Daniel R. Hyde |

Reformed Catholic Theology

Was the Prophet Amos a Dispensationalist?

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin

Many evangelical Christians have embraced Reformed doctrine and moved into historic Reformed congregations.[1] I’m one of them! Collin Hansen’s, Young, Restless, Reformed, chronicled a part of this movement.[2] There’s one themes Hansen doesn’t touch on enough, though. Here in Southern California, the evangelicals turning Reformed come from churches deep into Dispensationalism. One of the hardest things for these young people to come to grips with are the Old Testament promises concerning Israel. These promises speak of a re-gathering into the Promised Land with a rebuilt Temple. One text that helped me explain the issues of the relationship between Israel and the Church is Amos 9:8–12. Asked a question, was the prophet Amos a Dispensationalist?

The Background of Amos

Amos by Francesco Rosselli (1445–1513)

The prophetic oracles of Amos occurred in the socio-political context of Jeroboam II in Israel (793–753 b.c.) and Uzziah in Judah (791–740 b.c.). Although a Tekoan in the southern kingdom (Judah) Amos preached in the northern kingdom (Israel).[3]

The milieu of these two kings’ kingdoms was one of great prosperity and success. First, geographically: these kings spread their kingdoms almost as far as the area that David and Solomon ruled (2 Kings 14:25). Second, militarily: this enabled great expansion (2 Kings 14:25–28, 15:2; 2 Chron. 26:6–8). Third, economically: a rich upper class developed in Samaria.[4]

The canonical context of Amos’ prophecy is a brief introduction (1:1–2) and woe oracles upon the nations (1:3–2:3). Yet, the bulk of Amos’ ministry was towards the unfaithful apple of Yahweh’s eye, Israel. They reaped the judgment and woe of the Lord. This major part of the prophecy is Amos’ legal case that judgment was coming upon the people of God (2:4–9:10).[5] It’s not until the very end in 9:11 that we hear hope.

The Final Woe

To answer was the prophet Amos a Dispensationalist, let’s first dive into the context of Amos’ final woe oracle.

Yahweh’s Eyes

Amos 9:8–10 concludes the fifth in a series of visions of judgment begun in 7:1. In this vision, Yahweh comes in a judgment theophany, climactically guaranteeing that there’s no turning back for Israel. The hoof beats of Yahweh can one heard in his servants the Assyrians. In the conclusion to this vision as we read “Behold” and “For behold” (vv. 8, 9). “Behold!” Yahweh’s eyes are upon Israel. But in what way? David had once said, “The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous and his ears toward their cry. The face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth.” (Ps. 34:15–16) This distinction between Yahweh’s treasured possession and the nations has been obliterated. The eyes that once looked upon Israel in blessing now looked upon them in judgment. As Amos said just before: “And if they go into captivity before their enemies, there I will command the sword, and it shall kill them; and I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good” (9:4).

Israel’s Covenant Breaking

This was the result of breaking the Mosaic covenant. Israel reaped for herself annihilation and exile, not prosperity and blessing. In Deuteronomy 28:15–68 Moses prophesied this fall of Israel. In understanding this covenant structure it’s important to note a parallel. Adam was made “from the ground” (Gen. 2:7), and because of his sin “the ground” was cursed and to “the ground” he would return at death. Now Israel, God’s new son (Ex. 4:24), would be annihilated “from upon the face of the ground.” The cursed ground from which they came wasn’t able to bear their accursedness. Therefore, they’d be obliterated completely under judgment. The significance of this shouldn’t be overlooked. Israel’s annihilation would be no ordinary destruction. For covenant disloyalty they’d be annihilated in the manner of utter destruction (cf. Deut. 2:22, 7:24, 28:48, 33:27; Josh. 9:24, 11:14, 23:15; 1 Kings 16:12; 2 Kings 10:28; Isa. 13:9, 14:23, 23:11).

Yahweh’s Sieve

Nevertheless, although Yahweh would annihilate the kingdom of Israel, he’d save a remnant on account of the covenant of grace made with their forefathers. The “house of Jacob” stands for the northern kingdom (5:1, 4, 6, 6:8, 14, 7:2, 5, 10, 16, 8:7).[6] The Hebrew word ki with the negative lo “introduces an adverbial clause of restriction limiting the extent of the previous phrase.”[7] He’ll annihilate Israel because of her spiritual harlotry; but he’ll restrain his wrath for the sake of his covenant faithfulness.

Verse 9 drives home the point even more by saying, “For, behold, I will command.” Divine judgment wasn’t only immanent, but irrevocable. Amos describes the process of judgment using a familiar agricultural image. Yahweh would judge as a sieve sifts grain. He’d rid the chaff (wicked) but retain the solid grains, i.e., the elect remnant (cf. Rom. 11:26). Spiritual Israel’s final safety was ensured, although the judgment of Assyrian invasion (3:11, 5:3, 27, 6:7–14, 7:9, 17, 9:4) wouldn’t be turned away. Those who fall are the ungodly chaff who broke the Mosaic covenant. Those caught in the sieve are the godly, saved on account of the Abrahamic promise.

Yahweh’s Sword

Verse 10 switches metaphors. It’s by the sword (the Assyrian army), that Israel would be punished. The phrase “the sinners of my people” is a partitive genitive. This means it’s speaking of some of his people. Therefore, it shouldn’t be translated as “my sinful people” but as “the sinners of my people” who will die (NIV, NASB, ESV). The people of Yahweh saw his Day as a blessing (5:18) when the nations would be judged. Yet but the tables were turned on Israel. In reality, it would bring judgment upon them (5:18–20, 8:9–10, 12–13).[8] Their self-righteousness is shown as they said, “Disaster shall not overtake or meet us.” This same self-righteousness caused them to break the Mosaic covenant, as they didn’t see themselves under the ban.

The Hope of the Gospel

With this context of woe before us, we transition to Amos’ hope. Our answer to was the prophet Amos a Dispensationalist begins clear up.

A Day to Come

Verse 11 begins “in that day” (bayyom hahu), which is a familiar opening in many prophetic texts (e.g. Gen. 49:10; Hos. 3:4–5; Joel 2:28, 3:1). It’s even used eschatologically of the end (Isa. 24:21).[9] It pushes this word of the Lord from Amos to a future day when Yahweh would act on behalf of his people. Amos’ prophecy has been one of doom up to this point, but as Delitzsch said, “His book is dark, but on the outmost edge the light of promise rests.”[10]

Resurrection of the King

In that future Day, he’d “raise up” or resurrect David’s “tabernacle” (tent). This is used as a metonymy for the fallen royal line of David’s dynasty. The dynasty Yahweh promised to build (2 Sam. 7:21) and was lowly during exile Yahweh would resurrect.[11]

The restoration under Zerubbabel can only be a partial, temporary fulfillment; for it did not include Israel, which nation is the main subject of Amos’ prophecies, but only Judah; also Zerubbabel’s kingdom was not independent and settled; also all the prophets end their prophecies with Messiah, who advent is the cure of all previous disorders.[12]

The dynasty was fallen and soon to go into exile. As John Calvin said, “We know, that whenever the Prophets designed to give some hope to a distressed people, they set forth the Messiah, for in him all the promises of God, as Paul says, are Yea and Amen.”[13] For Yahweh would “rebuild” this fallen dynasty by remembering his covenant promises. He promised that the ruling staff would not depart from Judah until Shiloh came (Gen. 49:10). His covenant mercy would stay with Zion so that the nations would fear him (Ps. 102:13–14). He swore in truth and wouldn’t relent that David’s seed would sit upon the throne of Israel (Ps. 132:11). The other prophets used this prophetic idiom of “David” in order to describe the coming restoration of the people of God:

  • Jeremiah 30:9: Yahweh will “raise up” (aqim) David in “that day.”
  • Ezekiel 34:24: Yahweh would be his people’s God and David would be their prince.
  • Ezekiel 37:24 says David will be the king of Israel, thus giving the people of God one shepherd.
  • Isaiah 16:5 says that the Messiah would sit in the “tabernacle of David” as ruler and judge over the people.
A New Nation

In Amos 9:11 we find the first meaning of the “outermost edge of Amos’ prophecy.” A nation of plumb (9:1–10) is rebuilt (9:11–12). Israel becomes Eden restored (9:13–15). This picture of agricultural plenty is prophetic idiom for the eschatological future (Ezek. 47; Joel 3:17–21 [4:17–21 Heb.]; Zech. 3:10). “As in the days of old” refers to David and Solomon’s monarchy.

With New Boundaries

In verse 12, we find the second half of the pun, “the outermost edge of Amos’ prophecy” as the promise of Yahweh to Israel is for the “edge” of her boundaries and of the world. As Augustine said,

Even the apostles understood this as a prophetic testimony of the calling of the nations who did not formerly belong to God; and because this same people of the Gentiles is itself spiritually among the children of Abraham, and for that reason is rightly called Israel.[14]

Edom was the brother of Israel (Gen. 25:23) whom Balaam prophesied that Israel would one day “posses” (cf. its use here in Amos) in Numbers 24:18. The conquest under Joshua only went to the borders of Edom (Num. 34:2ff; Josh. 15:1, 21). Saul was unable to posses Edom (1 Sam. 14:47). David had to force their submission (2 Sam. 8:14). But Yahweh would enlarge the borders of Israel to “posses” even Edom. They were a perpetual foe of Israel, representing all the Gentile nations who were the enemies of God and his people. Yet, this prophecy envisions a day in which even they would bear the name of Yahweh. Yahweh would own them as he does the Temple (Deut. 12:5; Jer. 7:10–11) and Israel (Deut. 28:9–10). In those days, they’d no longer be forced into submission but would be co-heirs with Israel.[15]

Fulfillment: Acts 15

Explaining Amos’ shadowy words only brings us so far. To answer was the prophet Amos a Dispensationalist we need the light of the Gospel.

The Big Q

The first church Synod in Acts 15 asked the question of whether the Gentiles should be allowed into the community without undergoing circumcision. At a pivotal point in the deliberation of that Synod, James quotes Amos 9:11–12 (15:15–17). All who interpret Scripture see this quotation in Acts as being so important for biblical hermeneutics between the Testaments, that even The Scofield Bible says, “Dispensationally, this is the most important passage in the New Testament. It gives the divine purpose for this age, and for the beginning of the next.”[16] So Amos 9 in light of Acts 15 is going to answer our question: was the prophet Amos a Dispensationalist?

When Does Amos 9 Happen?

Was the prophet Amos a Dispensationalist? No, because of when Amos 9 is fulfilled according to Acts 15. “In that day” is a common phrase in Hebrew prophetic literature. It means “then” or “following upon that.” It serves as a connector with the preceding verses as it does in Isaiah 10:20. O. Palmer Robertson says, in opposition to Dispensationalism, “Only context can determine whether or not it implies something of a more technical significance.”[17] In Amos 9:11 it’s neither simultaneous with the destruction of Israel nor is it used in a technical sense of “in the Day of the Lord”. Rather, it refers to the restoration after the judgment upon the house of Jacob.

Dispensational exegesis of Acts 15:16–17 says that all these things are still future, thereby having no relevance for the Jerusalem Synod. As Ironside says, “James explains that this is not what is going on now” (i.e. at the time James quotes it—emphasis mine).[18] But referring back to Acts 15:14, James’ reference to God’s “first” visit of the Gentiles isn’t this age of Gentile mission, but the ministry of Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10). It’s “then,” under Paul and Barnabus that God would come to “visit.” James isn’t referring to the Second Coming and subsequent Millennium, but to God “turning” in his dealings with his people, that is, all the nations.

What’s the Raised “Booth”?

Was the prophet Amos a Dispensationalist? No, because the “booth” or royal line of Davidic kings has already been “raised up.” Evidence of this is the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentiles in the same way as the Jews (Acts 15:12). Christ is the fulfillment of the Davidic line, as Gabriel announced to Mary (Luke 1:32–33) and Zacharias proclaimed (Luke 1:69).

Dispensationalists like to make a point of James’ quotation of Amos 9:11–12 being more in line with the Septaugint (LXX) than with the Masoretic Text (MT). They make this point to “prove” this means the fulfillment is yet to come. Let me outline the four major differences between the biblical texts. This not only refutes the Dispensational claim but answers our question was the prophet Amos a Dispensationalist?

  1. The MT and LXX read “in that day” while the New Testament says “after these things.” Some respond to the Dispensationalists saying this shows James was conflating many quotations. A better answer is that the inspired apostle interpreted the text in quoting it at the Synod. “After these things” is the day in which the Council met. Amos 9:8–10 already happened in the destruction and diaspora of Israel. As Niehaus says, “The Spirit, in his function as interpreter of the Old Testament, made use of a variant translation.”[19]
  2. The Masoretic Text says, “in order that they may possess” while the New Testament follows the LXX: “in order that they may seek.” The variants in the LXX are “not to be explained solely by the ordinary causes of textual alteration but sometimes reflect new ways of understanding the prophecies in the light of changing events, changing attitudes and changing exegetical methods.”[20] Thus, as Bruce said, the LXX of Amos 9:12 “chimes in with the hope of many Jews of the dispersion that Gentiles would seek and find the true God.”[21]
  3. The MT says the “remnant of Edom” is the object of “that may possess” while the LXX and New Testament say the “remnant of mankind” is the subject of “they may seek;” thus translated as “the remnant of mankind may seek.” This could be the result of a few small alterations of “Edom” into “Adam,” but there must be a deeper theological reason, namely, that all the nations are included into the kingdom, not just Edom.[22]

Was the prophet Amos a Dispensationalist? No. James’ Spirit-inspired interpretation at the Jerusalem Council is that Amos 9 is fulfilled in the Advent and resurrection of the final Davidic king, our Lord Jesus Christ. As King, he’s taking many peoples for his Father’s namesake (cf. Ex. 19:5, 23:22; Deut. 7:6, 14:2, 26:18–19). Amos 9 is not an “end times” prophecy in the Dispensational understanding. The end times began with the coming of the Lord. His coming fulfilled Amos 9. He’s continuing to fulfill it in his gathering of nations until the final Day.


[1] Originally a paper written in Spring 2000 for Dr. Meredith Kline’s course on the Prophets at Westminster Seminary California.

[2] Collin Hansen, Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).

[3] Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 375; Jeff Niehaus, “Amos,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical & Expository Commentary, Volume 1: Hosea, Joel, and Amos, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 316.

[4] Ibid., 316–17.

[5] On the “covenant-lawsuit” feature of the prophets and Amos in particular, see Ibid., 318–26. As E. J. Young pointed out decades ago, one of the prophets’ purposes in proclaiming the law was to preserve the theocracy. E. J. Young, My Servants the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 76–82.

[6] John Calvin, though, says “house of Israel” is used as a metonymy for all the kingdoms of the earth, not just Israel. This interpretation, though, is unwarranted by the context of Amos.  John Calvin, Commentary on Amos (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprinted 1996), 397–98.

[7] Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1992), 93.

[8] F.F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations: From the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 58.

[9] According to O. Palmer Robertson, the Old Testament uses it about 200 times. Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, Crossway, 1988), 344, n2.

[10] Franz Delitzsch, Old Testament History of Redemption, trans. Samuel I. Curtiss (1881; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, reprinted 1995), 117.

[11] Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1934) 679.

[12] Ibid., 679.

[13] Calvin, Commentary on Amos, 403.

[14] The City of God, 18.28.

[15] For an excellent exposition of Amos 9:11–15, see J. A. Motyer, The Message of Amos: The Day of the Lion, The Bible Speaks Today (Downer’s Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1974), 201–208.

[16] The Scofield Bible, ed. C.I. Scofield (NY: Oxford, 1909), 1169, n1.

[17] In Continuity and Discontinuity, 344, n2.

[18] H.A. Ironside, Lectures on the Book of Acts (NY: Loizeaux, 1943), 355.

[19] Niehaus, “Amos,” 491.

[20] F.F. Bruce, “Prophetic Interpretation in the Septuagint,” BIOSCS (Fall 1979, No. 12): 26.

[21] Ibid., 17.

[22] Niehaus, “Amos,” 492–93.

Support the ongoing cost of this site, the Spanish site in-development, and mailing theology books to pastors-in-need outside of the U.S by visiting our merchandise store or with a donation.