The Tabernacle Of David

by J.L. Ferguson, Barrhead | Category: General | Oct 1980

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me:

Symeon hath rehearsed how first God did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name.

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After these things I will return, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen ..." (Acts 15:13-16).

What was the tabernacle of David? When did it fall? When will it be rebuilt? And has God a plan for the intervening period?

There were several main turning points in Bible history, each of which had a profound effect on the subsequent course of human affairs. In Matt.1:1-17 details are given of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. Fourteen generations are named in each of three successive periods. First, from Abraham to David; then from David to the carrying of Judah to captivity in Babylon; then from the captivity to the Christ. The call of Abraham, the raising up of David and the birth of Jesus Christ were three such turning points.

David was unique in a very wide field of thought and experience. He was loved by many. It is recorded of Saul, Jonathan, all Israel and Judah, and Michal that they loved David; not to mention the four hundred men who went to Adullam's cave with him. It does not say they loved him, but by their actions they showed it. But above all, the Lord loved him, and saw in him "a man after His own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14).

David wrote that he loved the Lord (Psa. 18:1), the habitation of His house (Psa. 26:8), and His law (Psa. 119:97). He had a small Bible, comprising in those days only the five books of Moses with possibly Joshua in addition. Nor could it have been readily accessible to him. But that was to him God's law, with its statutes, testimonies, precepts and commandments, and he loved it deeply, meditating on it day and night. As a man of valour in war, he extended the boundaries of Israel to the far reaches of many lands. Yet that empire territory was rapidly dissipated after his death. But as the lover of God and His Word, the sweet psalmist of Israel penned over seventy of the recorded Psalms, which have enriched the minds, warmed the hearts and cheered the spirits of a countless number of believers in the intervening centuries.

What then was the Tabernacle of David?

David was in affliction (Psa. 132:1) at the hand of Saul for probably some ten years. This was set in a period in which God's house also was in affliction, described by the Lord as "the affliction of My habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel" (1 Sam. 2:32). David in his affliction was conscious of God in His. David had no certain resting place. Fourteen of his haunts are named between 1 Sam. 19:18 and 26:1. He knew that since the days of Eli the sacred Ark had been in the house of Abinadab. This was symptomatic of the spiritual state of the priesthood and the people. As a consequence, God had forsaken His house in Shiloh. So when David's wanderings were over and he sat on the throne of Israel in a house of cedar, he remembered the vows of his hiding places, his longings to find out a place for the Lord. So he sent for the prophet and told him all that was in his heart (2 Sam. 7:2).

Men who selflessly love God's house greatly touch God's heart. In

appreciation of the depth to which David shared His own longings God gave him the unconditional covenant of a house, a throne and a kingdom. God expressed it this way, "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam. 7:16). These were later described as "the sure mercies of David" (Isa. 55:3). The offspring of David, seated on the throne of the kingdom, this was "the tabernacle of David".

When did the Tabernacle of David fall?

The house of David lost the throne of the kingdom at the carrying away of Judah into captivity in Babylon. This marked the beginning of the fall of the tabernacle of David. Seventy years later a remnant of the people returned to the land, and in them the kingdom of God continued to be expressed, but there was no longer a king at their head. Jehoiachin, or Jeconiah or Coniah (for he is known by all three names) was the last king of Judah to take the throne by direct descent from David. He 'was succeeded by his uncle, Zedekiah, in whose days the final captivity took place. And in a dramatic threefold call to the land to hear, God said of Coniah, "Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper... sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" (Jer. 22:29,30).

It was not that Jehoiachin had no seed, for Shealtiel was his son and Zerubbabel his grandson. But he was childless in relation to the throne. As a consequence when the remnant returned, Joshua was high priest in the unbroken order of Aaron. But Zerubbabel, in the unbroken lineage of David, was governor and not king (Hag. 1:1). Thus the prophecy of Hos. 3:4,5 was entering its first stage, "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without pillar, and without ephod or teraphim: afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall come without fear unto the LORD and to His goodness in the latter days".

So the royal house of David ceased from the throne. During the period of some four hundred years which followed the return from Babylon, sacrifice and ephod were reverted to and continued under the priests of the order of Aaron. But with the rejection of Messiah, God gradually removed Israel from the main line of His purpose (Rom. 11); what had been the house of God was left desolate (Matt. 23:38); the kingdom was taken away from the nation (Matt. 21:43) and the Old Covenant vanished away, displaced by the New (Heb. 8:13).

The fall of the tabernacle of David was complete.

When will the Tabernacle of David be rebuilt?

The hardening in part which has befallen Israel will continue till the fulness of the Gentiles is come in. The times of the Gentiles and the fulness of the Gentiles do not cover the same period. It is generally understood that the times of the Gentiles began with the giving of authority to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, over Israel in the first year of his reign. This is significantly referred to in Jer. 25:1 where uniquely a Gentile date is given in relation to a Jewish. The times of the Gentiles will close when Gentile power is for ever laid low at the coming of the Son of Man. By contrast, the fulness of the Gentiles is generally associated with the period of glorious opportunity given to the nations, by reason of which they may enter into the blessings of the New Covenant, while Israel is nationally laid aside from the main line of divine purpose.

When therefore the building of the Church which is Christ's Body is complete, the great onward movement of God towards a climax in human affairs will focus again on the nation of Israel. There will necessarily be the final refining, the final breaking down of national pride, the final acknowledgement in gratitude of the One they pierced then for centuries scorned, the final call echoing from Isaiah 64:1, "Oh that Thou wouldest rend the heavens, that Thou wouldest come down...". Then shall the sign of the Son of Man be seen in heaven, the Rider on the white horse will come down, coming "as a rushing stream, which the breath of the LORD driveth", and a Redeemer shall come to Zion for their deliverance, then out from Zion to rule the nations (Isa. 59:19,20 with Rom. 11:26).

Thus "the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then shall He sit on the throne of His glory... the King" (Matt. 25:31 34). And the word to the virgin in Nazareth will at last find fulfilment, "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:32,33). Yes, David's Son, not by Solomon through Coniah then Joseph as in Matt. 1:1 - 16, for Jer. 22:30 precluded that; but by Nathan and finally through Mary the virgin of Nazareth as in Luke 3:23-28 - David's Son and David's Lord.

And so it will come to pass, "And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen".

What is God's plan for the intervening period?

So we come back to Acts 15, and the setting of the Jerusalem Council, with the apostles and elders gathered together to consider the problem from

Antioch. Was there to be an adherence to the Jewish rite of circumcision as an essential for Gentile converts to the new faith? After much questioning Peter rose and gave his telling testimony to the conversion of the Gentiles at Caesarea. Then Paul and Barnabus rehearsed the remarkable reception of the Word by the disciples in the recently planted churches in lower Galatia.

At this point James reminded the brethren how that in all this God was making it evident that He was visiting the Gentiles "to take out from them a people for His name". Not only so, but this was in agreement with the words of the prophets and in particular with Amos 9:11,12, as quoted in Acts 15, "After these things I will return, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen". So the God who foretold through the prophets the fall and the building again of the throne and the kingdom in Israel, was now revealing His present purpose for the period between; He was going to take out of all nations a people for His name.

From that Council Paul and Barnabus returned to Antioch with clear guidance for all the churches from the apostles and elders through the Spirit. From Antioch Paul and Silas went forth, taking Timothy from his home assembly, "And as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, which had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily" (Acts 16:4,5).

Thus the new work among the Gentiles began to take shape and as it did so a pattern emerged which is indelibly stamped on both the acts and the letters of the apostles. It was the process by which God took out from the Gentiles a people for His name; a process which He left clearly defined in His statute book and has never since repealed.

Believers were baptized in one Spirit into one Body (1 Cor. 12:13); they were then baptized by immersion in water and added to the Lord in local churches of God (Acts 2:41); these churches were strengthened in and by means of the faith (Acts 16:5); not standing alone, autonomous, but linked in area association with other churches of God (Gal. 1:2); area groups seen also in the wider context of fellowship (1 Pet. 1:1); indeed a structure of fitly framed together churches forming the New Testament Temple of God (Eph. 2:21); a spiritual structure of living stones redeemed by the precious blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19); formed of churches of God acquired by the blood of God's Son (Acts 20:28).

It was God in search of a new nation in place of Israel. It was God establishing a new people who "in time past were no people, but now are the people of God" (1 Pet. 2:5-10). This was the nation envisaged by the Lord Jesus in Matt. 21:43 as receiving the kingdom of God. The fellowship of

tribes had given place to the fellowship of assemblies, as a people for His name.

We ask each other, how could the Church which is His Body be this nation? Where is there any evidence in the New Testament of the visible, corporate togetherness of a nation seen associated with Christ's Church? Or where in the New Testament is the discipline called for in the kingdom of God seen in the context of the Church the Body? We would affectionately enquire of fellow-believers reading this issue whether it is not clear that in the New Testament the new nation in which the kingdom of God was expressed was the house of God, functioning locally in churches of God, a unique community in unity under elderhood care? And if that is so, should we rest till we find ourselves giving expression to it with those of a like mind?

J.L. Ferguson, Barrhead | Oct 1980
General