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