Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: DreamsofPolycarp
Finally James stands up and quotes Amos and says THIS SCRIPTURE IS FULFILLED HERE. What is most interesting about this is that this scripture was NOT fulfilled ";iterally" There was no fallen tabernacle of David which had been restored and yet James specifically states that the Gentiles flocking to Christ are a direct fulfillment of this prophecy. I cannot think of a better example of "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing" an OT prophecy than James does right here.

So now you're accusing James of allegorizing the scriptures here??? He is doing no such thing. He is expounding upon Amos 9:11-12 as relates to the issue before the apostles, and his very exposition becomes scripture through the pen of Luke.

The "tabernacle of David" is not the temple, per se, but the city of Jerusalem, the city that David built, where the throne of David was and where Jesus will reign from. The prophets tell us that Jerusalem will be called "the throne of the Lord".

James is perfectly clear here, telling us that God will first visit the Gentile nations to take out of them a people for his name, after which He will return to rebuild and restore the city of David.

246 posted on 05/23/2007 9:01:17 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Chip
So now you're accusing James of allegorizing the scriptures here???

Of course he is. That is, he is giving us the true meaning of the text (aka interpreting it for us) That is the plain, common sense reading of the scripture at hand. I can see you prefer the KJV so, to quote again:

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

He is saying here, OK guys, Peter has told you about how God is doing good things with the Gentiles. taking out "a people for his name" (interesting choice of words. that was reserved for Israel in the OT)

15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

And so, James says, THIS IS IN FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHECY (DING DING DING!!!!) which I am about to quote.

16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

A couple of observations: 1) Literally, the Hebrew does not say "after this" but "in that day" referring to the day of the restoration of Israel (check it out, Amos 9), and its consequent dominion over Edom and all the heathen. 2) James clearly states that THIS PROPHECY IS BEING FULFILLED NOW, not that this prophecy will be fulfilled later. That would be silly (more on that below). This is clear because it is the whole issue of the GENTILES that is at stake, and James is saying "LOOK GUYS, DON'T YOU SEE? THIS IS THE DEAL GOD TALKED ABOUT ALL THRU THE SCRIPTURES. HE SAID THAT THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL WOULD BE EXPANDED AND RULE OVER THE GENTILES!! THIS IS IT! THEY ARE COMING TO THE TRUE FAITH, EVEN NOW!!. GOD SAID IN PICTORIAL LANGUAGE THAT THE RULING HOUSE OF DAVID WOULD BE RESTORED TO PRIMACY AND THE GENTILES WOULD BE RULED OVER BY THAT HOUSE! WE HAVE DAVID'S GREATER SON RULING AND HE IS BRINGING THE GENTILES IN SUBMISSION TO HIM!!!!"

The view you are putting forth really makes no sense at all in its context. It is like Peter says "IT IS BY FAITH FOR THEM AND US" and Paul and Barnabas stand up and say "YEAH!! AND GOD IS DEMONSTRATING HIS POWER AND GOODNESS BY CHANGING LIVES AND PERFORMING GREAT SIGNS!!" Then imagine James standing up and saying "YAY! AND YOU KNOW WHAT, GUYS, SOME DAY GOID IS GOING TO REBUILD THE TEMPLE/CITY OF JERUSALEM/DAVIDS' HOUSE (or whatever that "literal" thing was.... i think you called it the city of Jerusalem. hmmmmmmmm). I can see the whole assembly going quiet and saying "what in tarnation does that have to do with what we were talking about?" It just doesn't follow, it is out of context, and doesn't fit into the discussion at all.

The ONLY reason one would adopt such a reading would be an unbiblical predetermination not to allow 'allegorization" even if the Holy Spirit spoke it through the mouth of James. And He did.

250 posted on 05/23/2007 12:35:29 PM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Ron Paul in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Chip
The "tabernacle of David" is not the temple, per se, but the city of Jerusalem, the city that David built, where the throne of David was and where Jesus will reign from.

Glad you cleared that up for me. Literally, I am.

251 posted on 05/23/2007 12:57:09 PM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Ron Paul in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Chip
James is perfectly clear here, telling us that God will first visit the Gentile nations to take out of them a people for his name, after which He will return to rebuild and restore the city of David.

Actually, you have the temporal order of the scriptures exactly REVERSED here. IT says very specifically that the tabernacle of David would be restored AND THEN BECAUSE OF THAT the Gentiles would be brought into submission to that "fallen tabernacle" which has been restored.

Again, the scriptural order is:

1) Restoration first
2) Gentiles second

You have it backwards. No other way to say it.

It makes MUCH more sense to assume that the fallen tabernacle of David refers to the "house" or "lineage" of David, meaning his kingly line. Jesus is that great King of Israel, who is now reigning and has restored that line. A sign of this is His dominion over the Gentiles, which he is exercising now.

THAT makes much more sense when arguing to a bunch of Jews wanting the new Gentile converts to "submit" to the law of Moses and circumcision. James is saying, in effect, "the submission you are looking for is already happening, just as the scriptures have stated. Don't demand more" Again, this makes much more sense in its context, besides being 180 degrees out of phase with the order of things, if we take your view, to avoid "allegorization" (ignoring for the moment your allegorization of the tabernacle of David).

253 posted on 05/23/2007 1:11:27 PM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Ron Paul in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson