beliefspeak2

Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. (Ez. 26.3)

Every surfer and coastal dweller knows that waves arrive in sets. Except for extraordinary events, such as Tsunamis, the usually prominent waves come in repeatable series with lulls separating the wave events. So, when Ezekiel’s prophecy mentions “many nations” and “like the sea casting up its waves”(26.3), the informed reader would know that Tyre’s destruction would be accomplished by different forces and not all at one time during the campaign of Nebuchadnezzar. Also, the subject of the destruction is specific: the independent political entity who grew rich and haughty from the monopoly of maritime trade. So, even if a city named Tyre exists in the country of Lebanon today, and shares the same location, it doesn’t have any of its namesake’s advantages of independent sovereignty, monopoly, and power.

(Akigka)

Thus, Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign was the first set of waves to afflict haughty Tyre. He destroyed or subjugated the island’s support system on the Lebanon Mainland. Tyre, during Nebuchadnezzar’s siege, had to have fresh water (and other necessities) supplied by sea. A Mainland Tyre existed as a supply depot for the island fortress which could, normally, easily barge out what the islanders needed. Though the city state survived, it was greatly afflicted by the Babylonian tyrant.

The independent city state of the island fortress of Tyre was razed by Alexander who built a causeway out from the mainland in 332 B.C.E. Still, Antigonus needed to lay siege against a revived Tyre in 315 B.C.E. to subject it again. In 126 B.C.E., it received independence from the Seleucids (Greek) in it’s desperate attempt to regain the glory and power it once enjoyed. Since the island became a peninsula, however, after Alexander’s engineering feat, no natural advantage remained where it could support itself against siege, and so, by Roman times it was administered by regional powers and independence disappeared.

(public domain)

The strength of Tyre derived from its wealth, which was a product of it’s virtual monopoly of trade to the lands west of the Fertile Crescent. The Tyrians were expert sailors who controlled commerce in the Mediterranean, generally. Natural land barriers and hostile kingdoms prevented traders from exploiting all the overland routes, and so, The Tyrians filled this lucrative gap and reaped the spoils.

The ancient Fertile Crescent, as it is called by some, was not a crescent at all and the idea misinforms a salient point. The Promised Land of Israel was “beautiful,” not because it was more scenic or filled with wonders. It was “beautiful” because of how it was situated in a sort of choke point between the two fertile areas in what, today, we term The Mideast. If we were to represent it pictorially, a bent dumbbell comes to mind instead of a crescent which is fat in the center. Geographical Israel constitutes a land bridge in the narrow area between the two fertile river valleys of both Egypt and Mesopotamia. This fact informs what Ezekiel wrote which cartographers and commentators often get wrong.

Cartographers (map makers) in the medieval era usually centered Israel and its capitol Jerusalem in the center of their charts following what is stated in Ezekiel 5.5: This is what the Sovereign Lord says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. This probably speaks to God’s originally calling Abram to this area as a way to display His power and redemption in the midst of outside nations as sort of a witness to them.

Also, this “beautiful land” had certain other advantages besides being center stage. Trade routes crisscrossed Israel since each of the separate fertile regions enjoyed different products of commerce. Israel would have been exposed to other languages, peoples, and products. They could also act as middlemen dealing with these entities. Not only could God’s working in Israel be on display but also Israel could act as gatekeepers to others in areas of commerce. The Tyrians were jealous and greedy when they said: ‘Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper’ (Ezekiel 26.2). Tyre was not satisfied to rule the Mediterranean Sea trade, she wanted the land routes too.

After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent.

Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,

even all the Gentiles who bear my name,

says the Lord, who does these things’  —

things known from long ago. (Acts 15. 16-18)

The number of commentators who regard this clause as referring to a pilgrimage tent is surprising. Some think it refers to eschatological Israel. Perhaps I do not have access to more cogent works. Never the less, an alert bible reader is attuned to the concepts of the text and not merely its overt terms.

James obviously saw Jesus as the fulfilled inheritor of the Davidic Covenant since Amos is saying that as a result of the covenant’s completion (rebuilding its ruins and restoring it) would result in the Gentiles trusting the Messiah and be joined to God’s community. Isaiah says the same thing: I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles (49.6). When David’s Son appears he would give His blood in the New Covenant for both Jews and Gentiles.

“Tent” a cipher for “house” which originally was used and understood in an ambiguous manner itself. 2 Samuel 7 and 1Chron. 17 gives the account of David receiving what became known as the Davidic Covenant and is universally recognized by believers in referring to the Messiah as its ultimate fulfillment.

The ambiguity in the promise is that the word “house” can refer to a structure or dynasty. In the account when David speaks to Nathan the prophet, he wanted to build a more permanent structure than the existing tabernacle (which was essentially a tent). When God used the term “house” He meant a dynasty that continued forever through one of David’s descendants. This word-play is typical of how important, if cryptic, promises are often given. The parable is another example of cryptic revelation and used extensively in both testaments. I am suggesting that the term “tent” in Amos 9. 11-12, and quoted by James in Acts 15.15-18, refer to this same “dynasty” that “house” means when originally given in 2 Samuel 7 that speaks to the promise of the Messiah and the fulfillment of His work.

James (the half-brother of Jesus) was a descendant of David also through both his father and mother (Lk. 3 gives Mary’s line through David’s son Nathan). James would have undoubtedly recognized the “tent” reference in Amos. The language God gives is unusual (perhaps a clue): How can a tent have “ruins” and be “restored?” A tent collapses when fallen; it doesn’t consist of any permanent structures. Obviously, the Amos text signals elements when the promise was given that God said he moved around in a tent all those years (the Mosaic Tabernacle) and this figure is equated with the promised “house” (dynasty) when David received the prophecy recorded in 2 Samuel 7.

First of all, I should say that Peter Gentry does not mention or refer to Michael Heiser’s idea that the core thematic message of the bible is contained in Gen. 6.1-4. Peter Gentry’s exegesis, analysis, and solution seek to address this difficult text more by scripture witness than the speculative ideas of Michael Heiser.

When I first heard about Heiser’s ideas about giants (Nephilim), I was intrigued and so I bought a couple of his books. It was not long, however, before the level of speculation and tenuous connections he was seeking to make affected me. What disturbed me the most was that he was shifting the long-held narrative about the bible away from the recognition of Gen. 3.15 as the redemptive kernel. He was saying that Gen. 6.1-4 was the germ idea governing interpretation. This will always fail because it has no solid basis of scriptural reference (recurring motifs which signal theme).

The ministry of Jesus recorded in the Gospels corrects many false notions, both of His disciples and current generation. The correction for the false myths of the 2nd and 3rd century B.C.E. regarding these Nephilim were addressed by Paul in 1Tim. 1.4, 4.7.