SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : The Tabernacle of David

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: The Tabernacle of David


Hello all,


I have looked carefully, as I've read the Old Testament, for the historical journey of Jacob's children, and find promises of 'land' totally dependent on their obedience to God's voice. Through Moses, God told them that they would reject Him - which history proves they did. This did not mean GOD did not keep His word in sending His Son in fulfilment of many prophecies, but His appearing marked a shift in emphasis from the physical to the spiritual.

His coming as the last Adam, of an unearthy Father (but an earthly mother) is a pivotal point in history. Suddenly, the earthly patriarchy was moved aside. There is no avoiding this truth when discussing spiritual heredity.

The emphasis shifted from men looking for promises being fulfilled to themselves, to the Man fulfilling farther-reaching promises on their behalf - bringing spiritual victory to mankind.

It cannot be a 'spiritualisation' of prophecy, to give it spiritual meaning. It had a spiritual meaning all along - which is why God was so adamantly against idolatry, the main reason for the downfall of the majority of Jacob's descendants. God looks on the hearts.

The disciples were still so far removed from understanding the scriptures after three years with the Son of God Himself, that He had to expound them again after His resurrection. But still - Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? - they hadn't understood what 'the kingdom of God is within you', would mean once they had received the Holy Spirit. (John 17, also.)

And surely we do not find one time when any of those who were filled with the Spirit asked each other about the restoration of the outward kingdom of Israel thereafter? Rather, we find Peter in Acts 3 saying 'to you first', just as Paul would echo after his conversion, preaching on being delivered from SIN, through faith in Jesus Christ.

Who is rejoicing in this verse?

Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

It's not the angels.

Psalm 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

23 Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

The natural man Jacob went through a spiritual process before God gave him the new name of Israel (God prevails), and so must we - whether natural descendants of Jacob, or Gentiles - go through a spiritual process before we can be accounted as a member of Israel. Israel has always been spiritual: the peculiar treasure, the kingdom of priests, the holy NAtion (BORN separated unto God).

Romans 2:29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.


I have a little book about the spread of the gospel, reading from accounts in the 1st century, and one of the pictures which struck me most, was of everyone in their tents, where people were living, being able easily to hear the worship in those tents where the name of Jesus Christ was being lifted up, every morning as they were waking.


John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.


Paul's concluding reference to 'the Israel of God' at the end of Gal 6, is a natural progression from his reference first to himself, then to those individuals ruled by the same principle, then to the whole body of believers.

Peter does the same sort of thing in his first epistle ch 2, when his gathers all who are not in the church under the term 'Gentiles'. I believe he is also including those Jews who had chanted 'We have no king but Caesar!'.


The 'earthly' 'kingdom' of 'Israel' in reality, is the tabernacle of the body being wholly given over to God, no more dominated by sin and death, so that, as Adam was made of the dust of the ground, his descendants can say 'The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof', with joy!

 2010/10/6 20:36
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re:

Good word, Linn.

Quote:
It cannot be a 'spiritualisation' of prophecy, to give it spiritual meaning. It had a spiritual meaning all along



Amen.

Quote:
The disciples were still so far removed from understanding the scriptures after three years with the Son of God Himself, that He had to expound them again after His resurrection. But still - Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? - they hadn't understood what 'the kingdom of God is within you', would mean once they had received the Holy Spirit. (John 17, also.)



Quote:
And surely we do not find one time when any of those who were filled with the Spirit asked each other about the restoration of the outward kingdom of Israel thereafter



Amen. They had started to see the spiritual reality God had in mind all along.


_________________
Allan Halton

 2010/10/6 22:35Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

...But I'll just add this: I don't know why people get scared of talk about spiritualizing the Scriptures.



I have no fear in doing it. Indeed, I don't know how one can read the Scriptures and not spiritualize their meaning. Indeed, personal application is often found in such a way, especially when one read's narratives. However, when doing such, I think one needs to do so carefully, and only secondary to the plain and literal meaning of a text.

Likewise, when reading the New testament, and coming across a citation from the Old Testament, one needs to carefully investigate the nature of the authors citation usage. It's a really delicate and difficult task to do, but in my opinion, such a detailed study is worth its weight in gold. I've discovered in my studying that the New Testament authors can cite passages in a number of different ways.

Quote:

...I always go by the rule that the Old Testament Scriptures must be interpreted now, and seen now, in the Light of the New, always with the help of the Holy Spirit, of course.



I know such is a common rule people often employ, and I see the merit in it, but I would caution one in using such a rule, depending of course, on what you mean by that. While of course, one cannot avoid reading the Old Testament without thinking about it in light of the New Testament, and of course, through the aid of the Holy Spirit, at the same time, one should be careful that they don't read something from the New Testament into a passage in the Old Testament, and make the Old Testament mean something that the Old Testament never meant.

Indeed, we should avoid changing Old Testament passages to read how we would like them to read, because frankly, the New Testament never does. While the New Testament can help "fill in the blanks" in regard to areas the Old Testament was not clear on, as such is the nature of progressive revelation, never can nor does the New Testament ever change the meaning of a passage, to mean something other than what it meant. New Testament revelation is built upon what is revealed in the Old Testament. Yes, we read in the Old Testament in light of Christ, but in the light of Christ does not mean we distort passages in the light of Christ to mean something they never could have meant to begin with.

This is my general framework of what I do when I'm studying a New Testament passage citing an Old Testament passage:

1) Read NT passage in it's historical & grammatical context, and examine how the passage cited furthers the argument of the author.

2) Examine the OT passage cited in it's historical & grammatical context, without reference to how it was used in the NT.

3) Determine in what way, if any, the NT author used the OT passage, in light of the fruit of step #2. Was he specifically declaring what the literal interpretation of an OT passage was? Was he just borrowing a theme? Is he employing deliberate typology? etc. etc.

4) How does the NT author's methodology relate back to step #1, and what further conclusions can be made?

Every citation is unique, and the same author can use a literal interpretation in one breath, and then employ allegory in the next. Whatever the case, one must go through this sort of "hermeneutical spiral" that takes one full circle in their study.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2010/10/6 22:51Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

I don't know where you get this, Jimmy. I don't see anywhere in Scripture that the tabernacle of David is the "fallen house of David."



My argument is that the phrase from Amos 9, "the tabernacle of David" is akin to phrases such as "the house of so and so" and "the tent of so and so." Such is a common Old Testament way referring to a family in a dynastic fashion. Thus, Amos is prophesying of when the Messiah is raised up, restoring the corrupt and fallen throne of David, there will be many gentiles who turn unto the Lord as a result. Such, is a common Old Testament theme, repeated many times throughout the Scripture. This is the "plain and literal" meaning of the passage, and I see no evidence in the New Testament that it was being cited or interpreted in any other way.

I will grant you, the exact phrase "the tabernacle of David" is a rare one, and such can make this passage from Amos 9 a little tricky to interpret. But the phrase does has one other use in the Old Testament, coming from Isaiah 16:5:

"And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness."

And in this passage, the rare phrase, "the tabernacle of David" is again attached to the idea of the theocratic monarchy. Such, in my eyes, only reinforces my interpretation.

I've yet to see any evidence to suggest the phrase, "the tabernacle of David" is a phrase that calls back the idea of the "Davidic worship" that went on in the Jerusalem tabernacle that was erected.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2010/10/6 23:12Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 1988
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
My argument is that the phrase from Amos 9, "the tabernacle of David" is akin to phrases such as "the house of so and so" and "the tent of so and so." Such is a common Old Testament way referring to a family in a dynastic fashion.



Jimmy: I think the problem I would have with this statement is that the tabernacle was not dynastic as the throne might be. The tabernacle was all about worship. Interestingly enough, there are scriptures that talk of the kings that would come from David occupying a throne prophetically. Even those are questionable as to whether they deal with Christ, who is the king of a heavenly kingdom perpetually and of the tribe of Judah, or with an actual dynasty. Some, such as those who believe that this dynasty is continued through Great Britain, have really gone to seed on this I think. The point is that if the scriptures dealing with the throne of David are debatable as to whether they speak of something earthly or something spiritual, where then does that leave the scriptures that speak plainly of a tabernacle (house of God) which is a picture of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, the fleshly, human tabernacle?

While it is true that Israel was recently returned to the land as a nation, and while it is true that this is a fulfillment of much prophecy, there is a unique problem with making the prophecy about Israel and a Davidic dynasty in Amos 9 that Luke refers to here in Acts. The return of the nation of Israel to the land has not occurred for the salvation of the Gentiles. Rather the salvation of the Gentiles is yet to provoke Israel to jealousy so that many may turn to Christ as Messiah.

I think this is definitely referring to something spiritual rather than to something carnal.


_________________
Travis

 2010/10/7 9:10Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

I think the problem I would have with this statement is that the tabernacle was not dynastic as the throne might be.



But it would appear based off the brief word study I conducted, that the phrase "the tabernacle of David" being used in Isaiah was not in reference to the literal tent David setup in Jerusalem as a house of worship, but in reference to the royal lineage. Though of course, I can see how one understands it as you argue, because David did erect a tabernacle. But the actual grammatical usage of this rare phrase is in keeping with the interpretation I've set forth.

Quote:

The point is that if the scriptures dealing with the throne of David are debatable as to whether they speak of something earthly or something spiritual, where then does that leave the scriptures that speak plainly of a tabernacle (house of God) which is a picture of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, the fleshly, human tabernacle?



Remember, Jesus is declared "both Lord and Christ." The theocractic throne He occupies through the lineage of David makes Him king of everything. Spiritual or earthly throne? The answer in Scripture is: yes. Though, we are presently waiting for all things to be subjected to Him, but of course, that won't happen until He returns. But this physical v. spiritual dichtomy is one that is often foreign to the mind of the Scriptures. Indeed, in a detailed study of prophecy, I would argue that there is no such line.

I personally am still anticipating a rebuilding of the temple in the age to come. So while things like Ezekiel's temple might have spiritually rich meaning, meaning applicable to now, I believe in the age to come we can still expect a literal fulfillment of those things, just as we can expect Christ to literally come back to the earth and to literally be reigning from the new global capitol of Jerusalem.

I won't say much more about that, because well, that is a subject that is probably beyond the scope of this thread and a bit off topic. Additionally, I'm in the process of writing a rather long essay on God's overall plan of redemption, etc.

But to get back to the main subject, reading "the tabernacle of David" to be a metaphor for God raising up the Church in Amos 9, and that such was the argument in the book of Acts, in my opinion, simply does not add up when one looks at the passage in the original context, and does a little word study. The prophets had long anticipated a restored "dynasty" through the Messiah, whose rising would give birth to a movement in which the Gentiles would be ushered into the newly raised Messianic kingdom.

Of course, that is not to take away from the fact that through faith we have become a "tabernacle" of God in a very real spiritual sense, one that God has raised up through the work of Christ. Indeed, as Hebrews points out, He is the builder of a house, whose house we are and whose house we have been brought into if we but have faith. But if one were to argue such from Amos 9, I think such could be considered a classic example of "right doctrine, wrong text."






_________________
Jimmy H

 2010/10/7 9:45Profile
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re:

Quote:
"And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness."


Quote:
And in this passage, the rare phrase, "the tabernacle of David" is again attached to the idea of the theocratic monarchy. Such, in my eyes, only reinforces my interpretation.



The theocratic monarchy? You think, then, that James was wrong in his interpretation of the tabernacle of David? (For in Acts 15 James applies that passage from Amos about the tabernacle of David directly to the church.)

This verse you quoted from Isa. 16.5 is a beautiful prophecy that I would say-- and I'm looking at it with the new light the New Covenant apostle James has shed on the passage-- speaks of Christ who is now seated on the Throne of David at the right hand of God in the heavenlies. Now-- he that hath an ear let him hear-- in the sending of the Holy Spirit, that same One is ruling and reigning in the church, the tabernacle of David. He sits in the "tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness." That reign is much resisted, as we see in our day. But nevertheless it is there, and will continue to be there, "until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Ps. 110).

"...And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things TO THE CHURCH, Which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1.22,23).

Wow. Awesome. Sometimes you just rub your eyes and... can it actually be true I am reading such awesome things, such wonder?


_________________
Allan Halton

 2010/10/7 10:44Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

(For in Acts 15 James applies that passage from Amos about the tabernacle of David directly to the church.)



I know you keep insisting this is the case, but James, who I also agree with, does no such thing. I have a moment, so let's look at what James says, in context, line by line.

Quote:

Acts 15:13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me. 14 "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,' 18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO. 19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles...



Forgive me for the caps. I just copied and pasted it from an online Bible, which automatically capitalized OT citations.

vv. 13-14: James talks about how God moving amongst the Gentiles and bringing about their salvation.

vv. 15: James says their turning unto the Lord is in agreement with what the prophets anticipated.

vv. 16-18: Citing the prophets, James talks about how God would one day rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David, and that through the restoration of this tabernacle, all of mankind amongst the Gentiles would be able to seek the Lord, and experience His salvation.

vv. 19: Therefor, since the Gentiles are turning to the Lord as the prophets said they would, when the tabernacle was rebuilt, the Gentiles should not be troubled with regard questions over observing the Law of Moses (since the Lord had brought them unto a saving knowledge of Him apart from observing the Law, saving them on the basis of faith alone).

Now, where here does in all this does James talk about the tabernacle being the Church? He doesn't. He simply says when the fallen tabernacle was restored, the Gentiles would experience salvation, just as the prophets anticipated. If the tabernacle of David was the Church, then employing your interpretation (if I correctly understand you), then James is saying that the fallen Church was restored, therefore, the Gentiles can be saved.

Which in my opinion, makes no Biblical sense whatsoever. What does makes Biblical sense, however, is that the prophets had anticipated a revival of David's throne, which had fallen through corruption and exile. And by the reviving of David's throne via the anticipated Messiah, this would be such a tremendous event that it would make it possible for the Gentiles to come to the Lord in mass.

And in fact, that is historically what has happened. David's throne fell through corruption and exile, and lacked a man to sit upon it for centuries. But then the Messiah was sent, who has since restored it, and currently reigns upon it from the right hand of the Father in heaven. And this has resulted in the mass conversion of many amongst the Gentiles.

And with this, James and the prophets agree.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2010/10/7 11:59Profile
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re:

All I am saying, Jimmy, is that what was happening RIGHT THEN when the apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem to discuss the question of Gentile converts having to keep the Law of Moses... this was the fulfillment of that prophecy in Amos about the tabernacle of David. For James used the Amos prophecy of the tabernacle of David to conclude that the Gentiles could come into the salvation of Christ without having to keep the Law of Moses.

If you agree with that, we are on the same page.

The prophecy of God building again the tabernacle of David that had fallen... this was happening right then. That's the thing I'm trying to emphasize. It's not something that pertains to another day when God, according to certain teachers, sets up the tabernacle of David and the throne of David again in an earthly hill in old Jerusalem.

Not according to James. According to the apostle James, it was happening RIGHT THEN.

At the time of Acts 15 the tabernacle of David had long since fallen, and was in ruins. But God was setting it up again, building it again, in something called The Church.

The Church is the fulfillment of the tabernacle of David.


_________________
Allan Halton

 2010/10/7 14:26Profile









 Re:

Jesus Christ is the tabernacle of David and we are His Body.

 2010/10/7 14:35





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy