Amos 9:15

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Pastor Larry, Jan 23, 2005.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does Amos 9:15 mean?

    Amos 9:15 15 "I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God.
     
  2. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I believe this is referring to the future. It is a prophecy to Israel that has yet to be fulfilled. Compare to Isaiah 60:21 and Jeremiah 32:41.
     
  3. Watchman

    Watchman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I too see it that way. Back up to the previous verse (Amos 9:14) "And I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel," (14a)
    It would seem to pose a huge problem for the amill's!
     
  4. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    The time context is found in the previous verses:


    Amos 9:11In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. 13Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. 14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 15And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

    This speaks of the New Covenant age. This passage is quoted in Acts referring to the Gospel Age:

    Acts 15:13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16After 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: 17That 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.


    Here is what John Gill says concerning verse 11:

    Amos 9:11
    In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen

    Not in the day of Israel's ruin, but in the famous Gospel day, so often spoken of by the prophets; and this prophecy is referred to the times of the Messiah by the ancient Jews

    Verse 15 is tied to the previous verses.

    Here is what the Reformers said of verse 14:

    9:14 n And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
    (n) The accomplishment of this is under Christ, when they are planted in this Church, out of which they can never be pulled, after they have once been grafted into it.

    Here is what Matthew Henry says of 15:

    I will plant them upon their land.
    God's spiritual Israel shall be planted by the right hand of God himself upon the land assigned them, and
    they shall no more be pulled up out of it , as the old Jewish church was.
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    GH,

    Are you seriously telling us that you cannot see straight through those attempts at intepretation? Can you not see how they take the words of the text and completely change the meaning of them because they don't like the plain meaning?

    You start off by talking about the context of hte previous verses, which is a good start. But then, for reason that can only be attributed to the necessity you have to arrive at a certain conclusion, you completely deny the context you appeal to. Look at the following

    In that day -- always refers to the coming days of God's judgment and blessing.

    I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old; -- What will his rebuild as in days of old? The ancient cities. That can only be literal. To arrive at some sort of spiritual interpretation is to deny what the text actually ays.

    And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; -- again, a promise about the land itself, not some spiritual land.

    I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God. -- must be the land itself.

    This is clearly a premillennial verse that shows God is a premillennialist.

    How about this:
    What do you think that means?
     
  6. Primitive Baptist

    Primitive Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    0
    It isn't literal...Or at least that is what consistent Preterists say. I have talked with a lot of consistent Preterists and they don't feel the burden to expound on any text b/c if everything is fulfilled and they know that, why bother with fulfilled prophecies. They know that Christ said "this generation" in Matthew 24:34, but the intelligence doesn't go much further than that.
     
  7. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ultimately it comes down to ignoring a vast amount of OT promises on the basis of a faulty understanding of a few NT passages. There is no way that you could read the OT promises to Israel while honestly laying aside preconceptions and arrive at the conclusions of the preterists. The only way they can get that is to take their view of “this generation”, “my kingdom is not of this world”, and a few others and use this as a basis for ignoring the clear words of the text.

    Rather than interpreting the NT in light of the OT, they reinterpret and allegorize the OT on the basis of a flawed understanding of the New.

    Have not read Gill very much on matters of eschatology, but it goes back to the fact that until the revival of the study of prophecy and a return to a more consistent CLGH interpretation, the reformers and their heirs adopted the theology of the RCC as far as matters of prophecy are concerned.

    Henry, Barnes, et al, all reflect the accuracy of this observation.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, that's convenient, but don't you find it troubling? It is troubling to me that we can just willy nilly say certain prophecies aren't literal. What if the prophecies of Christ's death weren't literal? What is the story of his resurrection isn't literal? On what basis do we say the last two are literal but the first is not?

    Just because some "don't feel the burden to expound on any text" doesn't mean that they shouldn't. To me, it means they are scared to death of the passage. They say it isn't literal because their system demands that it not be literal. If it is literal (which the text would lead you to believe), then the whole system falls apart. That is a serious theological problem that should not be looked at so glibly, IMO.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, that's convenient, but don't you find it troubling? It is troubling to me that we can just willy nilly say certain prophecies aren't literal. What if the prophecies of Christ's death weren't literal? What is the story of his resurrection isn't literal? On what basis do we say the last two are literal but the first is not?

    Just because some "don't feel the burden to expound on any text" doesn't mean that they shouldn't. To me, it means they are scared to death of the passage. They say it isn't literal because their system demands that it not be literal. If it is literal (which the text would lead you to believe), then the whole system falls apart. That is a serious theological problem that should not be looked at so glibly, IMO.
     
  10. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    James applies the phrase to the Gospel age. How do you apply it exclusively another way?

    How are Amos 9:14-15 any more literal than vs 11-12 which James applied figuratively?
     
  11. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Plain meaning? Since when do futurist believe in plain meaning? Need some examples? We could start with all the NT time-statements.

    Once again James interprets it for us:

    14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16After 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:

    It is you who take the intended meaning and force it to mold to your “left behind” theology. The burden of proof is on you to show a dis-connect between verses 11-12 and 14-16.

    Perhaps you can tell me if Is.13:1-17 is literal/physical language. Or Nahum 1:5, or Ps 18:4-10. Is that still in our future? Do you insist on literal/physical fulfillment on these?

    Is the covenant of vs. 40 the same found in Jer 31:31?

    Jer 31:31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

    If so lets continue on:

    32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
    33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel ; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    32 speaks of the Old Covenant, 33 speaks of the New Covenant.
    Now following your literalistic interpretation method that is going to be quite painful, will it not? Hopefully it will be done with a soft point pen.

    Instead of Woolvard intepreting it for us, how about letting the writer of Hebrews do it for us:

    Heb 10:14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them ;

    So why do NT writers quote OT verses? If it is not to apply it to their situation why do it? Do the NT writers just need to fill space? Why did James quote the Amos 9 verse? Why?? Why did the writer of Hebrews quote this passage in Jer.31? What is the purpose???

    rjprince
    Clear words? Would you also like to play the "clear words" game? Would you like to start at Matt 16:27-28? Or perhaps Matt 11:14? Or we can join Larry in his search for the plain meaning of NT time-statements.

    No, I let the NT writers interpret the OT for me. I think they are more credible than Scofield, Jack Van Impe and "The Late Great Planet Earth". Perhaps you can explain why insired NT writers quote OT passages you say have an obvious physical interpretation??? Perhaps their scribes are unionized.
     
  12. Primitive Baptist

    Primitive Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read Ezekiel 16 about the New Covenant...the same Israel that rejects the Lord is the same Israel that is promised to be gathered from captivity.
     
  13. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    No argument from me on that. Ez. 16 also helps us identify the harlot/Babylon of Revelation 17.

    Ez 16:1Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,

    Rev 17:5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.


    Ez. 16:11 I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. 13Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.

    Rev 17:4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:


    Ez 16: 14And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.


    Rev:18: 15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,16And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!


    Ez 16: 15But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

    Rev 17:2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
    Rev 17:5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.



    Ez 16:35Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD:

    Rev 17: 16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.


    Ez 16: 38And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy. 39And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare. 40They shall also bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords. 41And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more. 42So will I make my fury toward thee to rest, and my jealousy shall depart from thee, and I will be quiet, and will be no more angry.43Because thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, but hast fretted me in all these things; behold, therefore I also will recompense thy way upon thine head, saith the Lord GOD: and thou shalt not commit this lewdness above all thine abominations.

    Sounds like the events of the Jewish war. I wonder if the futurist take verse 40 literal? If so it looks like warfare with swords is in the future again.


    Ez 16:61Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant .

    Old Covenant


    62And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD:

    New Covenant


    63that you may remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore because of your shame, when I provide you an atonement for all you have done," says the Lord GOD."'

    What was the atonement? Thats an easy one.
     
  14. Primitive Baptist

    Primitive Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    0
    So.......similar in another book of the Bible proves beyond all doubt that the same entity is being described???
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not unless you start with your presupposition. You comment is the result of superfical study without regard for the text itself. All James said was the prophets "agree" with the position of the council ... meaning taht nothing in the prophets contradicts what they said. It does not change the meaning of the text at all.

    I didn't. I gave it the meaning it always has in the OT prophets. I am not aware of any change from that. It is sometimes historical (such as the Babylonian captivity); it is other times future (such as Amos 9).

    This question is based on a faulty presupposition.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You tried that before and we showed how you applied meaning to words that is not demanded, and in fact is contradicted by teh text. So yes, plain meaning.

    Not at all. Your faulty hermeneutic is the problem. James did not change the meaning. You misunderstand what James said and how he uses hte text. I do not believe there is a disconnect in this passage.

    I would have to look at them. I imagine that you are again applying a faulty understanding and faulty hermeneutic. Remember, that "literal" does not mean "literalistic." Literal language includes hte use of figures of speech. That is a common misunderstanding by people of your persuasion.

    [/qb]Yes, that would be most likely the case.

    AGain, you show misunderstanding. Literalistic is not the same as literal. (You have been told that before, have you not?) This is unfortunately all too often the response that comes, and it stems from a lack of understanding.

    To apply it to the situation. But if you do not understand the situation (as seems to be clearly the case with you), then you misunderstand their use of it. Hebrews is very intersting in this regard. I am currently preaching through this and my study has confirmed for me again that my position is the right one. I see no other legitimate alternative.

    I don't believe that to be the case.

    I think we all agree.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    319
    Acts 28
    27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
    28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

    The Gospel was offered to Israel as a nation, they rejected it nationally so the promise of Acts 15:13-17 has been postponed until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

    When will that be? No specific day or hour is given apart from global cosmic signs:

    Luke 21
    25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
    26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
    27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

    HankD
     
  18. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Revelation is a book of symbols and imagery taken from the OT prophets. So how do you think those 1st century jews to whom the Revelation was written would have interpreted it? Would they not draw on their knowledge of the OT? Babylon is called the "great city":

    Rev 14:8And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

    The "great city" was where the Lord was slain:

    Rev 11:8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

    The great city/Babylon/Harlot was Jerusalem.

    You can choose to believe the dispies who say Babylon is: NYC,Roman Catholic Church, a future literal Babylon in Iraq, the UN, or a dozen other possibilities. I choose to let the Bible itself tell me who it is. After all, the context of the entire book is found by the time-statements in Rev 1:1 and 3. I take "shortly take place" and "time is near" in the plain literal meaning.
     
  19. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    What pre-supposition, that James was inspired? Why did James use that OT passage to say that the prophets agreed with the position of the council? It is you who have the pre-supposition that the OT passage MUST be physical. But James says no.

    I don't remember what your reasoning was for changing the meaning of "near" and "at hand", but I suppose you "spiritualized" the words.

    Correct, James did not change the meaning you did. He applied the passage to the Church age. Therefore the meaning of the OT passage was figurative in nature to begin with. Unless James is confused.

    My persuasion? You've got to be kidding. Preterist understand the use of metaphoric/figurative language in the OT and NT. Preterist are the ones accused of "spiritualizing" the Bible. It is your view point that took the very passage we are dealing with and is trying to make it physical. I wish more dispies understood that literal can be metaphoric.

    The only thing I don't understand is your explanation. Why would that verse apply to Hebrews? Other than of course the fulfillment of it? The rebuilding of a physical Temple has nothing to do with Acts 15: 13-17.

    I still have not got an answer as to why James used that passage if it was not for the purpose of fulfillment.

    Joel gave a prophecy that Peter quotes in Acts 2:

    Joel 2:28And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. 30And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. 31The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come. 32And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.


    Acts 2:16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: 21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    Now Peter didn't say it was a type or partial fulfillment he says THIS IS THAT WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE PROPHET JOEL.

    Can you get a plainer statment? Why did he quote Joel here at pentecost? Because that is what Joel's prophecy was about. Not some event 2000 years in the future.


    Where does the Bible speak of the Kingdom being conditional on Jewish acceptance?

    Here again is the dispies problem. You take OT language that was figurative/metaphorical and try to force it into a literal/physical interpretation in the NT.

    rjprince told me this is still future, how about you:

    This is a passage about the destruction of the Babylonians by the Medes(vs.17). Long ago historical event. But notice the language used to desribe the event:

    Is 13:1The burden of Babylon , which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
    10For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
    11And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

    Notice He calls Babylonian Empire "world".

    Matthew, as well as Luke 21,uses the same type of language to describe the Fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple.

    Matt 24:29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

    The OT is full of this type of none physical language. Notice:

    Nahum 1: 1The burden of Nineveh . The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.
    5The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.

    Many more example.
     
  20. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Not unless you start with your presupposition. You comment is the result of superfical study without regard for the text itself. All James said was the prophets "agree" with the position of the council ... meaning taht nothing in the prophets contradicts what they said. It does not change the meaning of the text at all. </font>[/QUOTE]Everyone has presuppositions. The question is do the presuppositions fit the text? Let's look at the text.

    What am I missing? James said point blank that the Prophets foretold the events related by Peter. The council hadn't yet arrived at any conclusions, but you're asserting he was simply saying "I don't see nuthin' against our position in the Bible."

    Speak of your willy-nilly interpretations! :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

Loading...