In past months, there have been heated discussions on the CARM preterist forum regarding the apostle James’s application of the  prophecy contained in Amos 9: 11-12:

   “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.”

  Now, Hyper-Preterists claim, with a triumphant air, that because James quoted Amos in Acts 15: 16-17, the Old Testament prophecy is spiritually “fulfilled” by the church!

   Of course, their contention is based on a faulty reading of both Amos and James.  Then too often, a large chunk of the original prophecy (which speaks of Israel’s ultimate restoration) is excised or ignored, to the detriment of true exegesis.

   In order to understand Hyper-Preterism properly, one must  remember that Hyper-Preterists start out by deciding that Christ “returned” in A.D. 70, and then try to make the Bible agree with them.  All evidence that gets in their way is routinely disposed of by a “spiritualizing” process similar to alchemy.  Unfortunately, the casualties claimed by this method include scores of prophetic passages which foretell the restoration of the covenant nation.

   However, it is pretty clear that Amos was talking about a literal restoration of the Hebrew nation, and not the building up of the Christian church. 

   (Amos 9: 14-15) “And I will bring again the captivity of my people 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 own land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of the land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.”

   What does this passage have to do with the Christian church?  Nothing, apparently.  The error of the Hyper-Preterist view becomes manifest when one looks at the context of the passage above, and notes that the promise of restoration must logically follow the destruction of the “sinful kingdom” and the sifting of Israel among the nations (Amos 9: 8-10) — which Hyper-Preterists agree happened in A.D. 70.

   But, since Israel was not scattered among the nations until A.D. 70, then how can the restoration passages of Amos have been fulfilled by the church during the Acts period?  In order to hold such a view, one would be required to break up the cohesion of Amos’s prophecy, ignoring the sequential relation between the scattering and re-gathering.

   It is obvious, though, that a “grammatical, historical, contextual” interpretation of the passage in question will rule out any spiritual fulfillment, such as Hyper-Preterists bring to the table. 

  When we look at Acts 15: 15-17, we can’t help but feel that James is applying the Old Testament prophecy to the Dispensation of Grace.  This view is all the more reasonable, inasmuch as the wording of the original prophecy was altered by the Holy Spirit when cited by James at the Jerusalem council.   For example, the phrase, “as in the days of old” was omitted.  This alteration of language was called for by a change of circumstances which does not annul the literal fulfillment of the Old Testament text.    

   More importantly, James nowhere states that Amos 9:  11-12 was “fulfilled” in the first century. He merely said: “To this agree the words of the prophets;” and then proceeded to apply the prophecy to the church.

  Now in the original Greek the verb rendered “agree” is “sumphoneo.”  It is the same word from which we get our English noun “symphony,” and the verb “to symphonize.”  As we use it, the term always implies similarity, and not identity.  A symphony is created not by everyone playing the same instrument, but by many different instruments keeping the same note.

    James could cite Amos’s prophecy without doing violence to the true interpretation, because there is an agreement in the nature of fulfillment.  So he applied the passage.  The “agreement” between Amos’s words and his own does not demand identity of the two passages, but merely reflects similarity.  

   Hyper-Preterists, however, suppose that every Old Testament verse quoted in the New Testament is a real “fulfillment;” and because the meaning of the O.T./N.T. texts rarely matches up, the H.P.’s believe they have a warrant for spiritualizing any Old Testament passage that gets in their way.

   That is one reason why Hyper-Preterists spend very little time exegeting Old Testament passages which speak of Israel.  Having become alchemists after a fashion, they find it easier to make the passage fit the particular paradigm, than to do the detailed exegetical work.

   James’s quotation of the prophet Amos is a prime example of the confusion that ensues when Christians refuse to follow a “grammatical, historical, contextual” mode of interpretation.  When spiritualizing policies prevail, all objectivity must vanish, as the student is set adrift into a bewildering sea of conflicting interpretations. 

   However, for those who wish to return to sanity, a simple grammatical reading of both passages will inform them that one belongs to Israel, and the other to the church. 

   So, while Amos’s prophecy may be applied to the present parenthetical dispensation — as can other Old Testament passages — it is folly to claim that James’s citation constitutes a true fulfillment of Amos.  Amos’s words are just as much inspired as are James’s.  And each has its proper place in God’s plan of prophetic fulfillment.