Replies

a bit further development of my previous post...

The actual words of Jame's speech in Acts 15

James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me: 14Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up: 17That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles,

American Standard Version. 1995 (Ac 15:13). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

A bit more explanation...

15:15 James reminded his hearers that the Old Testament prophets supported the salvation of Gentiles apart from Judaism. Note that James did not say the salvation of Gentiles then was the fulfillment of these prophecies. He said the prophetsÃ‚Â’ predictions of future Gentile salvation harmonized with the present salvation of Gentiles apart from Judaism (cf. 2:16).614 James then quoted Amos 9:11Ã‚Â–12 as a representative prophecy.615 Neither Amos nor any other prophet said Gentiles had to become Jews to enjoy the blessings of salvation (cf. Rom. 11:12).

Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible (Ac 15:15). Galaxie Software.

Please note that James does not say that the prophecy was fulfilled by the Gentile conversion. Just that the Gentile conversion was in harmony with what the prophet wrote in Amos.

best,
ampu

You are essentially telling me that a view that really does NOT make sense to me at all should be adopted because Mr. Constable says so. That is why I said "who?" I don't find that view supported by anyone I have read, including FF Bruce, Calvin, Luther, or William Hendricksen. Moreover, it just doesn't fit with the flow of the argument. The biblical order of things according to the passage is (again) the restoration of the tabernacle of David, leading to the ruling of that house over the Gentiles. Your view requires 1) that we take the view that this is not a "fulfillment" of the prophecy, but an event "in harmony" with it. I have to be honest, that seems a VERY artificial distinction. Again, the plain common sense use of the language seems to indicate that when "the scriptures said this would happen" and "this agrees with those scriptures" then we have a fulfilled prophecy. The ONLY reason one would insist that this is not so is to protect a hermeneutical rule which -as I am sure you realize- is the bulwark for your whole system of doctrine re: end times stuff.

Secondly, there is NO reason to insert some discussion of the "millenium" or the argument that "in the millenium the gentiles will be blessed and so they don't need to be circumcised" This is a highly contrived argument and at the very minimum would have reqired James to pull out his charts to explain it to the assembled brethren. It confuses me even after Mr. Constable has "explained" it to me. It is a very weird argument, and simply does not fit with the flow of the discussion in Acts 15 at all, but demands some sudden discussion of millenial state of blessing in an argument over whether Gentiles have to become Jews to be Christian. My response would be "what in the sam hill does the Gentile state in the millenium have to do with it?" Sorry, but that dog just won't hunt.

regards,

DoP