The “tabernacle of David” was the tent wherein the ark of the covenant was housed during the latter days of David’s reign. The ark and the tabernacle had been kept from the time of Joshua 18:1 at Shiloh for 369 years according to Jewish tradition. The ark was captured by the Philistines and returned 7 months later and ended up in the house of Abinadab (1 Samuel 7:1) for 20 years after the men at Bethshamesh looked into the ark and were killed. The tabernacle appears to be at Nob for some time b/c David got the forbidden bread from the holy place there but during most of Saul and David’s reign the tabernacle was kept at Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16:39; 21:29). The ark was brought from the house of Abinadad but they carry it on a cart and Uzzah is killed for touching the ark so the ark stayed at the house of Obed-edom for 3 monhts. David has it brought from the house of Obed-edom to his capital, Jerusalem and placed on Mt Zion. It was not brought to the tabernacle which was at Gibeon.. Instead it was brought to Jerusalem, the city of David, and placed on Mt Zion. 2 Samuel 6:¹⁷ Now they brought in the ark of the Lord and set it in its place inside the tent which David had pitched for it.” David made a special tent to place the ark in. There was much joy and praising God on this occasion. David offered sacrifices, apparently using Levite since the priests would have been at the tabernacle in Gibeon. Obviously this is not where the ark was supposed to be kept, which was in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle of Moses, but there is no recorded condemnation of David putting the ark in a special tent that he made instead of in the tabernacle Holy of Holies. Solomon is crowned king at the tabernacle in Gibeon, but the ark remained in the tent David built for it in Jerusalem for 40 years until Solomon finished building the temple, at which time (2 Chronicles 5)the ark was placed in the Holy of Holies in the temple. 2 Chronicles 1:³ Then Solomon and all the assembly with him went to the high place which was at Gibeon, because God’s tent of meeting was there which Moses, the servant of the Lord had made in the wilderness. ⁴ However, David had brought up the ark of God from Kiriath-jearim to the place he had prepared for it, for he had pitched a tent for it in Jerusalem.” We don’t know what happened to the tent that David built and housed the ark in after the ark was moved into the temple.

In the days of the divided kingdom Amos the prophet condemns the sins of the northern kingdom of Irael and wicked king Jereboam II. In the last chapter of the book of Amos, he makes a prediction that will be fulfilled in the days of the Messiah.

Amos 9:11 “On that day I will raise up the fallen shelter of David,
And wall up its gaps;
I will also raise up its ruins
And rebuild it as in the days of old;
¹² So that they may possess the remnant of Edom
And all the nations who are called by My name,”
Declares the Lord who does this.

¹³ “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“When the plowman will overtake the reaper,
And the one who treads grapes will overtake him who sows the seed;
When the mountains will drip grape juice,
And all the hills will come apart.
¹⁴ I will also restore the fortunes of My people Israel,
And they will rebuild the desolated cities and live in them;
They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine,
And make gardens and eat their fruit.
¹⁵ I will also plant them on their land,
And they will not be uprooted again from their land
Which I have given them,”
Says the Lord your God.”

A lot of figurative language (mountains dripping grape juice, etc) but obviously a Messianic prediction. Fast forward to the 1st century. The conference of apostles, elders, and Paul and Barnabas are meeting in Jerusalem to settle the issue of whether Gentile converts have to be circumcised or not. Peter speaks first, reminding everyone how God accepted the Gentile Cornelius wihtout insisting on him being circumcised. Paul and Barnabas cite the miracles God was doing by them among the Gentile as confirmation that God accepted their Gentile converts without circumcision. But the final argument comes from James the Lord’s brother who was a pillar in the church at Jerusalem (Galatians 2). He says that the prophets, like Amos, agree with Peter’s point that the Gentile converts should be accepted without being circumcision. He then quotes Amos 9:11-12 as proof. The main part of his argument is Amos 9:12 that “the nations” would be allowed in the restored tabernacle of David, but James replaces the word nations with “Gentiles” (which is the correct meaning). For that argument to have any value, the tabernacle of David would have had to be restored at the time that he made the argument. James is saying that the tabernacle of David was being restored at the time he spoke, thus allowing the Gentiles to be admitted into it. His point then is that the Gentiles should be admitted into the church without having to keep the Law of Moses and circumcision. BTW that would also mean that the rest of Amos 9:11-15 was also being fulfilled at the time James spoke. Included in that would be mountains dripping grape juice and Israel being restored to their land. Obviously that refers to spiritual blessings (using figurative language) but only for the Jewish remnant who accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Also being restored to their land is figurative language and not the believing remnant actually getting the land in the first century (certainly it doesn’t refer to Israel getting Palestine in 1948). But that’s another subject. This appears to be a final, convincing argument to everyone that the Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised or keep the Law. It is interesting that this final argument comes from James, who in Galatians 2 is forbidding Jewish Christians from eating with Gentile Christians in the churches of Galatia, even convincing Peter to quit eating with them. So if James thinks Gentile converts don’t need to be circumcised, that is pretty convincing. He does add a few restrictions like not eating blood that the Gentile converts should observe in order not to offend their Jewish brethren.

Why would he quote Amos 9? Why does he quote a prediction about restoring a tent that David built to house the ark for 40 years? There were several passages from Isaiah (Isaiah 56) that predicted that the Gentiles would be allowed into the new covenant along with believing Jews. I just read a chapter in Philip Mauro’s book, The Hope of Israel (1971) where he quotes some from George Smith’s Harmony of the Divine (1856). Smith says that James chose Amos 9 b/c of the circumstances surrounding the ark being in the tabernacle of David. He says that the fact that the ark was allowed to be placed in David’s special tent in Jerusalem instead of in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle at Gibeon is important. Apparently during the 40 years the ark was in David’s tabernacle or tent, the high priest would not go in every year on the day of Atonement and perform the rituals. In other words, some of he requirements concerning the ark were not insisted on by God during that 40 years. Smith concludes that meant that the rituals of the Law would not be insisted on being required by Gentile converts. Perhaps that was the parallel that James saw from Amos 9 that applied to the issue at hand in the Jerusalem conference. I had never heard that logic but it made sense to Mauro (and to me). Of course, a lot of speculation there but there is good, logical speculation and then there is wild, unfounded speculation. I hope that is good speculation.

That’s a little deep, huh? But imagine yourself being at that conference. Imagine listening to the arguments from Peter, Paul, and James and trying to decide on the issue of circumcision of Gentile converts. It should be noted that they had Holy Spirit help. Acts 15:²⁸ For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: ²⁹ that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from acts of sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” So the Spirit in some way confirmed that their decision was correct.

Imagine that you are at a conference where the Methodist churches are trying to decide on the LGBQT issue. But their leaders don’t have inspired apostles to guide their decision. They don’t have miraculously inspired positions like the pope to make an infallible decision (which is not really infallible). They must rely on the words of the apostles just as the council in Jerusalem relied on the testimony of Paul, Peter and James. The only difference is that those words are written instead of being spoken. We have their words in the New Testament. So Paul speaks in Romans 1 and tells us that homosexuality is a sin. That alone should be enough to settle the issue and to condemn homosexuality and homosexual marriages. Unfortunately that was not enough for many, and their denomination split over the issue. Conferences like that aren’t of much value if they don’t rely on the word of God to guide them!