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.