If there is to be no millineum.......

[_Ely]

Actually the quote is from verses 11 and 12 of Amos 9. Plus, the quote in Acts 15 seems to be based on the Septuagint (LXX) which explains the slight difference in wording between Acts 15 and Amos 9 in our Bibles. The OT of our Bbles are mostly based in the Hebrew rather than the LXX:

11 “ In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things." Amos 9:11-12 LXX

[Guest]

Ely brings up a good point. Luke would have quoted from the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) which would explain the slight differences in wording (in the same way our KJV would differ from the NIV, for example).

Another point is that the ancients weren't prone to a malady that is common to modern-day Christians, which is sometimes called "versitis". The scriptures were not broken into chapters and verses until the 13th Century. Ancient Jews and Christians did not think in terms of chapters and verses, but in terms of whole books and complete thoughts.

When someone quoted a line of scripture, it evoked in the hearers (who were steeped in the scriptures) the whole passage and context in which the line resided. For example, when Jesus, on the cross cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", He wasn't just wonder why He'd been forsaken; He was quoting the first line of Psalm 22. The hearers would have dialed up the entire Psalm, which is very powerful, especially as a backdrop to the crucifixion of the Christ. Quoting a portion of scripture served as a sort of mental hyperlink to the entire book or section. The 9th chapter of Amos contains an entire prophetic vision. This is why the chapter division was set where is was. My point is that verses 11-12 are not independent from verses 13-15. When James quotes verses 11 and 12, he is evoking that entire vision of Amos and saying, essentially, "This is the fulfillment of that". To take it to an even deeper level, the section of Amos' vision that James quotes makes reference to David's fallen tent being rebuilt. This is, in turn, a reference to 1 Chronicles 15-16 where David built a tent and brought back the Ark of the Covenant to it.

. That it's been said that there are the "lost tribes of Israel" is something that we can understand as specific tribes, but can't God gather what He wants from what appears to not be there as we know it?

God can certainly regenerate the lost tribes from rocks on the ground if He wishes, but as far as we know He hasn't. Nor do we have any reason to believe He intends to. Especially when James has already shown us how to apply Amos 9.

I just tend to think that the preterist position tends to go a little crazy with the spiritualization.

Well, which is crazier, to take what James said at face value or to imagine scenarios such as reconstituted lost tribes? To say that the temple was destroyed and animal sacrifices ceased, or to say that the Al-Aqsa mosque must be destroyed so that the Jewish temple can be rebuilt so that it can be destroyed again so that it can be rebuilt again (in the Millennium) so that animal sacrifices can resume?

But I also think the preterists seem to go too far to the other side of it and spiritualize practically everything they read.

That's not really a fair statement, is it? The Preterist would say that it's the Dispensationalists who tend to over spiritualize scripture. It seems to me that the Dispensationalists take a pre-conceived framework of end-times events, then pull scriptures out of their context to make then fit onto that framework. Let me ask you this. If you had not been taught the eschatological framework you subscribe to, would you have been able to construct it yourself just by reading the Bible?

I'm still trying to figure the correct way of doing this out though.

You and me both, brother.

[Guest]

Very good exchange here. Keep up the good work.

[Guest]

Mort, let me just ask and make sure of what you are saying. Are you saying that when someone in the NT mentions that something in the OT has occurred, that must mean that they understand that to be the thing they've specified along with the other descriptions that were originally prophesied?

[_Ely]

Okay, today I’ve been considering Acts 15 and Amos 9 and here’s my thoughts. Please note, I am speaking from a Premillennial perspective.

Okay, first up, the original prophecy. Prior to the verses in question, Amos has been detailing - at length - the punishment which the LORD is going to visit upon Israel for their harlotry. This is referring to the coming of the Assyrians who will carry the Israelites into captivity.

He then ends the whole book with this note of optimism concerning future events.:

11 In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: 12 that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things. (Amos 9 LXX)

It seems to me that the key question has to be: what did Amos mean by the term “tabernacle of David”? What we know is that it must have existed prior to Amos’ time. It was something which he and his audience (the northern Kingdom of Israel) were familiar with.

Perhaps he was referring to the “tabernacle” which David built for the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chronicles 15-16) which was once the centre of Israel’s worship. I’m not sure what happened to this tabernacle, but it was superseded by the temple which Solomon built. Maybe Amos was intimating that this very same tabernacle was going to be rebuilt at some time future from him. Personally, I don’t think so.

At the time he wrote, the “tabernacle of David” was in ruins. He said that it would be built up “as in the ancient days”. Some believe he was referring symbolically to the nation of Israel. But we don’t often (if ever) see Israel referred to by the name of David. Usually they are referred to in the name of the patriarchs. For example, Amos himself refers to the Israelites as the “house of Jacob” and “the house of Joseph.”

I think it’s more likely that “the tabernacle of David” was meant as a synonym for “throne of David.” At that time, the Kings of Israel were not descendants of David (1 Kings 11:11,31). Furthermore, in Amos’ day, the Kings of Israel were hopelessly corrupt and wicked (2 Kings 17:21-22). This was also generally the case with the kings of Judah who were descendants of David. It thus seems plausible that Amos was prophesying a time when a descendant of David would reign on David’s throne and would reign in righteousness.

Now moving on to Acts 15. At the ‘council of Jerusalem’, many Jewish saints were having difficulty accepting that circumcision was not a necessary part the New Covenant. Under Judaism, Gentiles who ‘wanted in’ had to be circumcised. But under the New Covenant, this practice was not only unnecessary but also extremely un-advisable (Galatians!). James was seeking to show his believing Pharisee brethren that it had always been God's plan that the Gentiles to be turning to God. To this end he quotes Amos 9.

13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’

One thing to notice is that James doesn't say that Amos' prophecy had been or was being fulfilled. Look carefully at the passage. What James says is that the situation where the Gentiles were turning to God agreed with the words of the prophets. He then specifically quotes Amos 9. He may have meant that the passage he quoted was being fulfilled but he doesn’t’ say so, and his words do not demand such a conclusion.

James could thus be understood to have been saying that the ‘tabernacle of David” was not presently being raised up but that it would be raised up at a future time. At this time (it could be understood) (1) the physical tabernacle of David would be rebuilt or (2) the Lord would come and set up the throne of David once more. Once more Israel would have a King seated on His throne and He would rule in righteousness.

Subsequently, Gentiles would seek the Lord. “The remnant of men” could be referring to the few people who will survive the events preceding Jesus’ return while “all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called” refers to those Gentiles (us) who entered into the Kingdom as believers (resurrected or 'raptured' saints). James' point was that this future reality agrees with the present reality that of Gentiles being justified by faith.

Amos 9:13-15 follows with:

13 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when the harvest shall overtake the vintage, and the grapes shall ripen at seedtime; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall be planted. 14 And I will turn the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities, and shall inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and shall drink the wine from them; and they shall form gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 15 And I will plant them on their land, and they shall no more be plucked up from the land which I have given them, saith the Lord God Almighty.

Once the Lord ('Christian Zionists') has rebuilt the “tabernacle of David” (“the throne of David”), Israel will be planted firmly in her land and will enjoy un-ending blessing and peace.

That’s my thoughts. I realise that there are probably various holes in my reasoning, but I thought I’d give an example of how a Premillennialist might approach these scriptures without “spiritualizing” anything.

Ely

[Guest]

I think a better way to put it might be that they are saying "this is the fulfillment of that". Many Old Testament events, personalities, stories and prophecies were "types and shadows" that were fulfilled in Christ. Many, though not all, had a well-known immediate fulfillment that occurred near the time that the prophecy was originally given. The New Testament writers, however, ascribed an additional, greater fulfillment in Christ who, after all, is the Alpha and Omega.

"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." - Matt. 24:27

"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me." - John 5:39

Jesus was the fulfillment, not only of over 300 Old Testament prophecies and the Law, but of the Old Covenant itself. The central event in the history of mankind was the incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. This is what the Old Testament scriptures pointed forward to and this is what we, His church look back to as our basis. Our faith flows out of this.

Frankly I think Christians diminish what Jesus has done when they get caught up in "End-Times" systems and schemes and start re-directing prophecy past Jesus to some fantastical future scenario.

[Guest]

Very interesting stuff, Ely.

A few thoughts come to mind:

It seems to me that the key question has to be: what did Amos mean by the term “tabernacle of David”?

Actually, I think the key question is what did James mean by the term “tabernacle of David. The tabernacle of David was the precursor to the Temple that Solomon built. The tabernacle/temple was considered to be the place where God dwelt. In the Gospels, Jesus refers to Himself as the Temple during His incarnation (“…destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up…”). Then the Church is described as the tabernacle/temple. We are now the temple.

The progression goes like this:
Tabernacle of Moses --> Tabernacle of David --> Temple of Solomon --> 2nd Temple (Zerubbabel) --> Restored 2nd Temple (Herod) --> Jesus --> Church

One of the most powerful aspects of the Pentecost story in Acts 2 is that the manifest “shekinah” presence of God didn’t come to the Temple as the prophets foretold (such as Ezekiel 43) and the Jews expected. Instead the manifest presence falls upon the followers of Jesus. There is a significant message in this.

Later, in Acts 7, Stephen gives a speech to the Sanhedrin in which he brings up the tabernacle and temple. He has been charged with saying that “… Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.” Stephen reaches the climax of his speech with the assertion that “… the Most High does not live in houses made by men.” There is a strong element of anti-temple polemic in Stephens speech and, for that matter, in the Book of Acts.

The Apostles believed that they were living during the time of the restoration of the Tabernacle of David which Amos spoke of. They knew that the Church was the restored Tabernacle of David - the place where Christ is worshiped, where he speaks prophetically and exercises His authority. Where His presence is manifest on earth.

James could thus be understood to have been saying that the ‘tabernacle of David” was not presently being raised up but that it would be raised up at a future time. At this time (it could be understood) (1) the physical tabernacle of David would be rebuilt or (2) the Lord would come and set up the throne of David once more. Once more Israel would have a King seated on His throne and He would rule in righteousness.

I’m sorry Ely, but as inventive as that is, it strikes me as gymnastics to try and fit things onto your pre-conceived framework. Jesus makes it clear that His kingdom is not of this earth. And why would James be concerned about events occurring thousands of years in the future at that particular juncture in Acts? How would your hypothesis square with Luke’s approach to the temple elsewhere in Acts?

Subsequently, Gentiles would seek the Lord. “The remnant of men” could be referring to the few people who will survive the events preceding Jesus’ return while “all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called” refers to those Gentiles (us) who entered into the Kingdom as believers (resurrected or 'raptured' saints). James' point was that this future reality agrees with the present reality that of Gentiles being justified by faith.

Again, this seems like a lot of unnecessary projection. Basically, you’re saying that James is referring to a future temple that will be rebuilt after the current temple was destroyed (which wouldn’t occur for another 35 years or so). That, to me, is spiritualizing the text, because it is not the plain meaning – it is not what James’ hearers would have understood him to be saying.

And you also still haven’t gotten around the problem that Amos’ words cannot have a literal fulfillment (unless, as Aaron put forth, God reconstitutes the lost tribes).

I thought I’d give an example of how a Premillennialist might approach these scriptures without “spiritualizing” anything.

I appreciate the attempt, but you have provided an example of the type of stretches necessary to fit a pre-conceived framework which turned me away from Premillennialism in the first place.

[Guest]

Hey Mort,

The progression goes like this:
Tabernacle of Moses --> Tabernacle of David --> Temple of Solomon --> 2nd Temple (Zerubbabel) --> Restored 2nd Temple (Herod) --> Jesus --> Church

I think you've unlocked the code!!! You listed 7 dwelling places of God. 7 is the number of completion and perfection. Therefore, there can be no other legitimate temples of God built...the church is it. You've just destroyed all pre-millenialism. Congratulations!

It must be getting late, I'm cracking up here.

[Guest]

I prefer to think of each one as a "dispensation".

Or we could just loop it back around to Tabernacle of Moses and let the thing spin into infinity...

[_Ely]

Mort – both amills and premills (and mills of all shapes and sizes!) have ‘pre-conceived’ notions which we bring to texts. There’s no point in trying to make out that premills are unique in this aspect. As I said before, what needs to be decided is whether premill pre-suppositions or amill pre-suppositions are the valid ones.

Actually, I think the key question is what did James mean by the term “tabernacle of David. The tabernacle of David was the precursor to the Temple that Solomon built. The tabernacle/temple was considered to be the place where God dwelt. In the Gospels, Jesus refers to Himself as the Temple during His incarnation (“…destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up…”). Then the Church is described as the tabernacle/temple. We are now the temple.

The progression goes like this:
Tabernacle of Moses --> Tabernacle of David --> Temple of Solomon --> 2nd Temple (Zerubbabel) --> Restored 2nd Temple (Herod) --> Jesus --> Church -

hmm. Let me be clear here: are you saying that the church is the tabernacle of David? Is it also the tabernacle of MOses, the tempe of Solomon, the restored temple and Jesus - all combined? If so, was there a similar relationship between God's other dewlling places. Did Herod's temple = the tabernacle of Moses, tabernacle of David, Solomon's temple all combined? Finally, when did Jesus actually "become" the temple?

One of the most powerful aspects of the Pentecost story in Acts 2 is that the manifest “shekinah” presence of God didn’t come to the Temple as the prophets foretold (such as Ezekiel 43) and the Jews expected. Instead the manifest presence falls upon the followers of Jesus. There is a significant message in this.

This is an example of you imposing your pre-suppositions onto the text. Your pre-supposition seems to be that God definitely doesn’t plan on building any kind of physical temple. So you go to Old Testament prophecies of a temple say that it is really referring to the church. You may have some grounds for doing this elsewhere in the NT, but not here. It’s best not to put words into Peter's mouth. Did he say that the day of Pentecost was a fulfilment of Ezekiel 43? No. What he did say was that the day of Pentecost was "that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” It’s actually an example of a prophecy being literally fulfilled.

The Apostles believed that they were living during the time of the restoration of the Tabernacle of David which Amos spoke of. They knew that the Church was the restored Tabernacle of David - the place where Christ is worshiped, where he speaks prophetically and exercises His authority. Where His presence is manifest on earth.

Problem is – James doesn’t say this! Rather, you are assuming that i swhat he meant. James didn’t say that the scripture was being fulfilled. Look again at what he said: “14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written.” He didn’t say it is "fulfilled", he said that it agreed with Amos' words. Like I said, James words do not force us to conclude that Amos’ prophecy was being or had been fulfilled.

Again, this seems like a lot of unnecessary projection. Basically, you’re saying that James is referring to a future temple that will be rebuilt after the current temple was destroyed (which wouldn’t occur for another 35 years or so). That, to me, is spiritualizing the text, because it is not the plain meaning – it is not what James’ hearers would have understood him to be saying.

Mort, I was speaking concerning Acts 15 and Amos 9. You’ve spent an awful lot of time attacking the idea of a physical temple being rebuilt. But did you actually read my post? Again, let me say that my view is that James was identifying the “tabernacle of David” as referring to the throne of David - the Kingdom which Jesus will restore to Israel when He returns.


THE LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL?

And you also still haven’t gotten around the problem that Amos’ words cannot have a literal fulfillment (unless, as Aaron put forth, God reconstitutes the lost tribes).

The key point here is that the tribes that Amos gave this prophecy to have not existed for 2700 years. They disappeared from the face of the planet. There is no "Israel" (in the way that Amos used the word) to plant in their own land. The Babylonian exile occurred over 100 years later to the Southern tribes (Judah). Amos was not speaking to Judah. It is impossible to literally apply Amos 9:11-15 to modern-day Israel. The best you can do is to spiritualize the extinct Northern tribes to represent the modern nation of Israel (which is descended from Judah). The problem though with making this association is, on who's authority do you do so? Your own, because it sounds good to you?

Okay. You seem to be placing quite alot of emphasis on the idea that the tribes of Israel have ceased to to exist and have actually "disappeared from the face of the planet". But let me flip your question around and ask on who’s authority do you do this?


'Lost tribes of Israel' according to Jesus?
Jesus does speak of the house of Israel as having been ‘lost’ . When He sent out His disciples , He gave them this instruction:

“Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

What did He mean by ‘lost sheep’? Did He mean that they had "disappeared from the face of the planet"? If so, the apostles would have had quite a job on their hands preaching to them! It's a wonder they didn't complain! No, the tribes of Israel was still on planet which was why the apostles were sent to preach to them!

Jesus’ words would have been familiar to His scripture-loving disciples. Isaiah had written hundred sof years previously concerning his people that “all we as sheep have gone astray, we have turned, everyone to his own way” (Isa 53:6). Isaiah was not saying that they had "disappeared from the face of the planet", rather he was speaking of their rebellion against God - which was what Jesus was talking about.


'Lost tribes of Israel' according to the apostles?
In the New Testament , we see descendants of Judah (like Jesus and his brethren) and descendants of Benjamin (like Paul). You might point out that Judah and Benjamin had been in the southern Kingdom, not the northern kingdom. True. but we also know that the Levites had not "disappeared from the face of the planet" because various people (like Zacharias, John the Baptist and Barnabus) are identified as Levites in the NT. So, we've only got another 9 tribes to 'discover'.

Make that 8. We read in Luke about a woman called Anna who he identified as being of the (northern) tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). How could Luke know this if in fact that tribe had "disappeard" or ceased to exist? And note that he writes without any special shock or surprise - which one might have expected if she was an unsual case - someone who had miraculously managed to keep her identity when all of her kismen had 'disappeared'.

I think the death-knell to the lost tribes of ISrael idea can be applied by James. He writes his epistle to “the Twelve Tribes who are in the dispersion” (James 1:1 YLT). This is critical. Why write to all twelve tribes if ten of them had long-previously ceased to exist? And how would the readers be able to identify themselves as part of the twelve tribes? Or are you going to suggest he was referring to Christians from all nations (replacement theology)?

My conclusion is that if the ten tribes had "disappeared from the face of the planet" by the time of Jesus and His apostles, they apparently knew nothing about it or chose to ignore it.


'Lost tribes of Israel' according to the prophets?
In Jeremiah 31, God foretold the coming of the New Covenant. But who exactly did He say He would make it with?

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah”

If the house of Israel were scheduled to "disappear" and cease to exist, why was God promising a future covenant with them?

By the way, I think it's instructive to note the LORD's following declaration:

35 Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): 36 “ If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever.”
37 Thus says the LORD: “ If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD”

We know that the sun, moon and seas still exist. If the house of Israel has indeed ceased to exist from before God, then we must be having a globe-wide hallucination which has been continuing for the past 2700 years! Furthermore, if the tribes of Israel have dissappeared form the face of the earth, can someone let me know the measurements of the universe?

Speaking after the Assyrian exile, Ezekiel made the following statement concerning both Kingdoms:

19 say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand.”’ 20 And the sticks on which you write will be in your hand before their eyes.
21 “Then say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; 22 and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again. 23 They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be My people, and I will be their God.

So, God clearly promised to take Isralites from out of their dispersion and to join them once again with their brethren from the southern Kingdom under one King. Again, if the 10 tribes were going to disappear and cease to exist, why did He make such promises? ?

Mort - surely, if we put aside pre-conceived ideas, we must ‘lose’ any idea that the 10 tribes of Israel had disappeared by the time of Jesus and the apostles. If they were not lost then, we have no reason to think they are lost now. Thus, we are indeed justified in understanding Amos’ prophecy literally While the Jews of today might not be able to identify which tribe they are from (aside from the Levites), God knows who they are.

Ely