Verse 11
"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old."
PROPHECY OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
This verse foretells how salvation for all men "shall be effected in the house of David, in whose line Christ was to come."[23] Note that the Jerusalem temple is by-passed, absolutely, here. All of the great victories of Israel were won during the period when they had the "tabernacle," not the temple; and, as Barnes pointed out, "He speaks of the house of David, not in any terms of royal greatness; he tells not of its palaces."[24] This powerful and suggestive mention of the tabernacle speaks of the days of the humility of Israel, indicating that when God's salvation comes, it will be associated with the humble, and the simple, rather than with the royal palaces and Solomonic glory of the house of David. Some of the scholars have translated "tabernacle" here as "hut,"[25] applying it to the postexilic ruin of David's dynasty; but there is unequivocally a reference here to the ancient "tabernacle" of the Jewish wanderings in the wilderness, as proved by the sacred author James' reference to this passage in Acts 15:
"After these things, I will return,
And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen;
And I will build again the ruins thereof,
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,
Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old."
It should be remembered that James here was not quoting Amos alone, attributing his quotations to "the prophets." (Acts 15:15). However, the words of Amos in this verse are definitely among the passages referred to, making it certain that this is a reference to the building up of the Church, the antitype of the tabernacle. Note that there is no reference whatever here to the Jewish temple, itself an apostasy from the tabernacle; and, it is in the sense of that semi-pagan temple having supplanted and taken the place of the tabernacle that the "tabernacle" is here represented as "fallen," meaning that the Jews had simply discarded it and gone into the temple business.
The type of blunder into which many scholars fall in the interpretation of this place is exemplified by this: "The tabernacle of David is the Davidic dynasty, and these words presuppose that it had come to an end; they must therefore have been written later than the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C."[26] Such a view would, of course, remove the passage far from the days of Amos. It should be perfectly obvious to any discerning student that there is no possible reference here to "David's dynasty." That had not fallen when Amos wrote, but the "tabernacle" had fallen!
"In that day ..." is a "reference to the times of the Messiah,"[27] and, in no sense was fulfilled by anything that occurred before that. After the Babylonian captivity, Israel did indeed return to their land (not the northern kingdom, but the Davidic branch of it, the southern kingdom), but they did not restore the "fallen tabernacle" at all, but merely built another temple, a far different thing, the difference being that God had given the plans and specifications of the tabernacle to Moses; but the temple was planned and built by men (Acts 7:44-47). The great error of the temple was that it was patterned after the great pagan temples of the period, and was the result of the same desire of the Israelites that led to the formation of the monarchy, namely, that they could be "like the nations around them." Thus, when Christ established his church, it was not a "rebuilding of the fallen temple," but a rebuilding of the "fallen tabernacle."
"And close up the breaches of it ..." This does not refer to holes made in the palaces of Jewish kings, but it refers to healing the breach among God's people. Jeroboam had divided the "chosen people"; and the righteous remnant from both divisions were thus separated; but when Messiah would come, then all of God's true Israel would be under one theocratic head, namely Christ.
David's kingdom is a type of Christ's; and the restoration of the fallen tabernacle is the same thing as the raising up of one of David's posterity (Christ) to sit upon David's throne forever, a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ and his enthronement in heaven, as Peter pointed out (Acts 2:30,31). No one could possibly be expected to raise up again the kingdom of David, except one of his descendants, this being the significance of the genealogies of Jesus which show him to be of "the flesh of David." Thus, in this extended meaning of the "fallen tabernacle" being restored, there is also hidden this prophecy of the restoration of David's throne "in the spiritual sense." All kinds of errors result from a misunderstanding of the last clause of this verse:
"I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old ..." This is alleged to mean that God will reproduce in the history of Israel another period reflecting the same kind of pride and glory that characterized the old Davidic and Solomonic empire; but this is definitely not the thing to be rebuilt. "The tabernacle" stands for the time when God's communion with his people had been established upon an intimate and continual communication, in short, for "their fellowship with God." It was that fellowship which had been destroyed by the sins and wickedness of the people; and it was preeminently the "broken fellowship with God," which would be restored in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, which, alone, is foretold in this promise to "rebuild," as "in the days of old." It was the great error of Israel, during our Lord's ministry, that led them to identify the blessed Messiah himself as one who would recreate their old Solomonic empire, which, in reality, was the scandal of forty generations, and the very last thing on earth that God would have promised to "rebuild." Christian interpreters today ought not to fall into the same error that was fatal to Israel.
PREMILLENIAL VIEWS
Of course, those espousing a premillennial view of the Bible suppose that this passage supports their contention: "Amos' view of the Messianic kingdom under the throne of David, represents it as universal, and as including the Gentiles."[28] The church of course is "under the throne of David' only in the spiritual sense of David's throne having been an Old Testament type of universal reign of Christ upon his throne in heaven. No temporal restoration of David's monarchy is prophesied here.
Another unfounded theory based upon this passage is that of the projected return of the fleshly Jews to their land in Palestine and the exercise of some very wide and successful dominion from Jerusalem during the historical period of the church of Jesus Christ himself. Clarke referred to this, defining it thus:
"It must therefore refer to their restoration under the gospel, when they shall receive the Lord Jesus as their Messiah, and be by him restored to their own land. Those victories (in the return of the southern kingdom to Palestine after the captivity) could not warrant the terms of the prediction in this verse."[29]
Such interpretations overlook the fact that, long ago, God put "no distinction" between Jews and anyone else on earth (Romans 10:12); their status as "God's chosen people" was by themselves repudiated and rejected. After extended mercies and extensive opportunities repeatedly offered them, the fleshly Israel adamantly refused to have any of it, even crucifying the Son of God when he appeared upon earth; and the notion that God will, for some incredible reason, again restore secular, fleshly and rebellious Israel to "their land" in Palestine is one of the most preposterous notions ever conceived by the students of God's word. God's Israel today knows nothing of race, or any secular kingdom; it is a spiritual Israel, the only "sons of Abraham" on earth today, being, in the light of the Scriptures, those who have been "baptized into Christ." And should the Jews ever receive Christ as their Messiah, they would of necessity also be "baptized into him"; and therefore, such a proposition as that advanced by Clarke would mean that the holy church itself, in its entirety, and not merely some racial fraction of it, would be reestablished in Palestine! What a fantastic misunderstanding!
James D. Bales' summary of the teaching of this place is:
"The rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, was evidently not a rebuilding of the Mosaic system, but the restoration of a king on David's throne; and that Christ is now on David's throne we have shown in another chapter. The Mosaical system will not be rebuilt; its mediator has now been replaced by Christ (Deuteronomy 18:15-17; Acts 3:22-26). The old Covenant was to pass away, and it has passed away (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:5-10,16). Its sacrifices have ceased for the Lamb of God has been offered once for all to bear the sins of the world.[30]
Be the first to react on this!
