 2010, p. 257; Perez 2021, pp. vii, 321; Murchison 1981, pp. 84–85; Ruth and Hong 2021, pp. 24–28; Ruth 2023, pp. 21–23).5 Other psalms and Heb 13:15 were also appealed to (Ruth and Hong 2021, pp. 26–28, 51–52, 72).

But a strong foundation was their reading of the “Tabernacle of David” (Acts 15:16 KJV).6 Latter Rain teachers pointed out that what was restored in this verse was not the throne, dynasty or kingdom of David but his tabernacle or tent (Greek skēnē). In this tent, David instituted the kind of liturgy that was expressed in Psalms using musical instruments and choirs, often including loud praise and bodily movements.

Using a kind of typology, the Latter Rain teachers believed that Acts 15:16 prophesied, or at least validated, a restoration of this Davidic order in the “end time” church. The church was seen as the restored Tabernacle of David into which a spiritual “ark of the covenant” would be brought, leading to enhanced experience of God’s presence (Faupel 2010, pp. 255–57; Truscott 1969, pp. 60–64, 71–73, 80–82; Murchison 1981, pp. 76–80; Ruth and Hong 2021, pp. 67–83; Conner 1986, p. 253). Dick Iverson, a prominent American speaker associated with the (moderate) Latter Rain stream, said, “God has in a measure reserved the understanding of the Tabernacle for the Church of the last days…. the Church that will be instrumental in dealing with Satan and his kingdom” (Iverson 1975, p. 73). This implied that such innovative practices as dancing “before the Lord” in praise were part of God’s will for the church’s worship, especially for Pentecostal or charismatic “Spirit-filled” congregations and would help lead to a greater worldwide restoration and revival movement. For example, Graham Truscott, then a missionary in India, wrote in 1969,

… there will be a complete Restoration of the Tabernacle of David as a dwelling place for God’s Presence…. This glorious Restoration is speaking of the great world-wide move of the Spirit at the end of the Gospel Age, just before the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Truscott 1969, p. 6)

Let’s dig deeper into the hermeneutical assumptions they were making. First, they were driven by the common Pentecostal conviction of “restorationism,” the idea (not exclusive to Pentecostals) that God is gradually restoring his church to its original pristine condition, perhaps even better, after the decline into Roman Catholicism in the Middle Ages (Iverson 1975, pp. 13–43; K. J. Archer 2004b, pp. 110–14; Blumhofer 1993, pp. 4–5, 12–15; Ruth and Hong 2021, pp. 29–30, 71; Conner 1998). As Martin Mittelstadt claims, “These Pentecostals exhibit an insatiable desire for primitivist or restoration impulses marked by a return to New Testament Christianity, specifically as recorded in Acts.” (Mittelstadt 2013, p. 26). This was stated explicitly in the magazine of the Azusa St revival in 1906 (Oliverio 2012, pp. 31, 60). Key New Testament passages appealed to were Acts 3:19–21; Eph 4:11–13; and Eph 5:25–27 (Truscott 1969, pp. 8–10; Hutchinson 2010, p. 266; Faupel 2010, p. 246; K. J. Archer 2001, p. 68; Oliverio 2012, pp. 19–26). In the Latter Rain version, this restoration would include restoring apostles and prophets, leading to a kind of “theocratic chain of command” (Faupel 2010, p. 259). This evolved into a much more sectarian view that only a select few would participate in the final restoration (Faupel 2010, pp. 254–55).7 So the language of Acts 15:16 (especially the note of rebuilding) resonated strongly with them.

Second, they embraced a Christian church fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy.8 This is what distinguished most Pentecostals from dispensationalist Fundamentalism with its emphasis on literal Jewish-centred interpretation of the Old Testament prophetic literature (Truscott 1969, pp. 14–19; Ellington 2019, p. 225; Conner 1986, pp. 1–6).

Third, the Latter Rain teachers especially strongly embraced typology (Faupel 2010, p. 258; Hutchinson 2010, pp. 266, 272; Ruth and Hong 2021, pp. 49–50, 67–68). They saw New Testament church fulfilments of various “types” in the Old Testament. They studied this in terms of Old Testament personages (especially David), sacrifices (especially the Levitical order), calendar (especially the “feasts of Israel”), patterns and places. Truscott’s Power of His Presence and Conner’s Tabernacle of David are both full of spiritual and typological interpretations of Old Testament realities associated with the ark of the covenant and the tabernacles. Anne Murchison (1981, pp. 28–46) taught on the tabernacle of Moses as a type of how we enter God’s presence, as did Judson Cornwall who was not associated with the Latter Rain (Ruth and Hong 2021, pp. 83–89). Kevin Conner saw parallels with God’s design for the church in the details of its worship and structure (Conner 1976, 1988). The restoration of the temple in the days after the Babylonian captivity was also appealed to for precedents and principles that might be applicable today (appealing especially to Hagg 2; Nehemiah; and Zech 4).

3. Rise and Decline of the Tabernacle of David

Many strong churches in Australia embraced these teachings during the expansive days when Australian Pentecostalism boomed (1975–2000 roughly). The most clear-cut examples were Waverley Christian Fellowship (now CityLife Church), of which Conner became the senior minister, and Life Ministry Centre, founded by Hal Oxley, both in Melbourne. But the influence of Latter Rain ideas was much wider and deeper. However, few of these churches still hold onto the detailed teachings of the Latter Rain. Some Latter Rain streams declined into cultish expressions. Some gradually disappeared. Others slowly discarded the typology and the emphasis on the Tabernacle of David.

More sophisticated Pentecostal hermeneutical approaches also emerged, especially as Pentecostal scholarship started to grow (Wadholm and Williams 2021, pp. 121–23). Two particular trends can be identified especially in the USA (K. J. Archer 2004b, p. 5): the so-called “Springfield” school (named after the headquarters of the US Assemblies of God) and the “Cleveland” school (named after the centre of the Church of God). These are rather generalized categories that few Pentecostal scholars would accept completely (Oliverio 2020, pp. 42–44) and Oliverio has his own way of classifying Pentecostal hermeneutical approaches (Oliverio 2012).

The “Springfield” theologians follow a more or less standard conservative evangelical way of interpreting the Bible with a focus on authorial intention, literary context and historical background. The “Cleveland” school was more open to the leading of the Spirit and the consensus of the community as important factors in good interpretation, ironically perhaps using Acts 15 as a case study in relation to women’s ministry (Thomas 1994, pp. 41–50, 54–56). Kenneth Archer, for example, identifies a “‘threefold framework’ of the Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture and a holy community of faith” that “has become the primary rubric for discussing a critical and constructive Pentecostal hermeneutic” (K. J. Archer 2015, p. 328; see also K. J. Archer 2004b, p. 5; K. J. Archer 2017; Ellington 2019, pp. 215–27; Nel 2017, p. 94) and argues that “the Pentecostal community needs to retrieve the praxis-driven spiritual ethos of the early Pentecostal movement” and develop “an approach to scriptural interpretation that is anchored in Pentecostal identity and informed by contemporary concerns” (K. J. Archer 2004b, p. 2). But neither school has embraced the Latter Rain emphases.

4. Exegeting the Tabernacle of David

So how should we assess the “Tabernacle of David?” First of all, let’s be clear that these Latter Rain teachers at their best were not claiming that Acts 15:16 is just about praise and worship. They saw this as one application among others of this passage which was mainly about the New Testament church and its experience of God’s presence as God’s temple as seen in Eph 2:2–22 and 1 Cor 3:16 (Truscott 1969; Iverson 1975).

But their interpretation of Acts 15:16 seems to fail some key tests of exegetical validity:

• The test of context. Acts 15 is about the challenge to the acceptance of Gentile converts as full Christians apart from their adherence to the law of Moses, and especially circumcision. Both Acts and Galatians especially show what a major issue this was for the early church and its gospel. Teaching about the praise of David’s order or the experience of God’s presence in the church does not seem to be the focus.
• The test of authorial intention.9 James is clearly using Amos 9 to argue that the ingathering of Gentiles was God’s plan and purpose and hence the Gentile converts should not face large obstacles to their entrance into the Christian community (Glenny 2012, p. 10). And Luke seems to be telling his readers this in order to validate Paul’s Gentile mission and the “soft” boundaries proposed by James and accepted by the Jerusalem “council.”
• The test of original audience understanding. Neither James’ hearers nor Luke’s readers and hearers would have gone away wondering about how to praise God or experience a renewed “ark of the covenant” in the new order.

So how do exegetically skilled commentators understand this verse?

There are several interpretive issues that all commentators face:

• James’ use of (and alteration to the Hebrew text of) the prophecy in Amos 9:11–12, largely following the LXX (Tanner 2012, pp. 66–74; Glenny 2012, pp. 4–10; Nogalski 2015, pp. 312–13; Bauckham 1996, pp. 155–67), including its original context, the interpretation James puts on it, and other passages that he probably alludes to. James does not follow the LXX exactly and probably alludes to other Old Testament prophetic literature (Glenny 2012, pp. 11–14). He also changes “in that day” (Amos 9:11) to “after this” (Acts 15:16), possibly under the influence of Zech 8:3,22, Jer 12:15 and Hos 3:5. Discussing this, Charles Haddon Savelle, seemingly driven by dispensationalism, argues that James is looking at an eschatological scenario (Savelle 2021, pp. 67–70).
• The meaning of David’s fallen “tent” or “hut” in James’ speech. Glenny (2012, pp. 16–18) surveys five views based on Strauss’s Davidic Messiah (Comp. Savelle 2021, p. 66).
• The background in David’s kingdom as told in the Old Testament historical books.
• The argument related to Gentiles specifically and how it relates to James’ proposal about the issue before the “council.”

Many interpreters take the language of David’s “tent” or “hut” to refer to the “house” or dynasty of David, which in Amos’s day was in a sorry state in the period leading to the Assyrian invasion of Israel (Strauss 1995, pp. 187, 190–92). For example, W. Edward Glenny claims, “There are several views concerning the referent of the ‘booth of David,’ but the simplest and most likely is that it refers to the fallen and weakened Davidic dynasty and kingdom.” (Glenny 2012, p. 3). C.H. Savelle supports this on the basis of it fitting James’s argument, the “house imagery of 2 Sam 7” and “the Lukan connection of Jesus with David” (Savelle 2021, p. 66). David Peterson agrees that the focus is on “the revival of the Davidic kingdom” and suggests that the LXX of Amos 9:11 has skēnē (tent) instead of oikos (house) “because the Hebrew sukka means ‘tabernacle, tent, hut,’ conveying the sense of shelter rather than permanent abode” (Peterson 2009, p. 431). J. Paul Tanner argues that “the fallen booth of David…. is a metaphorical way (ironical) of referring to ‘the house of David,’ i.e., the Davidic dynasty of kings” in its “dilapidated state,” (Tanner 2012, p. 67) to be raised up beginning “with the resurrection and ascension of Christ” leading to the entry of Gentiles called by God’s name (Tanner 2012, pp. 84–85). Darrell Bock also argues that “the passage declares the rebuilding of the dynasty of David, fulfilled here in Jesus’s messianic arrival, along with the current inclusion of Gentiles” and “The reconstructed booth of David, for James, portrays the place of the rule and the benefits that come through the Messiah, Jesus” (Bock 2007, p. 504).

A similar view sees the rebuilding of the “tent of David” as referring to the “story of Jesus” or “the whole plan of God accomplished through Jesus’ resurrection and the establishment of the church.” (Strauss 1995, pp. 188–89; Saucy 1993, pp. 78–79). Craig Keener suggests, “The ‘tent’ (skēnē) of David referred to his household, from which a ruler would arise (Isa 16:5 LXX),” though he allows for the possibility of an allusion to the destroyed temple (Keener 2014, p. 2256).10 Keener then argues, “The turning of Gentiles comes after the raising of David’s house” which “implies the restoration of Israel”; however, “Luke expects this restoration after the infusing or grafting in of many Gentiles” and James may have quoted Amos because he was the only prophet to anticipate Gentiles being welcomed into Israel as Gentiles (Keener 2014, pp. 2257–58).

However, Mark Strauss argues that “the majority of commentators” see the “rebuilt hut of David” as referring to “the restoration of the true Israel incorporating Gentiles,” in other words “the church as a whole” (Strauss 1995, p. 188). For instance, F.F. Bruce interprets Amos as saying “that the fallen fortunes of the royal house of David will be restored” but argues that James “finds the fulfilment of…. (the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David) in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, the Son of David, and the reconstitution of His disciples as the new Israel” including “believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews in the Church” (Bruce 1987, p. 310). Hence the tabernacle of David is identified as “the Church of the Messiah” which “would gain possession of all the nations which are called by the name [of the God of Israel]” (Bruce 1987, p. 310, quoting from C.C. Torrey). Simon Kistemaker also argues “The phrase the tent of David is a prophetic reference to the temple of the lord to which all the nations go to worship God” and Amos links the word tent to David because “David is a witness to the peoples on this earth.” Hence “this messianic prophecy of Amos has been fulfilled with the entrance of Gentiles into the church.” (Kistemaker 1990, p. 554). I. Howard Marshall argues that this is “a reference to the raising up of the church as the new place of divine worship which replaced the temple.” (Marshall 1980, p. 252). Richard Bauckham argues that the form of text used by Acts 15:16 implies that the Jewish Christian exegete wanted to make it clear that “the reference is to the restoration of a building,” (Bauckham 1996, p. 157) probably “the Temple of the messianic age,” since it was to be built by God or the messiah (Bauckham 1996, p. 158), but understood it “not as a literal building, but as the eschatological people of God, composed of both Jews and Gentiles” (Bauckham 1996, p. 164). Hence he concludes,

The modified and conflated text expresses the close connection between these two themes: In the messianic age, when Davidic rule is restored to Israel, God will build the eschatological Temple, as the place of his presence on earth, so that… all the Gentile nations may seek his presence there, as he has purposed and predicted throughout history.

(Bauckham 1996, p. 165)

Some argue for a more Jewish interpretation of the “tent” as the restoration of Israel, seen as referring just to believing Jews. (Strauss 1995, pp. 187–90).

However, there are some problems with all these interpretations of the “tent of David.”

First, there is insufficient attention to the choice of the word “tent” (skēnē). Glenny comments,

In the LXX, this term (436x) describes a tent or hut, the tabernacle, or the feast of tabernacles. In Amos 5:26 LXX, it describes the portable sanctuary or tabernacle of Moloch, and in 9:11 it seems to be used metaphorically, as in the MT, to refer to the dynasty and kingdom of David.

(Glenny 2012, p. 6)

The commentators referred to above, including Glenny, largely fail to explain why Amos (or James or Luke) would choose a term that is never used elsewhere to refer to David’s dynasty, kingdom or throne.

Second, David is seen principally as king or messiah without any attention to his role as what De Vries calls “cult founder,” referring to his establishment of a new order of worship additional to that established by Moses (De Vries 1988, pp. 619–39).11

5. Revisiting the Tabernacle Narrative

So, let’s revisit the biblical basis given by Latter Rain authors for their interpretation of the “tent of David.” It begins especially with the narrative of 1–2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 1–2 Chronicles. 1 Samuel 4 tells the tragic story of Israel’s defeat by the Philistines during the days of Eli the priest and the capture of the ark of the covenant, the key sacred object in the tent established under Moses in Exodus. Thus “the glory has departed from Israel” (1 Sam 4:21–22; Truscott 1969, pp. 83–89; Conner 1986, pp. 91–98). The Philistines could not “handle” the ark and suffered heavy disasters which finally led them to return it in a surreptitious way to Israel (1 Sam 5–6; Truscott 1969, pp. 140–43; Conner 1986, pp. 99–100). But the Israelites also found the ark dangerous and it was lodged for twenty years in a private home (1 Sam 6:19–7:1), while “all the house of Israel lamented after the lord (1 Sam 7:2; Truscott 1969, pp. 143–49; Conner 1986, pp. 100–2). Nothing further seems to have happened to the ark during that period but its absence from the holy tent at Shiloh must have been scandalous and a challenge to the ongoing legitimacy of that tent.

But once David was securely enthroned as king of Israel, he made moves to bring the ark up to his new capital at Jerusalem (not back to Shiloh) (Truscott 1969, pp. 97–98, 156–76; Conner 1986, p. 102). A somewhat disastrous first attempt, during which Uzzah died for touching it, led to the ark being lodged again in another private home for three months (2 Sam 6:1–11; 1 Chron 13; Truscott 1969, pp. 176–83; Conner 1986, pp. 102–3, 107). 1 Chronicles suggests the reason for this disaster: the ark had been transported on a cart instead of being carried on the shoulders of Levites as required (1 Chron 15:11–15; Truscott 1969, pp. 187–89; Conner 1986, p. 111). But, finally, the ark was successfully brought to Jerusalem with rejoicing and sacrifices (2 Sam 6:12–15; 1 Chron 15); David himself “danced before the lord with all his might… girded with a linen ephod” (2 Sam 6:14; Truscott 1969, pp. 190–93, 214–26, 290–92; Conner 1986, pp. 115–20). But where would they put this holy item? “They brought in the ark of the lord and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it” (2 Sam 6:17; see Conner 1986, pp. 108, 122–23).

This was always seen as a temporary arrangement (Conner 1986, p. 108); David intended to build a more permanent building to house the ark (2 Sam 7:2), but the prophet Nathan told David that God had never asked for this (2 Sam 7:4–7; 1 Chron 17:3–6) and God would himself build David a house (that is, a dynasty; 2 Sam 7:8–11; 1 Chron 17:10) which would last forever (2 Sam 7:16). However, David’s son would be appointed to “build a house for my name” (2 Sam 7:13; see also 1 Chron 17:11–12). Sure enough, Solomon built the temple and the ark of the covenant found there a “permanent” home (1 Kings 5–8; especially 8:1–11). God’s approval and presence were emphasized when the author of 1 Kings declared, “And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the lord filled the house of the lord” (1 Kings 8:10–11; see also 2 Chron 7:1–3). In 2 Chron 5:13–14, this result is specifically linked to the expressions of musical praise.

But what is not emphasized in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings is the change made by David in the worship arrangements for Israel. The ark did not return to the original tent at Shiloh but first to the tent pitched by David (where it was less “hidden” than in the Shiloh tent) and then to the temple constructed under Solomon. But the author of 1–2 Chronicles points out that there were large-scale innovations attached to this new order. In particular, the Levites were reorganized into teams of singers and musicians, officials, gatekeepers and assistants to the priests (1 Chron 15:16–24; 16:4–7; 23:3–6,26–32; 25–26; Conner 1986, pp. 183–84). The priests continued to offer sacrifices “before the tabernacle of the lordin the high place that was at Gibeon” (1 Chron 16:39; this was the tent constructed by Moses, as 1 Chron 21:29 makes clear; Truscott 1969, pp. 318–20; Iverson 1975, p. 75), but even there David added the new elements of musical praise (1 Chron 16:41–42).

The Chronicler tells his readers that David prepared for and designed the temple and collected the resources needed for its construction (1 Chron 22,28–29). It was built to a design modelled on the original tent of Moses, though much larger and more elaborate (2 Chron 3–4), but specifically as directed by God, or so David claimed (1 Chron 28:19) (see De Vries 1988, p. 626). The dedication service for the temple also included musical praise using instruments provided by David (2 Chron 7:6). This suggests that the new order of praise inaugurated by David was carried over into the temple of Solomon (see 2 Chron 8:14; Conner 1986, pp. 247–48).

This continues to be a feature of the ongoing narrative of 2 Chronicles, especially when telling of reforms made under subsequent kings (De Vries 1988, p. 635). For example, during the reforms under King Joash, “Jehoiada assigned the care of the house of the lord to the levitical priests whom David had organized…. to offer burnt offerings to the lord as it is written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, according to the order of David” (2 Chron 23:18, emphasis added). Something similar is reported during the reforms of Josiah, where we read, “The singers, the descendants of Asaph, were in their place according to the command of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and the king’s seer Jeduthun” (2 Chron 35:15, emphasis added), all names that occur as authors of psalms (See also 2 Chron 29:25; 35:4; Neh 12:24,45–46; De Vries 1988, pp. 628–31; Conner 1986, pp. 145–47, 150). As De Vries comments, the author of Chronicles “has arranged and expanded the narrative materials about David and his successors in such a way as to highlight the authority of David” (De Vries 1988, p. 632) and the role of the Levites (De Vries 1988, pp. 636–39).

This Davidic order of praise is, of course, reflected in the Psalms, many of which are attributed to David or to his Levitical associates. Truscott points to the emphasis on Zion in many psalms which is a reminder of David’s rule established there (Truscott 1969, pp. 106–11; Conner 1986, pp. 135–43).

6. David’s Order of Praise and Acts 15

So, there was definitely an order of musical praise inaugurated by David in his tent and carried on into the Solomonic temple in accordance with the rules set down by David and sometimes related to strong manifestations of God’s presence. But is this related in any way to the issues of Acts 15 and James’s speech based on Amos 9?

Kevin Conner argues for such a connection in his study of Acts:

This was the crux of the whole dispute here. The Gentiles were to come into “The Tabernacle of DAVID,” NOT “The Tabernacle of MOSES.”

If the Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses and be Circumcised, then they would be coming in under the Law, or, antitypically be coming into “The Tabernacle of Moses,” with its rites and ceremonies, its animal sacrifices, Aaronic Priesthood, Sabbaths, etc.

But the Gentiles were coming into the NEW covenant by faith in the Son of David, Jesus Christ, and into the Spiritual House, and the Priesthood after the Order of Melchisedek.

That is, antitypically they were coming into “The Tabernacle of David.”.

(Conner 1973, p. 110; see also Conner 1986, pp. 63–68)

Conner arguably makes too strong an antithesis between the order of Moses and that of David. They were both operating in David’s day and were fused in the Solomonic temple. Those participating in both orders were circumcised and subject to the Law of Moses. The Mosaic order was never abolished under David or subsequently.

But Conner’s argument is largely typological.12 And this is justifiable in that no one interprets either Amos 9:11 or Acts 15:16 as speaking of a physical tent being rebuilt (Truscott 1969, pp. 19–20; Conner 1986, pp. 46, 81). Likewise, no one is looking for a literal sacred box such as envisaged in the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark. The literal ark of the covenant disappeared during the Babylonian captivity of 587 BC. Amos might have been predicting a rebuilt physical temple, but this is very unlikely to be what James (or Luke) had in mind. Perhaps the most likely meaning of the “dwelling of David” (NRSV) in New Testament terms is the church (in light of 1 Cor 3:16 and Eph 2:22) which is being “built” by Jesus (Matt 16:18; Eph 4:12; 1 Pet 2:4–5; Bauckham 1996, pp. 166–67). Thus, the tent (skēnē) of David is being interpreted typologically. And typology is a legitimate form of interpretation, or at least application, of Old Testament realities in the New Testament context, such as the “paschal lamb, Christ” (1 Cor 5:7).13 Some Pentecostals, especially those in the Latter Rain stream, were infatuated with typology and saw types and antitypes everywhere (see K. J. Archer 2004b, p. 107).

Typology is legitimate but credible interpretation demands guidelines to ward against its misuse (Baker 1991, pp. 179–99; Baker 1994, pp. 313–30; Hugenberger 1994, pp. 331–41; Foulkes 1994, pp. 342–71). It is different to allegory or grammatical-historical exegesis. It accepts the original historical reality of the type, in this case the literal tent erected by David and the liturgical innovations made by David (Conner 1998, pp. 213–16). It then draws parallels or analogies especially for the New Testament church, antitypes that are arguably intended by the Holy Spirit, as in the case of Jesus as the “paschal lamb.” Here Conner and his allies are perhaps inconsistent: they find a valid fulfilment of the “tent of David” in the church but transfer the praise innovations directly without seeing them as types of something else. On the other hand, they can point out that the New Testament does call Christians to sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).

7. A Bridge Too Far

Perhaps the biggest hermeneutical issue with the Latter Rain use of the “tabernacle of David” lies in how it was applied to the modern church. The “tent of David” might in some sense stand for the New Testament church as the place of true worship and God’s presence, the new temple of God. This reality would include the entry of Gentiles as Gentiles into the New Testament church with minimal barriers due to the release of the new covenant through the cross of Jesus (Bauckham 1996, pp. 167–69). Moreover, we could concede that this reality is still true and should be embraced by Christians, including a style of praise modelled on the Davidic order as in Psalms (as suggested in 1 Pet 2:5,9; Heb 13:15; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16 and demonstrated in Revelation; Leithart 2018, pp. 262–63). It is still a large hermeneutical leap to read into this a kind of prophetic demand for Christians to embrace this style of praise with the firm promise of a powerful experience of God’s presence and a worldwide last days revival if they do. Early Pentecostal hermeneutics has been criticized as highly literalistic, but, as Kenneth Archer argued, the real issue was a lack of sensitivity to historical distance; “when Pentecostals interpreted the Bible they did so in order to apply it directly to their immediate consequence.” (K. J. Archer 2001, p. 37; see also Nel 2017, p. 93; Keener 2016, pp. 24, 188). Because Pentecostals rejected cessationism and believed that everything that happened in the Bible could happen now, they were inclined to directly apply passages and events from the Bible to their own churches and expect similar experiences such as an overwhelming experience of God’s presence like what happened at the inauguration of the temple (2 Chron 5:13–14; 7:1–3) or on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4; Keener 2016, p. 5). And they could testify to this happening at times! This is a key feature of books like Truscott’s and testimonies of the early days of the Latter Rain movement. It explains the argument of Truscott and Conner about the “most holy place” effectively being transferred with the ark into David’s tent making greater access available to God anticipating the new covenant (Truscott 1969, pp. 315–17; Conner 1986, pp. 128–29).

It has also been argued that “Pentecostals were more vulnerable to faulty interpretations because they embraced religious experience as a necessary component of their interpretive strategy” (K. J. Archer 2001, p. 41).14 This is unfair, but it points to perhaps the biggest danger in the hermeneutics found in many Pentecostal churches. Pentecostals hunger for a greater “move” of the Holy Spirit in their churches, a greater sense of God’s presence in their worship and a powerful move in the church generally and across the earth. The early twentieth century Pentecostals anticipated this as fulfilling the promise of the “Latter Rain” before the return of Christ. And to some extent they were proved right: the Pentecostal stream (including charismatics and others) has grown prodigiously, touched every branch of the Christian church, spread into almost every nation, and influenced the praise and worship of most Christian streams. The Latter Rain Pentecostals should be excited and gratified. But there is a serious danger of overreach and triumphalism. And a deficient hermeneutics feeds this issue. Truscott feeds this danger when he writes, “There must be a rebuilding, a Restoration, of the habitation of God. It must be built again” (Truscott 1969, p. 25; emphasis added). In some places such a Latter Rain emphasis has helped create Pentecostal cults, especially where they stopped interacting with, and listening to, other Pentecostals.15

The other main issue with the Latter Rain interpretation of the Tabernacle of David, which goes back to the flaws identified earlier in relation to “standard” exegesis, is a tendency to focus on issues that are not central to Christian faith. The issue being considered in Acts 15 (the ground rules for Gentiles becoming Christians) was crucial to the development of the church. But the Latter Rain teachers elevate the proper liturgy for Christians into an issue that is never central in the New Testament. The New Testament does focus considerably on the issue of worship especially in relation to the question of who we worship, and specifically whether or not Jesus can be validly worshipped (John 20:28; Rev 4–5). It does contain teaching on how, and even where, we worship God that make old covenant forms obsolete (John 4:19–24; Heb 8:13; 13:15). For example, Melissa Archer, in her conclusion to her study of worship in Revelation, claims that her study “demonstrates that the Apocalypse is first and foremost a liturgical narrative concerned with the proper worship of God and the Lamb over and against the false worship of the beast” (M. L. Archer 2015, p. 334). But Latter Rain theology often suggests that structures are all important, whether it is the liturgical structures or the governmental structures of the local church. As Ottaway comments, “the normative Praise and Worship theology envisions worship as a dwelling place for the manifested glory of God that can only be attained through the right practices done in the right way” (Ottaway 2023, p. 7, emphasis added). But evidence for this is somewhat sparse in the New Testament.

8. Conclusions

In conclusion, the kinds of musical and worship practices that Pentecostal and others derive from the Psalms and other Old Testament sources (see exhaustive lists in Conner 1986, pp. 151–56, 162–66) are legitimate and supported by New Testament exhortations to sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:18; Col 3:16). As Craig Keener argues, the psalms are not just to be studied but prayed, sung and entered into, which suggests we should do what they say, such as raising hands in praise (Keener 2016, p. 32; see also Conner 1986, pp. 168–69, 180–81; Murchison 1981, pp. 90–96). The Book of Revelation is another resource that Pentecostals could use more both to validate their praise and to stimulate greater expressions (M. L. Archer 2015). The worldwide influence of Pentecostal music is largely beneficial. But the grand claims about future breakthroughs based on the restoration of the “Tabernacle of David” are exaggerated and can lead to sectarian attitudes.

A few hermeneutical conclusions might be appropriate here. Pentecostal hermeneutics rightly applies the Old Testament to the Christian church as against dispensationalist rules about literalism (K. J. Archer 2004b, pp. 54–57, 66). Pentecostal hermeneutics may also be sympathetic to many postmodern developments in hermeneutics such as the rejection of the insistence on one singular meaning and the insight into the social and historical location of interpreters, not just authors (K. J. Archer 2004a, pp. 37–41; K. J. Archer 2004b, pp. 94–99). Pentecostals rightly rely on the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture and can appeal even to Calvin on this point (Nel 2021, p. 109; K. J. Archer 2004b, pp. 182–86). Pentecostals can justifiably use typology to apply Old Testament themes to Christian life and church though this needs to be performed with care, guided by how the New Testament itself does it. Pentecostals rightly seek not just to know but to encounter God in reading Scripture (Ellington 2019, pp. 226–27). Pentecostals rightly look for restoration of the church to its full potential as they read the New Testament. But Pentecostals need to beware of a restorationism that is “imperialistic” (“we know better”) (K. J. Archer 2004a, pp. 41–42), an interpretive approach that bypasses the original intent or meaning of biblical passages or one that focuses too much on secondary issues for the Christian church.