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.