By "David's tabernacle" and "David's fallen tents" being restored, the prophet was referring to the regathering of David's descendants, and of his tribe of Judah to their land from captivity; and to the salvation which Messiah the son of David would bring to them in their land.
There was a beginning of the fulfilment of that at the return from Babylon. Even Gentiles were prompted to seek the Lord at that time. Then the fuller fulfilment came when God raised up a Saviour Jesus in the line of David, for David's tabernacle (that is, for David's descendants), and for all Israel, and for all nations.
The prophecy was fulfilled on the ground, in Israel, for David's line, and for all Israel, first - and then Gentiles also got saved - all by Jesus' generation.
David's Tabernacle is not just directly about the 'latter rain' movement. Nor is it about Israel's political future. It's already been fulfilled - for the Jew first and then to the Greek, by the first century AD, as James claimed in Acts.
David himself already replaced the tabernacle of worship, by the Temple - it never "fell". He had something better built. It wasn't even the Babylonians who dismantled that tabernacle. David and God did. So why would God later bemoan that it had "fallen"?
No. The fallen tabernacle the prophet was bemoaning was David's fallen dynasty. His house - lineage, descendants. And the tribe to which they belonged - Judah. They were in captivity! God promised to save them - the people. That's what it meant!
As for David's other tabernacle, God never had in mind to re-erect it - rather, He promised that the Temple which replaced it would be rebuilt.
The temple was rebuilt - but the tabernacle was not.
David's descendants got restored to their land, then later saved by the Son of David - and Gentiles also got included.
It had all happened by the first century AD. James said so!
If it hadn't then how could James have cited it in support for the existence of the Gentile church?
And what historical claim do we have to make a case for Jesus?
That's why it's important to understand prophecy as fulfilled and not to alter identities in prophecy.
There was a beginning of the fulfilment of that at the return from Babylon. Even Gentiles were prompted to seek the Lord at that time. Then the fuller fulfilment came when God raised up a Saviour Jesus in the line of David, for David's tabernacle (that is, for David's descendants), and for all Israel, and for all nations.
The prophecy was fulfilled on the ground, in Israel, for David's line, and for all Israel, first - and then Gentiles also got saved - all by Jesus' generation.
David's Tabernacle is not just directly about the 'latter rain' movement. Nor is it about Israel's political future. It's already been fulfilled - for the Jew first and then to the Greek, by the first century AD, as James claimed in Acts.
David himself already replaced the tabernacle of worship, by the Temple - it never "fell". He had something better built. It wasn't even the Babylonians who dismantled that tabernacle. David and God did. So why would God later bemoan that it had "fallen"?
No. The fallen tabernacle the prophet was bemoaning was David's fallen dynasty. His house - lineage, descendants. And the tribe to which they belonged - Judah. They were in captivity! God promised to save them - the people. That's what it meant!
As for David's other tabernacle, God never had in mind to re-erect it - rather, He promised that the Temple which replaced it would be rebuilt.
The temple was rebuilt - but the tabernacle was not.
David's descendants got restored to their land, then later saved by the Son of David - and Gentiles also got included.
It had all happened by the first century AD. James said so!
If it hadn't then how could James have cited it in support for the existence of the Gentile church?
And what historical claim do we have to make a case for Jesus?
That's why it's important to understand prophecy as fulfilled and not to alter identities in prophecy.
No comments:
Post a Comment