16<\/strong>. After this<\/em> ] Lit. after these things<\/em>, (so R. V.<\/em>) It will be seen on reference to the words of Amos that the quotation here given is not made from the Hebrew, which is correctly represented by the A.V. in the book of Amos. Whether St James himself spoke at the synod in Greek, or St Luke has represented in Greek what the speaker himself uttered in Aramaic we cannot know. But the words in the text correspond very nearly with the LXX. which here (either because they read the Hebrew consonants differently or because they merely gave the sense without attempting an exact rendering), varies from the Hebrew text. Yet St Luke does not give exactly the words of the LXX. He may have quoted from memory or have modified them somewhat to adapt them to the form of his sentence. The words of the LXX. run thus, “In that day I will set up the tabernacle of David which hath fallen down, and I will build up the fallen parts thereof, and the ruins thereof I will set up, and I will build it up as the days of eternity, that the residue of men may seek (unto it) and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called saith the Lord who doeth all these things.”<\/p>\n I will return, and will build<\/em> ] This is not the form of either the Hebrew text or the LXX., but it is a favourite Hebrew mode of expression to signify “I will do a thing again.” Cp. Ecc 4:1<\/span>, “I returned and considered” = I considered once again. Also Ecc 4:7<\/span>; Ecc 9:11<\/span>. This favours the opinion that St James, in this specially Jewish synod, may have spoken in Aramaic.<\/p>\n the tabernacle of David<\/em> ] The word used by Amos signifies one of those booths used by the people at the Feast of Tabernacles, when they lived in frail dwellings in order to be reminded that God was their protector. This word may be applied to the estate of the Jews when the Deliverer should come, to indicate that they should be brought very low, but yet should find in him a Saviour.<\/p>\n After this – <\/B>This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint, but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing. The prophet Amos Amo 9:8-10<\/span> had described the calamities which would come upon the nation of the Jews by their being scattered and driven away. This implied that the city of Jerusalem, the temple, and the walls of the city would be destroyed. But after that (Heb: on that day, Amo 9:11<\/span>, that is, the day when he should revisit them and recover them) he would restore them to their former privileges – would rebuild their temple, their city, and their walls, Amo 9:11<\/span>. And not only so, not only would the blessing descend on the Jews, but it would also be extended to others. The remnant of Edom, the pagan upon whom his name would be called Amo 9:12<\/span>, would also partake of the mercy of God, and be subject to the Jewish people, and a time of general prosperity and of permanent blessings would follow, Amo 9:13-15<\/span>. James understands this as referring to the times of the Messiah, and to the introduction of the gospel to the Gentiles. And so the passage Amo 9:12<\/span> is rendered in the Septuagint. See ver. 17.<\/P> I will return – <\/B>When the people of God are subjected to calamities and trials, it is often represented as if God had departed from them. His returning, therefore, is an image of their restoration to his favor and to prosperity. This is not, however, in the Hebrew, in Amo 9:11<\/span>.<\/P> I will build again – <\/B>In the calamities that would come upon the nation Amo 9:8<\/span>, it is implied that the temple and the city would be destroyed. To build them again would be a proof of his returning favor.<\/P> The tabernacle of David – <\/B>The tent of David. Here it means the house or royal residence of David and the kings of Israel. That is, he would restore them to their former glory and splendor as his people. The reference here is not to the temple, which was the work of Solomon, but to the magnificence and splendor of the dwelling-place of David; that is, to the full enjoyment of their former high privileges and blessings.<\/P> Which is fallen down – <\/B>Which would be destroyed by the King of Babylon, and by the long neglect and decay resulting from their being carried to a distant land,<\/P> The ruins thereof – <\/B>Heb. close up the breaches thereof. That is, it would be restored to its former prosperity and magnificence; an emblem of the favor of God, and of the spiritual blessings that would in future times descend on the Jewish people.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 16<\/span>. After this I will return, and will build again<\/B><\/I>, c.] These two verses, 16th and 17th, are quoted from Amo 9:11-12<\/span>, nearly as they now stand in the best editions of the Septuagint<\/I>, and evidently taken from that version, which differs considerably from the Hebrew text. As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God<\/I>, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises. But that the words were thus understood by the ancient Jews, we have their own testimony. In Sanhedr<\/I>. fol. 69, we have these remarkable words: “Rabbi Nachman said to Rabbi Isaac, ‘Whence art thou taught when Bar Naphli<\/I> will come?’ He saith unto him, ‘Who is this Bar Naphli<\/I>?’ The other replied, ‘He is the Messiah<\/I>.’ ‘Dost thou then call the Messiah Bar Naphli<\/I>?’ ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘for it is written, In that day I will build again the<\/I> tabernacle of David<\/I>, HANOPHELETH, which is falling down<\/I>.'” This is evidently a quotation from Am 9:11<\/span>, and a proof that the Jews understood it to be a prophecy concerning the Messiah. See Lightfoot<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n After this; in the days of the Messiah. <\/P> I will return: the word may be taken in both voices. If actively, it signifies Gods returning uuto the Gentiles, from whom he had departed. If passively, it foreshows their returning unto God, whom they had forsaken. <\/P> The tabernacle; the house, expressed by a tabernacle, (as frequently in Scripture), because that anciently they dwelt only in tabernacles; and here for the throne of David, who was a type of Christ, whose kingdom is over all. God does promise less than he does perform, for he did not only restore the tabernacle of David, in Christ, but raised it to a far greater splendour and glory in its spiritual state. And though St. James here does not exactly keep unto the words of the prophet, he speaks their sense and meaning. <\/P> <\/p>\n 14-17. Simeon<\/B>a Hebrew<\/I>variation of Simon, as in 2Pe 1:1<\/span>;(Greek<\/I>), the Jewish and family name of Peter. <\/P> hath declared how God at thefirst<\/B>answering to Peter’s own expression “a good whileago” (Ac 15:7<\/span>). <\/P> did visit the Gentiles totake out of them<\/B>in the exercise of His adorable sovereignty. <\/P> a people for his name<\/B>thehonor of his name, or for His glory.<\/P><\/p>\n After this I will return<\/strong>,…. That is, after the Lord had destroyed the sinful kingdom from off the face of the earth, and had sifted the house of Israel among all nations, and the sinners of his people were slain with the sword; after all this he promises to return and show favour to them: this is the sense of the prophet which James gives; for these words are not at length in Amos; there it is only said, “in that day”; upon which Jarchi’s note is,<\/p>\n “after all these things shall have come upon them, that day shall come which is appointed for redemption;”<\/p>\n which well agrees with James here, and the manner in which he introduces this passage:<\/p>\n and will build again the tabernacle of David, that is fallen down<\/strong>: that is, as the Jewish r writers themselves interpret it, the kingdom of the house of David, though in a temporal sense, which was now in a most ruinous condition; the sceptre was departed from Judah; all; power and authority were falling off apace from the Jews, into the hands of the Romans; David’s family were quite sunk, and almost gone, and had no share at all in the civil government; Jesus, who was descended from him, and was of the blood royal, and right heir to his throne, was born of a poor virgin; and his supposed father was a carpenter; and he himself the King of the Jews, was crucified by them; yet notwithstanding all this, David’s tabernacle was to be rebuilt, and his kingdom to be restored by the Messiah, but in a spiritual way; for the tabernacle of David designs the spiritual kingdom or church of Christ, who is here called David, as in<\/p>\n Eze 34:23<\/span> and of whom David was an eminent type: and the church may be called a tabernacle, being in the present state of things, as to its place, uncertain and moveable, though ere long it will be a tabernacle that will not be taken down, Isa 33:20<\/span> and Christ’s tabernacle, being of his building, and where he dwells and keeps his court, as King of saints; see Isa 16:5<\/span> and which was in a fallen ruinous condition when he came on earth, through the corrupt principles of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the bigotry and superstition of the one, and the deism of the other; and through the great decay of spiritual worship and powerful godliness, and the bad lives of professors, and the small number of truly godly persons: the Jews s themselves refer this prophecy to the times of the Messiah, yea, one of the names by which they call the Messiah is taken from hence t: it is asked,<\/p>\n “who is Bar Naphli? it is replied, the Messiah; the Messiah is called Bar Naphli (the son fallen, or of the fallen); is it not written, “in that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen down?””<\/p>\n one of their own commentators u on this text, has this note,<\/p>\n “if we interpret this of the Messiah, the matter is clear:”<\/p>\n but then this must be understood in a spiritual sense, for Christ’s kingdom is not a worldly one; the raising up and rebuilding of this tabernacle, must design the reviving of true religion, the doctrine and practice of it, the enlargement of the church of God, by the conversion both of Jews and Gentiles:<\/p>\n and I will build again the ruins thereof<\/strong>, and I will set it up; which has been done by breaking down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, and letting in the latter into the Gospel church with the former, whereby it grows up to be an holy temple in the Lord; see Isa 54:2<\/span> and to this sense the Jews themselves w interpret it;<\/p>\n “the holy blessed God will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, as it is said, Am 9:11<\/span> in that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David; for all the world shall be , “one bundle”; as it is said, Zep 3:9<\/span>”<\/p>\n r Targum, Jarchi & Kimchi in loc. s Zohar in Gen. fol. 53. 2. & in Exod. fol. 4. 2. & 96. 2. t T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 96. 2. u Aben Ezra in Amos ix. 11. w Bereshit Rabba, sect. 88. fol. 76. 4.<\/p>\n I will build again <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Here LXX has <\/SPAN><\/span>. Compound (<\/SPAN><\/span>, up or again) of <\/SPAN><\/span>, the verb used by Jesus in Mt 16:18<\/span> of the general church or kingdom as here which see.<\/P> The tabernacle of David <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>), a poetical figure of the throne of David (2Sa 7:12<\/span>) now “the fallen tent” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>), perfect active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, state of completion.<\/P> The ruins thereof <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Literally, “the ruined portions of it.” Perfect passive participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, to turn down. It is a desolate picture of the fallen, torn down tent of David.<\/P> I will let it up <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Old verb from <\/SPAN><\/span> (, <\/SPAN><\/span>), to set upright. See on Lu 13:13<\/span> of the old woman whose crooked back was set straight. <\/P><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “After this I will return,”<\/strong> (meta tauta anastrepso) “After these things I will return,” come again, after the “times of the Gentiles” and the church age have been fulfilled, Luk 21:24<\/span>; Rom 11:25<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “And will build again the tabernacle of David,”<\/strong> (kai anoikodomeso ten skenen David) “And I will rebuild the tent of David,” referring to the reestablishment of Israel’s return to the Land Grant Territory which God once promised Abraham that his race would occupy and control in peace, a Divine promise and covenant, yet to be fulfilled, at the return of the Lord, to this earth, Luk 1:31-33<\/span>; Luk 22:28-30<\/span>; 1Co 15:23-25<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Which is fallen down;<\/strong> (ten peptokuian) “Which is having fallen,” Rom 11:23-27<\/span>; Jer 12:15<\/span>; 2Sa 7:12<\/span>, from the lofty place and state of its first or former reign’.<\/p>\n 4) “And I will build again the ruins thereof,”<\/strong> (kai ta katestrammena autes anoikodomeso) “And the things that have been overturned, relating to it, I will rebuild,” reestablish, Amo 9:11-12<\/span>. Remember, James gave this interpretation of the prophets regarding the return of Jesus was to be after the Gentile dispensation -and church age, 2Ti 2:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5) “And I will set it up:<\/strong> (kai anorthoso auten) “And I will set it up (in order) again:” The integrity of the Trinity is here conditioned on the second coming of Jesus Christ, yet future, and on the restitution of the nation of Israel in the Promised Land when Jesus shall reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, from David’s throne in Mt Zion, in Jerusalem, Luk 1:32-33<\/span>; Gen 13:14-17<\/span>; Gen 15:18<\/span>; Gen 17:8<\/span>; Rev 3:21<\/span>.<\/p>\n − <\/p>\n 16. After these things I will return. Because the place is not cited word for word as it is in the prophet, we must see what difference there is, though it be not necessary to examine straitly what diversity there is in the words, so it appear that the prophecy doth fitly agree with the matter which is in hand. After that God hath promised the restoring of the tabernacle of David, he saith also, that he will bring to pass that the Jews shall possess the remnants of Edom. In all that text, there appeareth nothing as yet whence the calling of the Gentiles can be fet − (122) or gathered; but that which followeth immediately after in the prophet, concerning the remnant of the Gentiles which shall call upon the name of the Lord, doth plainly show that the Jews and Gentiles shall make one Church, because that which was then proper to the Jews alone is given to both in general. For God placeth the Gentiles in like degree of honor with the Jews, when he will have them to call upon his name. Those of Idumea, and the people thereabout, were in times past under David subject to the Jews; but though they were tributaries to the people of God, yet were they nevertheless strangers from the Church. Therefore, this was news and a strange thing, in that God reckoneth them up with the holy people, that he may be called − (123) the God of them all; seeing that it is certain that they are all made equal in honor among themselves by this means. Whereby it doth plainly appear how well the testimony of the prophet agreeth with the present purpose. For God promiseth to restore the decayed tabernacle, wherein the Gentiles shall obey the kingdom of David, not only that they may pay tribute, or take [to arms] weapon at the king’s commandment, but that they may have one God, and that they may be one family to him. − <\/p>\n Yet there may a question be moved, why he had rather cite this prophecy, than many other which contain more plentiful proof of the matter which he hath in hand, of which sort Paul citeth many? ( Rom 15:9<\/span>.) I answer, first, that the apostles were not ambitious in heaping up places of Scripture; but they did simply aim at this, which was sufficient for them, to wit, that they might prove that their doctrine was taken out of the word of God; secondly, I say that this prophecy of Amos is more plain than it is commonly taken to be. The prophet intreateth of the restoring of an house which was decayed; − (124) he describeth the miserable ruin thereof. Therefore, the promise, which is added immediately, that the seat and throne shall be set up again, from of which kings of the posterity of David shall rule over the Gentiles, doth properly appertain unto Christ. Therefore, so soon as the kingdom of Christ is set up, that must needs follow which the prophet saith also, that the Gentiles shall call upon the name of God. Now, we see that James did not unadvisedly make choice of this place; for if the kingdom of Christ cannot be otherwise established, unless God be called upon everywhere throughout the whole world, and the Gentiles grow together to be one with his holy people, it is an absurd thing that they should be driven from hope of salvation, and the middle wall must fall to the ground, wherewith the one was separate from the other under the law, − (125) ( Eph 2:14<\/span>.) The first word, I will return, is not in the prophet, but the change of the state which he denounceth is very well expressed by this means. − <\/p>\n The tabernacle of David, which was decayed. It is not without cause that that evil-favored wasteness and ruin of the king’s house is set before our eyes by the prophet; for unless the godly should have been persuaded that Christ should notwithstanding come, though the kingdom of David were brought to nought, who should not only restore to their old order things which were decayed, but should exalt even unto the heavens the glory of his kingdom with incomparable success, they should have despaired a hundred times in a day. After they were returned from the exile wherein they lived at Babylon, they were brought by continual destructions almost unto utter destruction. Afterward that which remained was consumed by little and little with civil − (126) discord, yea, when God did relieve their miseries, that kind of help which they had was a certain matter of despair; − (127) for that rule which the Maccabees took upon them was then taken away from the tribe of Juda. For these causes the Spirit of God doth diligently beat in [inculcate] this by the prophet, that Christ shall not come until the kingdom of David shall perish, that they may not despair of salvation even amidst greatest miseries. So Isaiah saith, that there shall a branch arise out of the contemptible and base stock, − (128) ( Isa 11:1<\/span>\ud83d\ude09 and let us also remember, that God doth observe this wonderful way in restoring the Church, that he doth build it up, − (129) when it is decayed. − <\/p>\n Furthermore, this place teachers when the Church is best ordered, and what is the true and right constitution thereof, to wit, when the throne of David is set up, and Christ alone hath the preeminence, that all may meet together in his obedience. − (130) − <\/p>\n Though the Pope have oppressed the Church with his sacrilegious tyranny, yet doth he make boast of the title of the Church; yea, he deceiveth men under the vain title of the Church, that he may put out the clear light of sound doctrine. But if we shall come thoroughly to examine the matter, we may easily refute such a gross mock, because he alone beareth rule, having deposed Christ. He doth in word confess that he is Christ’s vicar; but in very deed after that he hath by a beautiful banishment − (131) sent Christ into the heavens, he taketh to himself all his power; for Christ reigneth by the doctrine of his gospel alone, which is wickedly trodden under foot by this abominable idol. But let us remember that this shall be the lawful estate of the Church among us, if we do all in general − (132) obey Christ, the King of kings, that there may be one sheepfold and one Shepherd, ( Joh 10:16<\/span>.) − <\/p>\n (122) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Elici,” inferred. <\/p>\n (123) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Pariter,” in like manner. <\/p>\n (124) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Collapsa erat,” had fallen down. <\/p>\n (125) − <\/p>\n “−<\/p>\n Hunc enim finem inter alios habebant ceremoniae, ut sanctum Dei populum a profanis Gentilus discernerent; nunc sublato discrimine, ceremonias quoque abrogari convenit ,” for ceremonies had this, among other ends, that they might distinguish the holy people of God from the profane Gentiles; the distinction being now removed, ceremonies must also be abolished. The whole of this passage is omitted in the translation. <\/p>\n (126) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Intestinis,” intestine. <\/p>\n (127) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Quaedam erat desperationis materia,” was a kind of material for despair. <\/p>\n (128) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Ex contempto et ignobili trunco,” from an ignoble and despised trunk. <\/p>\n (129) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Ex ruinis,” out of ruins. <\/p>\n (130) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n In ejus obsequium conveniant,” may accord in obeying him. <\/p>\n (131) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Specioso exilio,” a specious exile. <\/p>\n (132) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Omnes ad unum,” all to a man. <\/p>\n (16) After this I will return.<\/strong>It is a fact not without interest that the prophet from whom these words are taken (Amo. 9:11-12<\/span>) had been already quoted by Stephen (Act. 7:42<\/span>). Those who then listened to him had, we may believe, been led to turn to the writings of Amos, and to find in them meanings which had hitherto been latent. The fact that the inference drawn from the passage mainly turns on a clause in which the LXX. version, which St. James quotes, differs from the Hebrew, shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the discussion must have been conducted in Greek, and not in Hebrew. At first this may appear strange in a council held at Jerusalem, but the trial of Stephen presents a precedent (see Note on Act. 7:1<\/span>); and it is obvious that in a debate which chiefly affected the interests of Greeks, and at which many of them, and of the Hellenistic Jews, were likely to be present, the use of that language, both in the debate and the decree in which it resulted, was almost a matter of necessity. Both languages were probably equally familiar to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (See Note on Act. 22:2<\/span>.) The quotation suggests, perhaps implies, a fuller interpretation than is given in the summary of St. Jamess speech. It assumes that the tabernacle of David, which to human eyes had been lying as in ruins, was being rebuilt by Christ, the Son of David, that He was doing the work which, in the prophecy, Jehovah claimed as His.<\/p>\n 16<\/strong>. <\/strong> The tabernacle of David<\/strong> The two verses are quoted nearly accurately from the Septuagint of Amo 9:11-12<\/span>. The Jews applied it to the times of the Messiah. By David’s booth or tabernacle is meant the royal dominion of David; to which, as James, the brother of Jesus, well knew, Jesus was the lineal heir by human birth. And, as Jesus was dead, James himself was lineally king of Jerusalem!<\/p>\n It is a remarkable proof of the popular use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, that Judaic James should thus quote it even where it seems to vary from the ordinary Hebrew text. Yet the substance of the Hebrew prediction is conveyed in the words quoted. <\/p>\n The residue<\/strong> Other than Jews; a depreciatory term for Gentiles.<\/p>\n “After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen, and I will build again its ruins, and I will set it up, that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.”<\/p>\n The verse as quoted here is a declaration of God’s restoration of things at the last day after the judgments of God have been poured out. The prophet sees God as here promising the restoration of the ‘tabernacle (or ‘dwellingplace’) of David’. Amos is speaking to the northern kingdom of Israel. This may therefore be seen as the promise that one day, after God’s threatened judgments have passed, the house of David itself will be restored as rulers over all Israel, and that once this is set up those who remain of Israel will seek after the Lord, (or alternately those who remain of mankind), accompanied by all the Gentiles on whom the Lord’s name is called. In Amos’ mind were the promises concerning the house of David in, for example, 2Sa 7:4-17<\/span>. It is thus expressing the Messianic hope and the idea of the coming of the everlasting King. Only when He has come will all things be put right.<\/p>\n That it is more the restoring of the Davidic rulers that was in Amos’ mind, than the place of worship, comes out in the fact that at the time of the prophecy the Temple was still standing and would hardly therefore be described in this way. It was the ruling house of David which, as far as Israel and Amos were concerned, was fallen down and in ruins. Note also how in Isa 16:5<\/span> ‘the tabernacle of David’ again refers to the ruling house of David.<\/p>\n This being so, if James took it this way, it would mean that he saw in Jesus’ birth, resurrection and exaltation the rebuilding and restoring of the house of David (this in full accord with Scripture, see Luk 1:32-33<\/span>; Luk 1:69<\/span>; Luk 2:11<\/span>; Luk 18:38<\/span>; Act 2:34<\/span>; Rom 1:3<\/span>; 2Ti 2:8<\/span>; Rev 5:5<\/span>; Rev 22:16<\/span> compare Isa 11:10<\/span>). He may possibly also have seen the resulting work of the Spirit in Acts 1-6 as the ‘residue of men (of the house of Israel) seeking after the Lord’. That being so, he says, the conversion of Gentiles must necessarily follow represented by ‘all the Gentiles on whom His name is called’ (compare for this phrase ‘as many as were disposed towards eternal life believed’ – Act 13:48<\/span>). This fits easily in with his ‘God did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name’ (Act 15:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n We may see James here therefore as arguing that the days of proselytising are past, because the last days are come and the full purposes of God are now in process of fulfilment, the purposes in which through His King His light will go to the Gentiles, bringing them to the Lord in large numbers as so regularly promised in the Old Testament in one way or another (e.g. Isa 2:2-4<\/span>; Isa 11:10<\/span>; Isa 42:1<\/span>; Isa 42:6<\/span>; Isa 49:6<\/span>; Isa 49:22<\/span>; Isa 60:3<\/span>; Isa 60:5<\/span>; Isa 60:11<\/span>; Mal 1:11<\/span>).<\/p>\n ‘Who makes these things known from of old.” This is probably an additional comment by James emphasising that what God intends to do He prepares His people for beforehand. It was a warning not to dismiss something that God has previously revealed from of old.<\/p>\n Further Note on James’ Quotation.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Alternately James might simply have been seeing the reference in the light of the collapse of the house of David overall. But even so the result would be the same. The house of David was now seen as having been restored as a result of Jesus succeeding to the Kingship, having been born to be king (Luk 1:31-33<\/span> compare Mic 5:2<\/span>), having been appointed by the voice at His baptism (Mar 1:11<\/span>; Luk 3:22<\/span>) and transfiguration (Mar 9:7<\/span>; Luk 9:35<\/span>) and having been finally openly installed in His resurrection and exaltation (Act 2:30-36<\/span>; Mat 28:18<\/span>). As we know, at His trial Jesus was accused of ‘saying that He was Christ a King’ (Luk 23:2<\/span>), a charge which He answered by declaring, “My kingdom is not of this world — You say that I am a king, to this end was I born and to this end came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth’ (Joh 18:36-37<\/span>). Thus He admitted to being a King but declared that His Kingly Rule was to be established by witness to the truth, and His kingly presence had been there for that purpose. It was a heavenly Kingship, a Kingship with heavenly purposes, not an earthly one.<\/p>\n The use of the quotation as described here would be very little different from our main suggestion above except that it does not take the prophecy strictly in context. But whichever way it is seen, it all points in the same direction.<\/p>\n We cannot agree with those who attempt to make ‘the tent (or dwellingplace) of David’ signify Israel. There are really no grounds for this at all. The parallel ‘house of David’ always represents the rulers of the house of David and never Israel, while the only other use of ‘the tent (or ‘dwellingplace’) of David’, found in Isa 16:5<\/span>, also refers to the ruling house of David. There reference is made to a throne being set up in the tent of David on which sits a king of the house of David, judging and seeking justice, and swift to do righteousness<\/p>\n For a reference to Israel we would look for reference to ‘the tent or house of Moses’ or ‘the tent or house of Israel\/Jacob’ or something similar (compare how in Lam 2:4<\/span> Jerusalem was ‘the tent of the daughter of Zion’ not of David, and Psa 78:67<\/span> where reference is made to ‘the tent of Joseph’, in parallel with the ‘tribe of Ephraim’, signifying Israel). It will be noted that in the context in Amos separate reference is made to ‘the house of Jacob’ and ‘the house of Israel’ (Amo 9:8-9<\/span>). It would be strange for them therefore so soon afterwards to be called the Tabernacle of David. Note also the fact that Israel were often urged to return to their ‘tents’ even when they lived in houses so that tent and house was equivalent (e.g. 1Ki 12:16<\/span>), which means that if Amos had spoken of their restoration it would have been as the tent of Israel. Israel is never anywhere else described as the tent or house of David. The tent or house of David refers always to the kingship. Thus it is the re-establishing of God’s king which is in mind here which will then result in the establishing of his rule and the remnant of men, including the Gentiles, seeking the Lord.<\/p>\n With regard to the differences between James’ quotation and the MT it should be noticed that as regards the underlying Hebrew text they are not as great as they might at first appear. We may compare the two quotations:<\/p>\n James says “After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen<\/em>, and I will build again its ruins<\/em>, and I will set it up, that the residue of<\/em> men (Hebrew ’dm) may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called , says the Lord, Who makes these things known from of old. ” (The comment ‘Who makes these things known from of old’ may be made by James, although it may be an interpretation of ‘Who does this’)).<\/p>\n MT says, “In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David which is fallen<\/em>, and will close up its breaches, and I will raise up his ruins<\/em>, and I will build it as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnant of<\/em> Edom (or ‘men’ – Hebrew ’dm) and all the nations which are called by my name<\/em>, says the Lord Who does this’.<\/p>\n Having italicised the words which could have the same Hebrew origin (giving reasonable licence in translation) it is clear that the general gist is the same, and that they are basically saying the same thing. MT could equally have pointed ’dm in such a way as to translates as ‘men’ rather than as ‘Edom’ (the Hebrew consonants, that is, the original Hebrew text, are the same).<\/p>\n Certainly James’ source has amplified it a little. ‘After these things I will return’ is an interpretation of ‘in that day’, for ‘that Day’ is the day when God returns to deal with His people after the things that have preceded. ‘Returning’ is read in but expresses the intention of MT that God will return in that Day to act. ‘The residue of men seeking after the Lord’ will be the result of Israel ‘possessing the remnant of men’ (Edom), for when Israel took possession of a people those of whom they took possession would seek after the Lord, (as indeed happened to Edom under John Hyrcanus, although unfortunately by force). ‘All the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called’ is the equivalent of, ‘all the nations which are called by my name’ (for ‘nations’ = ‘Gentiles’).<\/p>\n The only open question (which does not affect the argument in this case) is as to whether the ‘residue’ originally refers to Israel as ‘men’, or to ‘Edom’, or to ‘all men’. This partly depends on which pointing we apply to the Hebrew text, but it does not affect the conclusion here.<\/p>\n The whole question of the use of ‘Scripture’ in various versions in this way is a very complicated one, and a shortage of materials and evidence makes it difficult to deal with satisfactorily, but this all indicates how many ‘versions’ there were about then, as we know from Qumran, just as we have many versions around today, and as with our versions, some were more free in their translation or rendering than others.<\/p>\n We should not be surprised that they felt happy to quote as ‘Scripture’ the versions that they possessed, just as we quote our favourite versions as ‘Scripture’. As long as the sense was basically the same we cannot quibble. But we can rest content in that the most reliable Hebrew texts were kept preserved in the Temple and carefully renewed, and from them came the MT. In the end therefore, with all our versions, when in doubt we have to go back to the MT (Massoretic Text of the Old Testament).<\/p>\n One word we might add here is concerning the original meaning of Amos. It seems very possible that he wrote with Isa 16:5<\/span>, the only other place where ‘the tabernacle of David’ is mentioned, in mind. There a throne is set up in the tent of David on which sits a king of the house of David, judging and seeking justice, and swift to do righteousness. To this king from Edom<\/em> appeal the remnants of Moab after their desolation by the Assyrians as they seek to escape the vengeance of Assyria. Were these the ‘remnant of Edom’ that Amos had in mind, as representing all devastated and humbled people? Or alternately is this how those who pointed the MT saw it? It is otherwise an interesting coincidence. But however that might be Amos’ point is that it is the restored ‘David’ who will bring all this about and enable his people to take over what are, in the promises of God, their rightful possessions, including all those on whom God has set His name. Israel’s problems had arisen because they had deserted the house of David, and had probably pulled down his palace(s) in the northern kingdom. Their problems could therefore now never be solved until the Kingship of David was restored in terms of the king of the last days. Only then could His people inherit the promises, which includes the Gentiles on whom God has set His name.<\/p>\n End of note.<\/p>\n As is often pointed out James makes no reference to the contribution of Barnabas and Paul (nor to the opinions of the Pharisees who had earlier spoken). But that is not really surprising when we consider the basis on which the decision was being made. While all were allowed to air their views it was not a question to James of coming to a consensus, however important that might be, but a question of finding the mind of the Lord. Thus he was seeking a divine contribution. One had certainly come in what had happened to Peter with Cornelius. What that signified had been agreed at their previous similar enquiry and was now repeated. It was therefore the divine will. Now therefore it was a question of what the Holy Spirit said, and as far as he was concerned the Holy Spirit had spoken to him, (and through him to the others), from the Scriptures. And that really decided the matter. It was not a question of coming to agreement but of knowing the divine will. And God had spoken. All else was irrelevant. Men like James do not descend directly to comparing arguments. They may listen but they then look directly to God and pronounce their view.<\/p>\n Act 15:16-17<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>After this I will return, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> These words are quoted from Amo 9:11-12<\/span> according to the reading of the LXX. Bishop Chandler seems very justly to argue, that the Jews understood and admitted the words in the sense that St. James quotes them; or they would not have submitted to his interpretation, considering how strongly they were prejudiced against the consequence that he drew from them. Instead of the residue of men, <\/em>it is in the Hebrew, the remnant of Edom; <\/em>one of the nations which were the bitterest enemies to Israel, and a remnant of the most abandoned and profligate idolaters; and if they were to be received into the visible church, the Jews might consequently expect that the other Gentiles would be much more reconciled to Christianity. The Gentiles, upon whom the name of the Lord is called, <\/em>is a most proper description of those who are converted to the true religion. See the note on Amo 9:11<\/span>. <\/p>\n 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: <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 16. Which is fallen down<\/strong> ] Christ came when all seemed to be lost and laid on heaps. He still reserveth his holy hand for a dead lift, and delighteth to help those that are forsaken of their hopes. This Branch grew out of the roots of Jesse; when that goodly family was sunk so low, as from David the king to Joseph the carpenter, Isa 11:1<\/span> . <\/p>\n 16 18.<\/strong> ] The citation from Amos is made freely from the LXX: differing widely in the latter part from our present Hebrew text, which see in loc. E. V. In all probability the LXX had another reading before them, substituting perhaps for and for . The existing Hebrew MSS. contain several minor variations, for which see Kennicott and De Rossi in loc. Of this we may at least be sure, that James, even if (as I believe) he spoke in Greek<\/em> , and quoted as here given, would not himself (nor would the Pharisees present have allowed it) have quoted any rendering, especially where the stress of his argument lay in it, at variance with the original Hebrew<\/em> .<\/p>\n The prophecy regards that glorious restitution of the kingdom to (the Son of) David, which should be begun by the incarnation of the Lord, and perfected by His reign over all nations. During the process of this restitution those nations, as the effect of the rebuilding, should seek the Lord, to whomsoever the gospel should be preached. There is here neither assertion nor negation of the national restoration of the Jews<\/strong> . Be this as it may (and I firmly believe in the literal accomplishment of all the prophecies respecting them as a nation), it is obvious, on any deep view of prophetic interpretation, that the glorious things which shall have a<\/em> fulfilment in the literal Israel, must have their complete and more worthy fulfilment<\/em> in the spiritual theocracy, of which the Son of David is the Head.<\/p>\n Act 15:16<\/span> . : both Hebrew and LXX, . , i.e.<\/em> , in the Messianic times, after the predicted chastisement of Israel: the house of David is in ruins, but it is to be re-erected, and from the restoration of its prosperity the Messianic blessings will flow: “the person of the Messiah does not appear in this prophecy, but there is the generic reference to the house of David, and the people of Israel,” Briggs, Messianic Prophecy<\/em> , p. 163, Delitzsch, Messianische Weissagungen<\/em> , second edition, p. 94. St. James sees the spiritual fulfilment of the prophecy in the kingdom of Christ erected on the Day of Pentecost, and in the ingathering of the Gentile nations to it. On the Messianic interpretations of the passage amongst the Jews see Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah<\/em> , ii., 734. .: like Hebrew = I will return and do, i.e.<\/em> , I will do again but not in LXX or Hebrew. In the latter we have simply , and in LXX , where St. James has : the idea of restoration is fully contained in the twice repeated . and in . . . .: the noun is used to show how low the house of David (2Sa 7:12<\/span> ) had fallen it is no longer a palace but a hut, and that in ruins: the Hebrew word might be used for a temporary structure of the boughs of trees as at the Feast of Tabernacles. We may compare the way in which this hope of restoration asserted itself in Psalms of Solomon<\/em> , Act 17:23<\/span> , where Ryle and James, p. 137, compare the words with Amo 9:11<\/span> , Jer 30:9<\/span> , etc. From the passage before us the Messiah received the name of Bar Naphli, “Son of the fallen”. , see critical note. In LXX [285] has ., .<\/p>\n [285] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.<\/p>\n will return, &c. A Hebraism for “I will build again”. Compare Gen 26:18. Num 11:4 (margin) <\/p>\n return. Greek. anastrepho. Compare Act 5:22. But elsewhere refers to passing one’s life, except Joh 2:15 (overthrow). Compare the noun anastrope. Always translated “conversation”, i.e. manner of life, or behaviour. <\/p>\n build again = build up. Greek. anoikodomeo. Only here. <\/p>\n tabernacle = tent. Greek. skene, as in Act 7:43, Act 7:44. Not the house or throne. Significant of the lowliness of its condition when He comes to raise it up. <\/p>\n ruins. Literally things dug down. Greek. kataskapto. Only here and Rom 11:3. The texts read “things overturned”. Greek. katastrepho. <\/p>\n sat it up = make upright or straight. Greek. anorthoo. Here, Luk 13:13. Heb 12:12. <\/p>\n 16-18.] The citation from Amos is made freely from the LXX: differing widely in the latter part from our present Hebrew text, which see in loc. E. V. In all probability the LXX had another reading before them, substituting perhaps for and for . The existing Hebrew MSS. contain several minor variations, for which see Kennicott and De Rossi in loc. Of this we may at least be sure, that James, even if (as I believe) he spoke in Greek, and quoted as here given, would not himself (nor would the Pharisees present have allowed it) have quoted any rendering, especially where the stress of his argument lay in it, at variance with the original Hebrew.<\/p>\n The prophecy regards that glorious restitution of the kingdom to (the Son of) David, which should be begun by the incarnation of the Lord, and perfected by His reign over all nations. During the process of this restitution those nations, as the effect of the rebuilding, should seek the Lord,-to whomsoever the gospel should be preached. There is here neither assertion nor negation of the national restoration of the Jews. Be this as it may (and I firmly believe in the literal accomplishment of all the prophecies respecting them as a nation), it is obvious, on any deep view of prophetic interpretation, that the glorious things which shall have a fulfilment in the literal Israel, must have their complete and more worthy fulfilment in the spiritual theocracy, of which the Son of David is the Head.<\/p>\n Act 15:16. , , – -) Amo 9:11-12, LXX., , , – , -.- , after these things) In the Hebrew, in that day. Both expressions are to be referred to the New Testament.-) , I will return: the verb for the adverb, I will again build up.- , the tabernacle of David) It is otherwise (elsewhere) called the house of David, the throne of David; but here the tent of David, because his concerns had been reduced to great lowness of condition. Often the Church of the New Testament, which was to be built up even of Gentiles, is described under the allegory of architecture: Psa 102:14-16; Eph 2:20. The tabernacle of David, that is, of Christ. [The Church, in which Christ, the antitype of David, dwells and reigns.-V. g.]<\/p>\n tabernacle of David <\/p>\n Kingdom (N.T.) vs. Act 15:14-17; Rev 3:21; Luk 1:31-33; 1Co 15:34. <\/p>\n this: Amo 9:11, Amo 9:12 <\/p>\n build again the tabernacle: 2Sa 7:11-16, 1Ki 12:16, Psa 89:35-49, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Jer 33:24-26, Eze 17:22-24, Zec 13:8, Mat 1:20-25, Luk 1:31-33, Luk 1:69, Luk 1:70 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 1Ki 11:36 – David Job 22:18 – he filled Psa 80:14 – Return Son 8:9 – we will Isa 16:5 – in the Jer 31:4 – build Jer 31:28 – so Jer 42:10 – then Hos 3:5 – and David their king<\/p>\n Act 15:16. I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down. This Amos prophecy speaks first of the fall of the Jewish Church, and the abolition of its temple service; it next conveys the promise that God will build a new church on the ruins of the old, and gather together in it all the Gentiles. It lastly sets forth that this church shall receive salvation only through the name of the Lord, which should be called upon by it, i.e. on which it would believe. Wordsworth remarks here that Amos declares in these words that the true restoration of the tabernacle of David is to be found in the reception of the residue of the human family, and in the flowing in of all nations, whether Jew or Gentile, into the Church of Christ; and asks, Is not this a Divine declaration on the true restoration of the Jews?<\/p>\n See notes on verse 13<\/p>\n 16. After these things I will return and build again the dynasty of David which has fallen into decay, and will build again the ruins of the same and set it up (Amo 9:11-12). James quotes this prophecy in the Jerusalem council, of course giving it full New Testament endorsement, plainly and positively stating that our Savior will return to the earth after we shall have preached the gospel to every nation, thus calling out the elect and getting the Bride ready for the return of her Divine Spouse. James here positively certifies, in harmony with the old prophets, that, after we have preached the gospel to every nation, our glorified Savior will return to the earth and restore again the temporal kingdom of David, which at that time was in dilapidation and so continues to the present day. Tabernacle, E. V., is skeenee in the original, and means dynasty, or the royal line of David. [See Robinsons New Testament Greek Dictionary.] Davids kingdom was not human, but divine, i. e., the theocracy extended down on the earth, but centralized in heaven, on which our Lord was crowned when He ascended (Act 2:30), the lineal heir of David, and which He will encumber till His Father shall make all of His enemies on the earth, i. e., royal rivals, political and ecclesiastical, His footstool (Act 2:35). Then He will return according to these prophecies of both Testaments, restoring the interregnum of Davids kingdom on the earth and extending it throughout the inhabitable globe, Himself crowned King of kings and Lord of lords to reign forever.<\/p>\n Amos predicted the (second) advent of Messiah after "these things" (i.e., the Tribulation, Amo 9:8-10). Messiah would set up His kingdom on the earth and restore the nation Israel (during the Millennium) under which the Gentiles would seek the Lord. We should understand the "and" in Act 15:17 in the sense of "even" (the epexegetical use of this conjunction).<\/p>\n "A close examination of this passage [Act 15:14-17] reveals that there is a progression of thought leading to James’ conclusion. First<\/span>, God visits the Gentiles, taking from them a people for His name. In other words, God has promised to bless the Gentiles as well as Israel, but each in his own order. The Gentile blessing is first. Second<\/span>, Christ will return-after<\/span> the outcalling of the people for His name. Third<\/span>, as a result of the coming of the Lord, the tabernacle of David will be built again; that is, the kingdom will be established exactly as promised in the Davidic Covenant. Amos clearly declared that this rebuilding will be done ’as it used to be’ (Amo 9:11); that is, the blessings will be earthly and national and will have nothing to do with the church. Fourth<\/span>, the residue of men will seek the Lord; that is, all the Gentiles will be brought to a knowledge of the Lord after the kingdom is established. This same truth is taught in passages like Isa 2:2; Isa 11:10; Isa 40:5; and Isa 66:23." [Note: Pentecost, Thy Kingdom . . ., pp. 145-46.] <\/span><\/p>\n There have been three main interpretations of James’ use of Amos’ prophecy (Amo 9:11-12). [Note: See Charles Zimmerman, "To This Agree the Words of the Prophets," Grace Journal 4:3 (Fall 1963):28-40; Kent, p. 126.] <\/span> Some interpreters believe James meant that the inclusion of Gentiles in the church fulfilled God’s promise through Amos. [Note: E.g., Lenski, pp. 608-11.] <\/span> These (generally amillennial) interpreters see the church as fulfilling God’s promises to Israel. This view seems to go beyond what Amos said since his prophecy concerns the tabernacle of David, which literally interpreted would involve Israel, not the church. Second, some interpreters believe James meant that God would include Gentiles when He fulfilled this promise to Israel in the future. [Note: E.g., F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible, p. 100.] <\/span> However there was no question among the Jews that God would bless the Gentiles through Israel in the future. The issue was whether He would do this apart from Judaism, and this interpretation contributes nothing to the solution of that problem. This view does not seem to go far enough. A third view is that James meant that the present inclusion of Gentiles in the church is consistent with God’s promise to Israel through Amos (cf. Rom 16:25; Eph 3:9).Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n