Amos 9:11-15—“In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen …”

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God (Amos. 9:11-15).

NOTE:

Dispensationalists appeal to this text as referring to a literal future restoration of the Jewish nation in the land of Palestine. The New Scofield Reference Bible claims this prophecy will have its fulfilment in the Millennium.

But if that’s true, would James really have alluded to it in Acts 15:13-21? Was James of the mindset that Old Testament prophecy must be taken literally?

(I)

John Gerstner (1914-1996)

[Source: Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), p. 195]

Here [in Acts 15:13-21/Amos 9:11-12] we see a New Testament application to the church of an Old Testament prophecy to Israel ... The issue before the Jerusalem council was whether to receive professing Gentiles into the church without Jewish rites, especially circumcision. Peter's argument for accepting believing Gentiles without circumcision was that God revealed this duty to him by a vision and confirmed it by the actual pouring out of the Spirit on uncircumcised believing Gentiles. This later argument was confirmed by the testimony of Paul and Silas about their experiences among Gentiles. James cites Joel's prophecy as having been fulfilled in what these men had described. Therefore, Gentiles were to be admitted as they were, with only a few minor stipulations not at issue. Thus the church and Israel are essentially identified as the building again of the “booth of David.” The building of the “booth of David” and the erecting of the Christian church are one and the same ... What is abundantly clear is that James cites the Amos prophecy as referring to what was then actually taking place.

-----------------------------------------------

(II)

Prof. Herman C. Hanko

[Source: We and Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism (RFPA, 2004), pp. 30-31]

How clearly the Amos reference seems to be to the nation of Israel. There are references to the old tabernacle that will be raised up, to Israel’s enemy Edom, to the land of Canaan and material prosperity in that land, and to continual life in earthly Canaan. If one takes the passage by itself, one can only conclude that God is making covenant promises to the nation that have a natural and national fulfilment at some future time.

Do the Scriptures themselves agree with that interpretation of Amos 9? They emphatically do not. Acts 15 is the record of the Jerusalem Council, which met to decide on the question of whether Gentiles could be saved as Gentiles. The question was not whether Gentiles could be saved. No one ever doubted this. During Old Testament times Gentiles were saved by becoming Jews, and they became Jews through the rite of circumcision. The council was called to decide whether it was still true in the New Testament that Gentiles could be saved only by becoming Jews. The first missionary journey of the apostle Paul brought about this question. Many Gentiles had been saved and had not been required to undergo circumcision, because it was the apostle’s contention that God was now gathering a church that was truly catholic; a church in which all racial, national, and personal characteristic were preserved for the benefit of the church. In the course of the argument at the council, “after they had held their peace,” James, the brother of the Lord and an elder in the Jerusalem church, spoke:

Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things (Acts 15:13-17).

James quoted the prophecy of Amos, which seems to refer to the salvation of the Jews, as being fulfilled in the gathering of the Gentiles. The council listened to James’ advice, accepted his interpretation of Amos’ prophecy as correct, and formulated their decision based on it. The salvation of the Gentiles is the restoration of the tabernacle of David. The “material” blessings promised to “national Israel” are really spiritual blessings promised to the whole church.

One must take either of two positions: Either James made a serious mistake in his exegesis of the Old Testament, and the church erred in adopting his advice, or the Old Testament prophecies which speak of the material and national aspects of Israel’s life are prophecies fulfilled when the Gentile church is saved. The former would do violence to the principle of Scripture’s divine inspiration; therefore, the latter must be true.

It ought not to escape our attention that we have an implicit hermeneutical rule that must be applied to all similar passages. God’s word itself, by this New Testament interpretation of an Old Testament passage, tells us how to explain other passages. When prophecy speaks of future promises for the nation of Israel and refers to them in national and material terms, the language is clothed in the types and shadows of the Old Testament, and these passages much be interpreted in terms of their New Testament fulfilment.

-----------------------------------------------

(III)

More to come! (DV)

QUESTION BOX:

Q. 1. “But Acts 15:13-21 is actually a reference to the Millennium. Amos was prophesying of the day when Christ will come in His glory (at the Second Coming). James was simply showing that there will be Gentile believers at that time, as well as Jewish believers; hence he concluded that Gentiles are not required to become Jewish proselytes by circumcision.”

Against this bizarre suggestion we simply note the following considerations. First, as we say, this is far-fetched in this context (already nearly two thousand years far-fetched). Second, there had always been some Gentile believers as well as Jewish and that did not prevent their circumcision previously. Third, there is nothing more in the nature of a Gentile being a believer that would preclude the possible necessity of his being circumcised than would prevent the necessity of his being baptized.

Finally, we should note that the traditional interpretation affords a reasonable explanation of James’ conclusion. He recognized that Israel (the church) was now becoming really international and that such changes were appropriate “in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord” (verse 17, NASB). Even the less patriarchal character of the new dispensation had a bearing. (Source: John Gerstner, “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism” [Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991], p. 196)