Considering Amos Part III:The Covenant Answer

In contrast to this dispensational conclusion, is that of covenant theology. The covenant system also answers the question of whether or not the Gentiles should be circumcised with a “no,” but for vastly different reasons. The largest contrast between dispensationalism and covenant theology, surprisingly enough, is not the absence of dispensations, for the covenant system acknowledges different ages or epochs, the least of which are not the Old and New Testaments. The largest contrast between the two systems is what they say about the dispensations (Poythress 11). While the dispensationalist says that each age ends with the beginning of the next, and was a new godly government for a new or different people, covenant theologians maintain that each dispensation built off the previous in a progressive self-revelation of God in the unfolding plan of salvation through which God brings glory to Himself. This concept which has been given the name “Salvation History”, provides detail to the foundational claim of covenant theology that all revelation in the Bible can be described under the single theme of “covenant”. A covenant is defined as a bond, established and regulated by God, between God Himself and man.

As the covenant view is by definition historical, its method of interpretation is chronological. For instance, Moses knew a Messiah was promised, but did not know Him as Jesus, son of Joseph, descendant of King David because the lineage of Christ had not been realized and wouldn’t be for a few thousand years, and neither was David yet king as he wouldn’t even be born for hundreds of years. When applied to the Amos/Acts passages, covenant theology, therefore, looks at that which came before the words of Amos that defined it and qualified it for James’s use in Acts. This differs from the dispensational method which largely used the circumstance and context of the Acts passage to decipher what was being said many years before by the prophet Amos. The Amos passage and the corresponding Acts passage are debated primarily over a question of extent. How far would the restored, Messiah ruled kingdom reach? Who were its subjects? Fortunately, to aid in answering this question, there is “a long history of Biblical revelation that antedated the time of James and Amos....each is a part of that theology that ‘informs’ the Amos text” (Poythress 2).

The extent of the kingdom, in a covenant view, is much further reaching than that insisted upon by dispensationalism. When it is realized that the Davidic covenant, in which God promises perpetual kingship to the line of David, is built upon and related to the covenants that preceded it, the scope of the promised kingdom is appropriately reexamined. Covenant theology has as its foundation three main covenants. These covenants were detailed in 1648 by Johannes Cocceius in his work The Doctrinal Summary of the Covenant or Testament of God. First is the covenant of redemption in which, before the foundations of the world were laid, the Son, in an intra-trinitarian agreement with the Father, willingly took on the redemption of the elect. Second is the covenant of works. God initiated this covenant with His creation Adam, and promises Adam perfect existence in return for perfect obedience. As Adam was not able to keep this covenant, the third of the foundational covenants was initiated by God. In this covenant, the covenant of Grace, the Son, now incarnate, fulfills the role He agreed to in the first covenant, and takes on the punishment for the sins of the elect. Out of this foundation many individualizations spring up: The Noachic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the covenants with Moses and Aaron, and the Davidic covenant. So, in determining what it was that David was promised, it is not only appropriate, but necessary to look at the covenants that preceded his.

God’s covenant with Abraham is of particular interest as it is that covenant which emerges in Acts fifteen in the question of circumcision. The twelfth chapter of Genesis records the initial covenant God made with Abraham, still called Abram at that time. “Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father’s house, To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ ” (NASB, Genesis 12:1-3). What needs to be seen in this passage is the last line of the covenant. “ ‘And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ “ (Genesis 12:3). All the families of the world. This text takes on a greater meaning when it is noted that it preceded in chapter ten of Genesis by the naming of seventy nations descended from Noah that were inhabiting the world at that time. “The scope of the seventy nations listed in Genesis 10, when taken with the promise of [Genesis] 12:3 that in Abraham’s seed ‘all the nations of the earth...shall be blessed,’ constitutes the original missionary mandate itself. The redemptive plan of God from the beginning, then, was to provide a salvation as universal in scope as was the number of the families on the earth.” Kaiser 2). The Apostle Paul makes reference to the Abrahamic covenant while reprimanding the Galatians.

Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “all the nations shall be blessed in you.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. (Galatians 3:6-9)

These Scriptures make it unmistakably clear. Abraham was saved by grace through faith, just as James said that Jews and Gentiles alike are saved by grace through faith (Acts 15:11). Those that are of faith are sons of Abraham, therefore, both saved Jew and Gentile alike, both being of faith, are each sons of Abraham. These are two very clear points, but it is Paul’s next point that lends particular weight to the Amos/Acts discussion. Paul says outright that the Scripture foresaw that God would save Gentiles in the same way He saved Abraham! And when did the Scriptures foresee this? Before the covenant with Abraham was established, for Paul says that they preached to him “beforehand” the salvation of Gentiles and did so with the very words of the covenant itself, “all the nations shall be blessed in you.” The sign of circumcision, instituted in chapter seventeen of Genesis, was added to a covenant that was not meant to be for a nation, but for a people comprised of many nations, indeed all the nations of the world. The extent of the kingdom ruled by Christ, the eternal kingship promised to David, reaches far beyond the ever changing borders of Israel, and touches the entire globe. Therefore, James was not quoting Amos to stress the separation of Israel and the Church as reason not to circumcise the Gentiles. Rather, he quoted it to show that the Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised because they were already joined to Israel in faith! “Did James claim that the mission to the Gentiles, dare we even say to the Christian Church, was part of the divine revelation to Amos -- in any form whatever?” That question is answered with a resounding “YES!”

The words of Amos, outside of those quoted by James, tell of another inclusion in the kingdom. God’s people will be restored to their land. Amos gives a glimpse of what that land will look like: “The mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it.” (Reformation Study Bible English Standard Version, Amos 9:13), and “they [God’s people] shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.” (Amos 9:14). The very land itself is included in the redemption and restoration of the Kingdom of God. The extent of God’s salvation and the Kingship of Christ is so vast and powerful that it affects all of creation. The very earth will be redeemed for His loyal subjects.

It is clearly seen that the dispensational view of these texts works only within the closed system of dispensationalism. The reasoning used is circular, and largely ignores the whole of Scripture. The text has been interpreted by the three pillars of dispensationalism, and the interpretation is claimed to be right and true because it agrees with those same pillars, which are claimed to be scriptural because they are supported by passages such as Acts 15 and Amos 9. When even a brief exegesis is applied to the two texts, the discontinuities and shortcomings of the dispensational view become very obvious. It is clear that the view of these passages arrived at through the covenant theology system is far more considerate of the Scriptures as a whole, not forcing upon them guide lines and limitations, separations and divisions beyond those found in the Scriptures themselves. Amos was fully aware of a Gentile salvation and shared blessings in the promised Messianic Kingdom, as Abraham was before him. James, likewise, through the Old Testament Scriptures, including the words of the prophet Amos, was fully aware of the Kingdom growth that he and the other apostles were participating in; A Kingdom of infinite blessing, shared by all God’s people, Jew and Gentile alike, joined by faith, and dwelling in peace forever in a redeemed creation. This is what Amos was saying all along.


Works Cited

Considering Amos Part II:The Dispensational View

In order to understand the common dispensational interpretation of the prophecy of Amos it must first be undertaken to understand dispensationalism, its core beliefs, and its basic thought process. It can be said that from the very beginning dispensationalism arose, at least in part, in an attempt to reconcile the differences and diversities in which the character of God’s word came to the obviously different ages or epochs found throughout the scriptures (Poythress, 14). Dispensational or covenant, one can hardly deny that God revealed Himself in different ways in the Old Testament Scriptures than He did in those of the New Testament. The main endeavor of dispensationalism is “to bring into a coherent, intelligible relationship differences that might otherwise seem to be tensions or even contradictions within the Word of God itself.” (14). In essence, dispensational theology “divide(s) the course of history into a number of distinct epochs. During each of these epochs, God works out a particular phase of His overall plan. Each particular phase represents a ‘dispensation’ in which there are distinctive ways that God exercises His government over the world and tests human obedience” (9).

Dispensationalism, as an official system, came about it the 1800’s through the thinking of John Nelson Darby. Darby, who was ordained into priesthood within the Church of England in 1825 (Zens 4), was concerned with two main areas of Christianity and Christian living: maintaining the purity of salvation by grace and the expectation of Christ’s return, and purity in his own personal life and purity in the life of the community of the church (Poythress 14). A distinctive point in the formation of dispensationalism came in 1827 when Darby was incapacitated by a leg injury, and left with the ability to do little but introspect. In his letters he wrote the following,

During my solitude, conflicting thoughts increased; but much exercise of soul had the effect of causing the Scriptures to gain complete ascendancy over me. I had always owned them to be the word of God.
When I came to understand that I was united to Christ in heaven [Eph 2:6], and that, consequently, my place before God was represented by His own, I was forced to the conclusion that it was no longer a question with God of this wretched “I” which had wearied me during six or seven years, in presence of the requirements of the law. (14-15)

Darby understood the grace of God in the work of Christ. Darby’s letter continues. “It then became clear to me that the church of God, as He considers it, was composed only of those who were so united to Christ [Ephesians 2:6], whereas Christendom, as seen externally, was really the world, and could not be considered as the ‘church’ ” (15). Darby’s realization of his union with Christ combined with his drive for personal and corporate purity of the church and its members, lead him to the opinion that the “true church, united to Christ, is heavenly. It has nothing to do with the existing state of earthly corruption” (15). Darby had made a distinction between the real church, that which was connected to Christ, and what the world called ‘the church’, the external manifestations of religious practice (Zens 5). He had separated the spiritual and physical.

This thinking dictated Darby’s understanding of the words of the prophet Isaiah while reading Isaiah 32:9-20. Of these words, Darby concluded that they told of “ ‘an obvious change in dispensation’ which concerned Israel on earth” (Zens 5). Interpreted with his particular understanding of union with Christ, Darby commented that “ I was not able to put these things in their respective places or arrange them in order, as I can now” (Zens 5). And so was born the foundational premise of dispensational theology: the separation of Israel, whose destiny was earthly, and the Church, who owns an heavenly destiny (5).

The Israel / Church separation stands along side two other theological points that form the three pillars of dispensationalism. Charles Ryrie, a leading figure in 20th Century dispensationalism, has defined the “sine qua non” of dispensationalism in three aspects. First, “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church Distinct...a man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions” (Ryrie 44-45). Second, Ryrie said that “at the heart of dispensational eschatology”, lies a “consistently literal principle of interpretation”, or a “normal or plain” hermeneutic that “does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation does” (45-46). Finally, Ryrie describes the third pillar of dispensational theology by stating that “it concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world....namely, the glory of God” (46). Or, to state it another way “Dispensationalists assert that God’s purposes center in His glory, rather than in the ‘single purpose of salvation’” (Zens 16). In summary, Ryrie said

The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well. (Ryrie 47)

God, always seeking to glorify Himself throughout all time, has dealt, and continues to deal with, different peoples, at different times, in different ways, each testing their obedience to Himself. This is dispensationalism.

Dispensational theology forces a criticism of discussion and thought about prophecy. Darby once said that, within the church, “there is confusion of the Jewish and Gentile dispensations - the hinge upon which the understanding of Scripture turns.” (Zens 5), and that “Prophecy applies itself properly to the earth; its object is not Heaven. It was about things that were to happen on the earth; and the not seeing this has misled the Church” (Poythress 17-18). Darby asserted that, for nineteen centuries, everyone had been misinterpreting Scripture, the prophets in particular in this instance, as they had not come to realize, as he had, that Israel and the Gentile Church were two separate entities for whom God had two separate plans (Zens 7). While applied to the interpretation, understanding, and application of all Scripture, the criticism and pillars of dispensationalism are hardly seen as vibrantly as they are when applied to the words of the prophet Amos.

Amos delivered his prophetic message to the northern kingdom of Israel, and told of Yahweh coming in judgment, sweeping His justice over the surrounding nations. However, much to Israel’s shock, Amos declared that Israel itself would be the primary target of this holy judgment, for “when Israel failed to live up to the LORD’s standard, it became more culpable in his sight than others who had not received as much revelatory light” (Alexander 242). This judgment would rid the nation of its sinful majority, but the nation would not be destroyed. “When the smoke of judgment cleared, the LORD would restore his people to their land, revive the Davidic dynasty and bless the nation with unprecedented prosperity” (242). Simply put, Amos said that Yahweh will judge and purify His people, and then reestablish the promised Davidic kingship.

When inspecting the words of the prophet in verses eleven and twelve, it can easily be seen how a dispensational theology is applied. First and foremost, the dispensational presupposition of the separation of Israel from the Church dictates that the prophets always spoke to and for Israel. That being said, the words of Amos were not intended to be heard by or make reference to the Gentiles in any way. Amos speaks of the booth of David, and this could mean none other than the Davidic throne. “In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old” (NASB, Amos 9:11). The literal hermeneutic dictates that the Scriptures here simply tell of a renewed kingdom according to the promise of perpetual kingship given to David, so that they will reign over their enemies and all nations. “ ‘That they may possess the remnant of Edom And all the nations who are called by My name,’ Declares the LORD who does this.” (NASB, Amos 9:12) . Israel, ruled by Christ their king, seed of David, will be restored to its land, and be members of a physical kingdom that will exist on the earth and rule over the entire planet. This time, this event, this dispensation, would be brought about by God, “the LORD who does this” (Amos 9:12), to bring glory to Himself, his underlying purpose in the world.

When looked at in this way, one immediately recognizes that none of these things have yet happened. Israel is still warring over boundaries; Jews do not live in peace; their nation remains deeply divided and has no king; they are still tormented by their enemies. Dispensational theology claims that the prophecy of Amos has not yet been fulfilled, and that a day, indeed “that day” of which Amos speaks of in verse 11 is yet to come. Darby once said that “prophecy is prewritten history” (Allis 26). Surely, this history is not in our past, therefore Amos must be speaking about a future event, a day yet to come. “That day,” for the dispensationalist, is the second coming of Christ upon which He will restore Israel and, as the seed of David, sit upon a physical, tangible throne, and reign over His earthly Israel in a physical, tangible kingdom.

What, then, is the significance of James’s use of the prophet at the Jerusalem council? Dispensational theology, having already determined that Israel and the Church not only did not, but could not ever have anything to do with each other, must somehow reconcile both the yet to be realized physical blessing to national Israel, and the newly revealed spiritual blessing of the Gentiles recorded in Acts. As the Church can have nothing to do with Israel and its physical blessing, and as Israel had not, and still has not, received its physical blessing, then whatever it was, and still is, that the Gentiles were being blessed with, whatever the end result of their salvation was, it could not, and cannot, have been part of the same blessing or plan that God had established for Israel. Therefore, dispensationalism concludes that the plan for Israel, through which God will bless them and bring glory to Himself by establishing His earthly kingdom, has been postponed until such a time that they are able and willing to obey Him and be His loyal, earthly subjects. They had the opportunity to realize this blessing at the first advent, the first coming of Christ the Messiah and seed of David, but they chose instead to remain disobedient and reject Him as their king. God then instituted a new epoch, a new dispensation of grace. The ‘Church Age’, as it is commonly referred to within dispensationalism, is the ‘great parenthesis’ in God’s plan for Israel. A time, still being experienced today, in which God exercises His government spiritually through the Church, to believers of all nationalities who will enjoy the kingdom of Heaven and spiritual blessings rather than God’s earthly kingdom and the physical blessings awaiting a yet to be obedient Israel. When the apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem, the question was where and how does this Gentile conversion fit into the plan of the redemption of God’s chosen people? Should they be made to bear the sign of circumcision and be named among the Israelites? The Scriptures clearly state the answer to be in the negative, this cannot be challenged. However, why this is the answer is another question.

James’s debate ending words make use of the testimonies of the other apostles present. “Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name” (NASB, Acts 15:14). Here, James affirms that God has extended His saving grace to non-Israelites while he argues against the Gentiles being identified with Israel by bearing the mark of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is at this point that he quotes the words of Amos.

And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, “After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” says the lord, who makes these things known from of old. (Acts 15:15-18)

James makes a few interesting adaptations to Amos’s prophecy. Amos originally proclaimed that God said “In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David...” (Amos 9:11). James changes the message to “After these things” and adds “I will return”. Dispensationalism sees this and claims that “After these things” means “after the salvation of the Gentiles,” or “after this Church Age.” James was placing the “that day” referred to by Amos some time in the future, sometime “after these things”. The added “I will return” defines what will happen on “that day after these things”; it is a reference to the second coming of Christ at which He will establish His Kingdom. C.I. Scofield said of the Amos text that “there is no possibility of giving the words a figurative interpretation, for the passage is quoted in the New Testament and applied to the return of the Lord” (Scofield 49). In short, dispensationalism says that James is arguing that the Gentiles should not be circumcised and therefore identified with Israel because God has said, through His prophet Amos, that the time of Gentile conversion being experienced was a new, different dispensation, a new acting out of His government over a new group of people that had no involvement with and no portion of Israel’s blessing. Why shouldn’t the Gentiles be circumcised? Because circumcision was the sign God gave to Israel for His covenant with them and signified the inheritance of physical, earthly blessings that the Gentile had no claim to as they were given a new covenant with promises of spiritual blessing. The Gentiles were not to be circumcised because Israel and the Church are, and always have been, totally separate. Clearly, Amos spoke of social reform, neighborliness, justice, and corrupt leadership (Dierks 80-83), and of renewal and restoration for Israel, but never of a Gentile conversion.

Considering Amos

In discussing eschatology, I realize that I'm saying things that may be new, and at least "different" to some people. So, I thought it might be helpful to give a more detailed explanation, or example, really, of how I view the Scriptures and God's plan revealed through them. The next three posts will contain the entirety of a paper I wrote comparing two major theological standpoints, Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, on God's plan of salvation. The paper is kind of a "journey" piece for me as my thinking and beliefs have transitioned over the past few years and explains where I was and where I am now theologically. Centered around the Apostle James's use of Amos 9 at the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15, the paper identifies some major distinctions, and even contradictions between the two systems, and has proven helpful to others I have shared it with in establishing the foundational starting points of each theology, and identifying where I'm coming from. While the paper ony briefly touches upon explicit eschatological matters, I believe that it helps to set the stage for further discussion and maybe elucidates some of what I've already written. I will provide a works cited list attached to the last installment. So, dear brothers and sisters, I offer you part one of Considering Amos: A Comparison of Dispensational and Covenant Views on Amos 9:11-12 and Acts 15:14-18

A new time had come. The Apostles had experienced the empowerment by the Holy Spirit as Christ had promised. They had seen thousands converted in Jerusalem at the feast of Pentecost. They had spoken in tongues. They had performed healings. They had seen a murderous enemy, Saul of Tarsus, become a powerful and invaluable co-laborer; but they could never have been prepared for what was now happening throughout the land as a result of their obedient preaching of the Word. Or could they?

The Apostles were witnessing the conversion of the Gentiles. Men and women from foreign lands, who held little or no regard for Moses and his law, bore no allegiance to the throne of David, and who were not born of the line of Abraham, were now hearing the testimony of the Christ, understanding and believing it, and experiencing the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them. But how could this be? Was not the Messiah promised to Israel? Was not the covenant promise of land and blessing of great status promised to the nation that sat under King David, wandered in the wilderness, suffered in Egypt, and that descended from Jacob and Abraham before him? Where and how did this Gentile conversion fit into the plan of the redemption of God’s chosen people? These were the questions faced by the Apostles and elders as they held council in Jerusalem, and these are the questions that the church still struggles with today .

The debate in Jerusalem was over whether or not these foreigners should, for all intents and purposes, become Jews. Some said yes, they should. It only stood to reason that if the Gentiles were going to participate in a national salvation, blessing, and restoration, then they should become part of the nation. To do so, they must be made to observe the Mosaic Law and be circumcised. Others, including Paul, Barnabus, Stephen, and James, said no; the Gentile’s salvation was by faith in the Messiah Jesus Christ, as was the salvation of the Jews. The Scriptures say that there was “no small dissension” on this matter (New American Standard Bible, Acts 15:2), yet they also record that the matter was resolved, that an agreement was arrived at as a result of the council. After testimony from Paul, Barnabus, and Simeon, the Apostle James spoke these words

Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘after these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,’ says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old. (Acts 15:14-18)

These words, quoted from the Prophet Amos, contained something that must have been obvious enough to all present that it settled the argument without question, for the Scriptures go on to say that it “seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” (Acts 15:22) to send word throughout the community of believers that the Gentiles should not be troubled with the burdens of the Law of Moses, that their salvation, like that of the Jew, was through faith.

It is the content of Amos’ prophecy that James utilized which is still wrestled with within the church today. Somehow, that which was obvious to the assembly in Jerusalem has become clouded over the years and throughout generations and has itself become the subject of controversy. That which was used to settled a debate has come to be that which is debated over.

The main questions of the debate can be summarized as “Did James claim that the mission to the Gentiles, dare we even say to the Christian Church, was part of the divine revelation to Amos -- in any form whatever? And did James thereby also indicate that a fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy had come in the day of the apostles? ” (Kaiser 1). Was the Gentile conversion always part of God’s plan of redemption? Or, as the other side of the debate claims, is the salvation of the foreigners, which started in the day of the Apostles and continues even today, a ‘great parenthesis’ of which the Old Testament prophets had no foreknowledge and offered no foretelling? In addressing these questions, one must come to the conclusion that the scope and intention of God’s plan of redemption, that salvation itself, was always intended and designed to reach far beyond the nation of Israel, even beyond the nations of the Gentiles, and that this is what Amos was saying all along.

The two sides of the debate are generally divided among the two prominent schools of thought within the Evangelical Church. It is the prominent conviction among Covenant thinkers in the church that the words of Amos include the knowledge of, and indeed foretell, the salvation of Gentiles as the working out of God’s eternal plan. Dispensationalists hold the other side of the debate. The predominant view among those that adhere to a dispensational theology is that the offer of salvation to the Gentiles was never part of God’s original plan, and that it was only extended after it was rejected by the Jews; the age of Gentile salvation is a pause, or “parenthesis” in God’s original and yet to be completed plan for national Israel.