ECT Understanding why the council quoted Amos

Interplanner

Well-known member
Like Gal 2, it is easier to understand the solution of a problem that came up in Acts 15, not just because it is a similar problem to Gal 2, but because the problem of both is 'on-stage'. Otherwise, things get referred to 2nd hand and it is harder to see (the group in Col 2 with their vain philosophy, for ex.)

The question is not the larger question of the council ('Must Gentiles be circumcised and required to obey the whole law?') but just what, exactly, the 'words of the prophets agree with' in v15.

Barnabas and Paul explained how God worked through them among Gentiles. v12

James then spoke up: Peter has described (v7) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. He says that's what the prophets agree with, v14-15.

The quote from Amos is that after the exile, God will "return" (in the sense of close involvement) and rebuild David's fallen tent. v16 That is the prophet, and the 'taking' is what the prophet agrees with.

The reason for doing this ("raising the fallen tent") is so the rest of mankind (the remnant in it) would seek the Lord. v17

This has been known for ages, but the text notes show that it is not quite clear whether Amos meant we readers have known this for ages. v18 Maybe he did mean just God knew. The NIV alternate is "Known to the Lord for ages is his work." (Sounds like the Lord only).

That's an interesting stop because James spoke to show agreement with the prophets.

What happened in the retelling of the young church's history that agreed? What agreed with v12? It was that Gentiles believed as had been the plan (whether known also to mankind or not).

Now on one key connective: v17 starts by connecting v16 to the rest (or Amos 9:11 to 12). The fallen tent is rebuilt so that the nations would seek the Lord. This is not in the future because they are seeking then--that was Paul's report. (Of course it was in Amos future, and after the exile). The 'fallen tent' is a picture for us to understand the humble, early church and how Gentiles were coming in. Even though Amos knew the temple was gone, or would be, there was this hope for Israel. ( I have heard it said that the raised tent was Christ's resurrection because he 'tented' among us is found in Jn 1; I don't know enough about the tabernacle festival to say).

What was the 'at first' of James in v14? It was mission effort in the early church. The supernatural one where Peter was planted where he would preach to them and had the supporting vision of the sheet.

And how would this effort, this outreach, have been known for ages to men--if that is what the text favors? Gen 12, 15. In the Seed, all the nations would be blessed by the Gospel. And many, many passages through the OT; but Gen 12, 15 was used in Acts 3.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
The quote from Amos is that after the exile, God will "return" (in the sense of close involvement) and rebuild David's fallen tent. v16 That is the prophet, and the 'taking' is what the prophet agrees with.

James quoted from the Greek version of the OT (the Septuigant), but with a slight modification. Here are the verses from the Septuigant :

"In that day will I raise up again the tabernacle of David that is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up...That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who does all these things."
(Amos 9:11-12; LXX).​

James replaced the words "in that day" with the following words:

"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: 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" (Acts 15:16).​

James believed that this prophecy of Amos will not be fulfilled until after the Lord Jesus returns.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
James quoted from the Greek version of the OT (the Septuigant), but with a slight modification. Here are the verses from the Septuigant :

"In that day will I raise up again the tabernacle of David that is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up...That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who does all these things."
(Amos 9:11-12; LXX).​

James replaced the words "in that day" with the following words:

"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: 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" (Acts 15:16).​

James believed that this prophecy of Amos will not be fulfilled until after the Lord Jesus returns.




Nonsense. I will return is in the sense of 'if you will return to me, I will return to you, says the Lord.' He meant he was ticked but he will be kind again.

What you did there is totally kitsch homework and product.

YOU WOULD NOT SAY THAT IN THAT CONTEXT, so I wonder what your reading skill level actually is. It has nothing to do with the immediate problem/solution like ALL OTHER COMMENTS by the leaders present there.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Who can take you seriously?





Just see the context of Acts 15 Jerry. The way you read the bible is to look for soundbytes of D'ism. You aren't aware of what happens when you press that back in to a room full of people with heated disagreement. James did. He solved the conflict by showing that the reason the Gentiles were believing was the raising of David's tent; those two things were made identical.

I can't take your ability to read the material seriously. the people on the page are paper puppets to you. They are just objects to make theology statements when then 'talk' button is pressed.

Can't you realize that when he says 'ichabod' (I have departed) that he can also say 'I will return' (I will come and work and pour out my spirit among you)? That that is legitimate? That that is what Israel was expecting?

Can't you see that there is NOTHING at all about the 2nd coming in anything anyone said in the council situation; that the problem is solved in what is going on right then--the Gentiles believed?

When the letter goes out, where is the '2nd coming solution'? Where is the 'restoration of Israel' solution? Nada. Because it is solved by just asking for a minimum of the law to be respected.

You and the club don't know context, yet you keep seeing another gospels everywhere and you don't ever factor or deal with the ones (the counterfeits) that DO show up in the account, 15:2, 24.

In 40 years I have hardly seen such mindless reading of the very plain and obvious action in the text.
 

Danoh

New member
You seem to be coming unhinged before our eyes.

Deal more with actually addressing his assertions, and less with the endless put downs. You serve no one who might benefit from a content rich answer to his many erroneous assertions.

I've been just as culpable.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
The historic event that fulfilled what Amos referred to is the belief of the Gentiles. Paul spoke of the same thing at the end of Romans when he said the incoming of the Gentiles was a 'royal decree' or 'enactment' that was not theory but historic fact. That event is what made the prophets words no longer hidden.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
No, I asked you to explain why Acts 15 is consumed with the 2nd coming. That is not a pontification to do so. It is asking for comments, support, research, discussion.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, I asked you to explain why Acts 15 is consumed with the 2nd coming. That is not a pontification to do so. It is asking for comments, support, research, discussion.
Of course, because you rely on commentary.

Read scripture.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Of course, because you rely on commentary.

Read scripture.




It is the commentaries of D'ism, not Scripture, that forces the 2nd coming on Acts 15. If they don't do that, D'ism will collapse, as it should.

You have it backwards again, but thanks for putting forth a proposition to consider rather than just saying you are right.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
It is the commentaries of D'ism, not Scripture, that forces the 2nd coming on Acts 15. If they don't do that, D'ism will collapse, as it should.

You have it backwards again, but thanks for putting forth a proposition to consider rather than just saying you are right.

:chuckle:
 
Top