[DreamsofPolycarp]

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

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“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.”

My view requires ONLY that you read the passage and see
what James actually said and was recorded.

He said (and every translation agrees) that the Gentiles
coming to faith in Christ “AGREES” with the prophecy of Amos.
Doesn’t say it fulfills it. I even double checked in Greek.

I am not putting a single word into Jame’s mouth. I am
reading what he said. If you are going to make him say
more that he said, well, than that isn’t something we can
really have meaningful discussion about.

Have you ever paused to consider that perhaps you are so
emotionally worked up about this concept that you have
no room to see what is there? It is very human to do so.

best,
ampu