...
For the same reason I now must correct the content below. This forum talks over so many passages without defining their meaning.
The Greek for "tabernacle" is skenen, tent, signifying a lowly building, perhaps representing the fallen state of the great temple of the past. Historically the "tabernacle of David" denotes the dominion established upon the basis of the Davidic covenant (2Sam 7), in which God's laws were respected, and His worship instituted.
No, frankly, the Greek for "tabernacle" is "skeenee" spelled sigma-kappa-eta-nu-eta. An eta is a "long-E" that sounds like "AY" in "BAY" while the epsilon is a "short-E" that sounds like the "E" in "BED." I use a transliteration scheme that employes "ee" for eta and "e" for epsilon. The fact that the nominative form ends in an eta tells us that this is a feminine word of the first declension. It's the accusative form of this word that ends in an eta-stigma. The word may be used to translate the Old Testament word "ohel," for the Tent in which Daviyd placed the Ark of the Covenant after he had recovered it from the P'lishtiym (the Philistines). And, it could refer to the Hebrew word "mishkaan" which means a "tent with wooden walls," but never for the Temple, which was a proper building. That was almost always called "Beiyt Elohiym," or the "House of God."
Daviyd DID live at times in an "ohel," for we read in 1 Samu'el 17:54...
1 Samuel 17:54
54 And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his tent.
KJV
He KEPT the huge armor of haP'lishtiy Golyat (Goliath) as a souvenir!
Prophetically, it points to the New Covenant, the inclusion of Gentiles in the Hope of Israel without the barriers of the Mosaic tabernacle.
Isaiah had expected Gentile converts to come to Jerusalem to learn God’s ways so that they might walk in them.
(Importance of understanding prophecy correctly!)
But Isaiah also spoke of the Gentiles' persistence as nations whose salvation did not destroy their national identities (cf Isa 2:4; Isa 25:6-7).
You're assuming MUCH in your allegorical scheme. Where is your proof that it might refer to the New Covenant?! Book, chapter and verse, please! Whereas Daviyd's fallen tent might be figurative and represent something; it's CERTAINLY not THAT! Daviyd's ohel was His place of residence (at least for a time) and housed also his wives and children. Thus, it could be representative of his FAMILY and possibly of his inheritance they would share, but anything more than that is PURE SPECULATION and PURE FANTASY!!!
Likewise, Amos spoke of 'the remnant of men' (LXX, DSS) in the last days when 'David's fallen tent' would be rebuilt as being 'all the Gentiles who bear my name' and whose continuance as Gentiles was understood.
NO! That, too, is just so much conjecture based on a poor translation of the prophecy God spoke through `Amowc! It doesn't matter that 72 priests and scribes thought the LXX was an adequate translation of the Hebrew Tanakh into Greek! All it takes is for "one bad apple to spoil the barrel!" With 72 MEN, the odds are INCREASED that one of them would be a "bad apple," that is, a poor translator! I'm not even saying that such a translator would do it on purpose, but MISTAKES HAPPEN!
Here's how I know that it is a bad translation of the prophecy of `Amowc: CONTEXT!
Amos 1:6-12
1:6 Thus saith the Lord; For three transgressions of Gaza, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they carried away captive the whole captivity, to deliver them up to Edom:
7 But I will send a fire on the wall of Gaza, which shall devour the palaces thereof:
8 And I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, and him that holdeth the sceptre from Ashkelon, and I will turn mine hand against Ekron: and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord God.
9 Thus saith the Lord; For three transgressions of Tyrus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they delivered up the whole captivity to Edom, and remembered not the brotherly covenant:
10 But I will send a fire on the wall of Tyrus, which shall devour the palaces thereof.
11 Thus saith the Lord; For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever:
12 But I will send a fire upon Teman, which shall devour the palaces of Bozrah.
KJV
And in ALL these places, the name "Edowm" is spelled EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 9:11!
In the end times, James [Acts 15:17] is saying, God's people will consist of two concentric groups. At their core will be restored Israel (ie, David's rebuilt tent); gathered around them will be a group of Gentiles (ie, 'the remnant of men') who will share in the Messianic blessings but will persist as Gentiles without necessarily becoming Jewish proselytes. It is this understanding of Amos' message, James insisted, that Peter’s testimony has affirmed, the result being that the conversion of Gentiles in the last days should be seen not as proselytizing but in an eschatological context.
NO! Just because the LXX translates the first part of the verse that way, it is the SECOND part of the verse to which Ya`aqov (James) was referring, and THAT was the part that was the reason for the quotation, the part I have underlined in the following:
Acts 15:4-31
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After 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:
17 That 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.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
KJV
James' quotation of Amos 9:11-12 is both textually and exegetically difficult. As given in Acts, the text of v 12 deviates from the MsTx and agrees with the LXX
in reading 'they will seek' (Gr 'ekzetesosin') for 'they will inherit' (Heb 'yiresu'),
in reading 'of men' (Gr 'ton anthropon') for 'of Edom' ('edom'), and
in treating 'the remnant' (Gr 'hoi kataloipoi') as the subject of the sentence rather than its object.
It would have been impossible, in fact, for James to have derived his point from the text had he worked from the MsTx.
On the other hand, the text of v 11 here differs from the LXX
in reading 'after this' (Gr 'meta tauta') for 'in that day' (Gr 'en te hemera ekeine'),
in reading 'I will return and rebuild' (Gr 'anastrepso kai anoikodomeso') for 'I will raise up' (Gr 'anasteso'),
in reading 'I will restore' (Gr 'anorthoso') for 'I will raise up' (Gr 'anasteso'), and
in omitting the clause 'and I will rebuild it as in the days of old' (Gr 'kai anoikodomeso auten kathos hai hemerai tou aionos').
Focusing on the quotation's difference from the MsTx and essential agreement with the LXX, many commentators have complained that 'the Jewish Christian James would not in Jerusalem have used a LXX text, differing from the Heb original, as scriptural proof,' and have therefore concluded, 'It is not James but Luke who is speaking here' (Haenchen, 'Acts of the Apostles' 448).
This seems HIGHLY unlikely! It would be a real stretch since Lukas is not even MENTIONED in the passage!
But while the text of Amo 9:11-12
differs from the MsTx in meaning and
(differs from) the LXX in form,
'it is exactly identical with...some attested readings of the DSS.
So, what's the problem? One should just conclude that the text is taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls or copies of the DSS that WERE PRESERVED painstakingly at Kumran between 100 and 250 B.C! Those copies could EASILY have been still in circulation during the first century A.D!
By the way, is this last paragraph original work or was it copied from someone else? If it's original with you, I'M IMPRESSED!
