Eric Nels Ortlund interprets the "tabernacle of David" in Amos 9:11-12 to be a temple/sanctuary.
Eric Nels Ortlund, Theophany and Chaoskampf: The Interpretation of Theophanic Imagery in the Baal Epic, Isaiah, and the Twelve (Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 5; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2010), 200-2
As the reader reaches the final chapter of the book, however, the themes normally associated with theophany and the defeat of the chaos begin to receive fuller expression. This is first seen in the unity of thought of 9.1-6. The divine appearance in 9.1 constitutes a most interesting variation to the usual description of theophany: instead of shaking the earth from his temple, YHWH appears in his temple to his prophet, who participates in making the entrance to the temple itself shake. Clearly, with the destruction of the temple imminent (v. 1), no part of the cosmos is safe for Israel—not even captivity in exile (v. 4). Inasmuch as the temple is both the center of the cosmos and symbolically contains all the cosmos within itself, YHWH’s dismantling of his own temple naturally leads to a complete lack of security anywhere else in creation. The connection of vv. 1-4 with the poetic statements concerning the destruction of creation in vv. 5-6 is, as a result, very strong (the second line of v. 6 is especially striking in its reversal of the picture of creation given in Ps 104.6-7).
Within this description of cosmic destruction in vv. 5-6, however, a single line strikes a different note, wherein YHWH builds his מַעֲלוֹתָ֔יו in the heavens, and founds his אֲגֻדָּת֖וֹ on the earth (v. 6).
In a helpful article, Reinhard Messner and Martin Lang have discussed the implications of this line, arguing that the root אגד essentially refers to binding something together (in Akkadian, the root can refer to an architectural structure) and that the line as a whole refers, pars pro toto, to the temple (note again Ps 104.2-3 in this regard). The reason why the “steps” and “vault” are singled out is that they serve a “binding” function: they attach what YHWH is dismantling in judgment. The implication of this nuance is to give an isolated and slightly ambiguous statement of cosmic restoration in the midst of total judgment: while the temple and earth shake and melt (vv. 1, 5) in destruction under YHWH’s hand, YHWH is the one who builds his heavenly temple, founding it on the earth (v. 6). The chiastic structure of 6a, as opposed to the sequential unfolding of the surrounding verses, nicely mirrors the different nuance of the line.
How this cosmic restoration is actually worked out is, as mentioned above, ambiguous from the perspective of vv. 1-6. But what is hinted at in vv. 1-6 receives explicit and full treatment in vv. 11-12, where the Davidic tabernacle is rebuilt. Appropriate to this rebuilding of the divine sanctuary is the cosmic intensity of the agricultural fertility which follows in v. 13, for, as in other examples of the Chaoskampf, a (re-)built and fully-functioning sanctuary acts as a center from which creation is renewed. The desolation caused by divine judgment and introduced programmatically in 1.2 finally gives way to blessing in these verses. The connection between 1.2 and 9.11-15 is strengthened by the status of the latter verses as a kind of epilogue to the book; as Terrence Fretheim notes, one moves from the withering to the renewal of creation in 1.2 and 9.11-15. We thus see how the initial image of agricultural desolation before YHWH’s theophany in the introductory verse of the book is put to specific (if clipped) use in the descriptions of YHWH’s judgment throughout the book, even as this withering and mourning in nature takes on cosmic proportions in later chapters—and it then finally reversed on an equally cosmic scale. This speaks strongly against a metaphorical interpretation of 1.2, for it does not seem to function differently from the imagery of 9.11-15. The same function should be attributed to both passages, but the later by no means metaphorically describes the restoration of Israel, but rather does so directly through the symbolism of the temple. This suggests that the image of 1.2 is not an indirect way of expressing some other action on YHWH’s part, but is rather used within the larger polarity of chaos and order under divine rule in YHWH”s judgment and restoration of his people. While YHWH”s direct theophanic presence in judgment is only hinted at outside of 1.2 and 9.1, theophany is still an important dimension of this theme as it unfolds in the book. This is not to deny the presence of metaphors in these texts; the mourning of the earth in 1.2, and the melting of the hills with win in 9.13, could doubtless be further explored as metaphors. But metaphor is probably not the best way to understand Amos 1.2 as a whole.