Eamon Younis: The Message Of Amos

By Robert Spender

Bob Spender is Professor and chairman of the division of Biblical Studies at Lancaster Bible College. He is in fellowship at Monterey Bible Chapel in Leola, PA. Previous articles on Habakkuk and Obadiah have appeared in The Emmaus Journal. See EmJ 11 (2002): 51-78; 14 (2005): 75-95.

Listen Carefully To The Voice Of The Lord

Introduction

God shouts in Amos! One can “feel” the voice of God while reading this book. The prophet’s message undoubtedly shook the northern kingdom with greater force than the earthquake in the eighth century BC mentioned in the first verse. The book is colorful, forceful, and so well-organized that it outlines itself. The first two chapters are marked by repetition and progression as a series of oracles moves among area nations toward the northern kingdom. The next four chapters (3-6) are structured as three discourses followed by two messages of woe. Closing the book are five visions (7-9) amplified by appropriate interludes.

Amos And His Times, 1:1

Apart from a few autobiographical comments found in chapter 7 and oblique references to natural disasters, only the opening verse provides specific information on the life and time of this prophet. The mention of two kings, Uzziah and Jeroboam, sets his ministry in the eighth century at a time of growing economies and relative stability.

Following late ninth century Assyrian aggression against the Aramean states, Assyria entered a period of decline, allowing Israel and then Judah to strengthen and expand. By taking advantage of the disarray in Damascus, Jeroboam (II) expanded Israel’s territory northward. About the same time, King Uzziah expanded Judah southward to the port of Elat. Under Uzziah cities grew and the military gained in strength. Uzziah attempted to preserve the ways of the Lord, but growing prosperity in the South apparently worried Amos as well as his contemporaries in Judah.

The first verse clearly attributes the book to the prophet Amos. Some have taken the opening statement about the words (דִּבְרֵי, dibrê) of Amos being received in visions (חָזָה, ḥāzāh) to be an indication of multiple layers of tradition or stages of collecting. [1] Instead, use of these different terms anticipates the unity of the message by linking the prophet’s speeches with the series of visions at the end of the book.

Questions abound about the career and social location of this prophet, but his being selected from a larger group (sheepherders) at a specific location (Tekoa) clearly supports his call from God that is referenced in chapter 7.

The Tone Of The Book, 1:2

Amos’s opening words set the tone of the book. In four brief lines we hear God’s voice, but he is not whispering. He roars like a lion. Included in this verse are links to the rest of the book. For example, the use of lion imagery (3:4, 8, 12), the pastoral perspective, and the mention of Carmel (9:3) are all mentioned later.

For Amos the roar of a lion set the stage for his message and may even provide a link to the previous book of Joel (Joel 3:16). [2] The association of a lion’s roar with a drought was apparently understood in the ancient near eastern environment. [3] The lion was a royal animal, and its roar evoked fear (Amos 3:8) and portrayed judgment (Hos. 5:14; 13:7 ). The parallel phrase, “he utters his voice” (נָתַנ, nātan+ קוֹל, qôl), added the authority of God to the image (cp. Ps. 46:6; Jer. 10:13; Joel 2:11). [4] As a result the rain was withheld and the pastures withered. As a shepherd, Amos knew the trouble that drought brought to shepherds (cp. 4:7-8). We glimpse some of his feelings about this in a later vision involving pastureland (7:4-5). Mention of Carmel, however, not only moves the audience to the northern kingdom, but evokes an image of lush productivity.

Oracles Against The Nations, Chaps. 1-2

Following the introduction the book begins with a round of messages against Israel’s neighbors. Oracles addressed to foreign nations are frequently collected together in the prophetic books. They comprise a healthy part of Isaiah (13-23), Jeremiah (46-51), and Ezekiel (25-32). Amos’s unique contribution is his formulaic packaging of each oracle and the impact made by the total arrangement.

Beginning in the northeast, Amos crisscrosses Israel by arranging the first four nations as if to draw an imaginary X over the northern kingdom. Then he moves clockwise, from transjordanian Ammon, through Moab and Judah, to Israel. By condemning foreign lands and moving from distant relatives (Edom, Ammon, and Moab) to her southern sister Judah, Amos appears to draw the wall of God’s judgment tightly around Israel. [5] The subtility of arrangement may have been intended to surprise Israel. To pronounce judgment on surrounding enemies would have been acceptable. For Amos to denounce his own land, however, would have been very surprising. But any agreement they may have felt toward his words was quickly shaken when he blasted Israel as the goal of the series.

Amos apparently liked organization, so all the oracles follow a similar pattern. Each nation is introduced with the same set of expressions, the so-called messenger formula [6] (“thus says the LORD”) and a device common to wisdom literature identified as the “x, x + 1” formula. [7] With each unit the nation’s identity changes. Next, the crime or crimes are identified by the word “because” (עַל, ʿal), followed by the sending of a destructive fire to consume military defenses and cities. Only in the case of Israel (the northern kingdom) is this last element missing, but not from omission. Rather, Amos uses the remainder of the book to develop Israel’s sins and to notify them of coming judgment.

Against Aram, 1:3-5

First to be addressed is Israel’s northeastern neighbor, Aram. The oracle is directed at Damascus, the capital of this Aramean kingdom (v. 3). By naming two kings, Ben-Hadad and Hazael, Amos may be hinting at Israel’s personal involvement with her northern neighbor (v. 4). During the time of Amos Israel held sway over Aram, but the oracle recalls bitter rivalry between the two nations.

The Arameans (“Syrians” in the NKJV or ESV) were guilty of inhumanity. If their act was literal, it portrays a horrific treatment of people (v. 3). Threshing sledges were heavy wooden platforms studded with sharp stones or pieces of metal for threshing grain. Dragging them over captives accentuated the brutality of ancient near eastern warfare. God highlighted this inhumanity as he decreed destruction of their cities and captivity for the people. These oracles against the nations serve as a reminder that God is the Lord of history and nations. As God he never forgets. As Savior he is always seeking to forgive.

Against Philistia, 1:6-8

The only non-Semitic people in the list, the Philistines, were enemies of Israel from early in the Iron Age. As part of a greater movement of peoples (the so-called Sea Peoples), they settled on the southwestern Levantine sea coast around 1200 BC and opposed Israel through most of its history. [8] They were especially antagonistic during the time of Samson, Samuel, and Saul. David finally defeated them, but they continued to oppose Israel throughout Israel’s monarchy.

Five cities governed by five lords (סְּרָנִים, sérānîm) characterized Philistine rule of the southern Levant. All but Gath are named in this opening oracle, suggesting that it was in the hands of Judah, perhaps from Uzziah’s expansion of the kingdom (2 Chron. 26:6). Amos mentions Gath later (6:2) but in a context that suggests its fall.

The Philistines are condemned for sending captives, perhaps as slaves, to Edom (v. 6). Not only would their cities be destroyed, but there would be no remnant or future for the people. [9] Amos’s mention of royal rulers reflects his dislike for perverted power. The oracles tend to mention leadership positions. Here, “the scepter” (v. 8) signals the importance of Ashkelon, since the Philistines did not have a king.

Against Tyre, 1:9-10

Tyre and its sister city Sidon were key cities on the Phoenician coast and major maritime centers in the ancient world (cp. Ezek. 27). Tyre is condemned for the same crime as Philistia (v. 9, cf. 1:6, 11). Such similarity of language led to the theory that this oracle was a later insertion, but its geographical, historical, and literary location combine with the oracle’s unique contribution to support the integrity of its original placement.

Tyre entered trade agreements with David and Solomon, sending them timber and craftsmen for various building projects, including the temple (2 Sam. 5:11; 1 Kings 5:8). Their bitter aggression was a violation of an earlier agreement, labeled “the covenant of brotherhood” (v. 9), for which God held them accountable. Tyre’s commercial treatment of human life is also noted by other prophets (cp. Ezek. 27:13; Joel 3:6).

Against Edom, 1:11-12

Twice already Edom has been implicated in sins of inhumanity by engaging in slave trade with Tyre and Philistia (1:6, 9). The charge leveled against Edom, however, is hatred (v. 11). Edom descended from Jacob’s brother Esau, and biblical history traces the growth of sibling rivalry into ongoing hostility between their descendents, especially over land.

Aggressive words describe Edom’s behavior towards Israel. Emphasized is the endurance of their anger, which they kept continually (לָעַד, lāʿad) and which tore at them forever (נֶצַח, neṣaḥ, v. 11). To maintain their anger they stifled (destroyed, שִׁחֵת, s ̌iḥēt) any feelings of mercy or pity so as to pursue their brother with the sword. Anger that is not dealt with can turn to unbridled animosity and revenge. Scripture counsels the angry to deal with anger quickly (Eph. 4:26). This is good advice, since anger escalates to bitterness. One of the best antidotes for anger is forgiveness.

The two cities singled out for destruction in verse 12 represent the land of Edom. Bozrah was a chief city in northern Edom, while Teman, which at times can represent all of Edom, probably refers to a city south of Bozrah. Judgment was coming that would affect all of Edom.

Against Ammon, 1:13-15

The Ammonites and the Moabites, the subject of the next two oracles, both descended from Lot (Gen. 19:38), and both settled in the Transjordan. Traditionally Ammon was bordered by Gilead to the north and was located east of the land that Israel gained from the Amorites in the Transjordan (Deut. 2:19). Moab settled east of the Dead Sea and was sandwiched between Ammon to the north and Edom to the south.

The few periods of truce that punctuated the otherwise hostile relations between Israel and Ammon were marked by Israel’s control of Ammon. Joab, David’s military commander, defeated the Ammonites (2 Sam. 10:14), bringing in a period of tranquility that may have extended into Solomon’s reign, since one of his wives was an Ammonitess (1 Kings 11:1). The Bible notes Ammonite involvement with anti-Israelite coalitions in the ninth and seventh centuries (2 Kings 24:2; 2 Chron. 20:1) and records Uzziah’s victory over them in the eighth century (2 Chron. 27:5). Ammon’s peak seems to have been in the seventh century, but they eventually lost power at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. [10]

Like the opening oracle (Amos 1:3), the brutality of war crimes against Gilead is the subject (v. 13). Killing the child in the womb is an atrocity attributed to Syria (2 Kings 8:12), Assyria (Hos. 13:16), and Israel’s wicked king Menahem (2 Kings 15:16) and provides a graphic portrayal of the ugliness of war. [11] Driven, apparently by greed, to conquer more land, they closed their ears to the cries of those they slaughtered. Amos, however, announced that the cry of battle would soon come to their own capital city, Rabbah, and that their king and leaders would go into exile (vv. 14-15).

Against Moab, 2:1-3

For the fourth time Edom is mentioned by Amos, but this time as the object of inhumane activity. Moab and Edom shared a common border at the River Zered. Both received territorial grants from God (Deut. 2:5, 9). The historical background of their hostility is unknown, but Moab is charged with desecration of the human body and that of a king (v. 1).

At times this passage has been used in the debate about cremation as a form of burial, but that is not the point of the passage. Royal persons were given burials even by those who disliked them. Even wicked Jezebel would have been buried had it not been for the prophecy of the Lord (2 Kings 9:34-36). Moab’s guilt, then, was animosity and revenge that was symbolized in their treatment of the body of the Edomite king.

Against Judah, 2:4-5

With the seventh oracle Amos moves closer to Israel. Geographically the nations listed were neighbors of the Northern Kingdom. Genealogically Israel had ties with Moab, Ammon, and Edom, but with Judah they shared history, traditions, and religious orientation. From one perspective the disassembly of Judah might have appeared to vindicate the North and its secession from the South. From another, it highlighted a key issue—the covenant. For if Judah was accused of breaking the covenant and they had the temple and priesthood, where could Israel be?

This is exactly Amos’s point. By affirming the crimes of other nations, especially Judah’s, Israel was indicting herself. How true and convicting is the message of God’s word! Many today should recognize a similar pattern of indictment, for as the apostle Paul so clearly puts it in the book of Romans, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself” (Rom. 2:1, NIV).

The introductory formula remains the same, but the accusations change. Two parallel statements (bicola) summarize Judah’s crimes as disobedience to God’s law and rebellion (v. 4). By rejecting the truth of God’s word the people were being led astray by the falsehood of other gods. [12] Those who reject God’s revelation have no where else to go but away from the truth.

By pronouncing judgment upon the land (Judah) and its capital (Jerusalem), the oracle closes in much the same way as the previous six (v. 5). Yet, God’s use of a southern prophet also provided a warning to Judah. If Amaziah was successful in kicking Amos out of Israel (7:12), both the prophet and his message would have returned to his homeland, Judah. Indeed, his words against Judah may be one of the reasons for southern interest in preserving the book.

One significant difference between the oracles concerning Judah and Israel and those concerning the other nations is the basis for judgment. With the other nations the emphasis is upon acts of inhumanity and the egregious violation of moral values. For Judah and Israel the basis of judgment is their relationship with God as outlined by the covenant. Judah and Israel were accountable for their actions, but actions assessed in light of God’s revelation, illustrating the principle “to who more is given, more is required” (Luke 12:48).

Against Israel, 2:6-8

With formulaic precision Amos stages his last judgment speech, but he eliminates the concluding elements. Unlike the previous seven messages, the statement about God’s fire consuming fortresses is absent. Rather, Amos develops the conclusion in the remainder of his book, as seen in the use of the key words: “fire” (5:6; 7:4), “consume” (5:6; 7:4), and “fortresses” (3:9-11; 6:8).

Immediately Amos launches into an enumeration of Israel’s sins. By depriving his audience of the expected conclusion, the prophet attempts to heighten awareness and evoke ownership of their guilt. This pericope begins and ends with economics, but focuses on matters of morality. Bribes, unfortunately, were moving the system beyond the righteous (2:6). In this context, where “righteous” (צַדִּיק, ṣaddîq) parallels “poor” (אֶבְיֹונ, ʾebyôn), the concept may simply refer to what is legally expedient. The law-abiding person is right, but money wins out. Selling one into debt-slavery may have been legally acceptable, but examples illustrate the moral tensions that it created. Elisha, unable to help the vulnerable widow through legal means, tapped into greater spiritual resources (1 Kings 4:1-7). The sale of the righteous for silver suggests a higher price, while a pair of sandals parallels the low position of the poor.

Amos employs three well-known words for “poor” to illustrate widespread oppression. The words are very close synonyms. But אֶבְיֹונ, ʾebyôn (“needy,” v. 6) holds the idea of material need, while דַּל, dal (“helpless,” “poor,” v. 7) speaks of deprivation or insignificance, and עָנָו, ʿānāw (“humble,” v. 7) suggests one who is debased or humbled. [13] If the first couplet speaks of Israel’s greed, the second portrays insensitivity. Instead of receiving help, the humble were hindered. The degree of insensitivity is graphically portrayed by those who pursued the poor right up to the dust that was upon them (v. 7).

A little more difficult to understand are the final two couplets (2:7b-8). Taking this as a religious crime combines the statements to formulate a picture of perversion at a religious shrine. But as Shalom Paul has observed, the word is “girl” (נַעֲרָה, naʿǎrāh) and not the expected term for “sacred prostitute” (קְדשָׁה, qédēs ̌āh). [14] If the girl is a servant or slave, then the crime is sexual abuse and perversion by a father and son. [15]

Keeping a pledged garment was an illegal activity (Ex. 22:26); it illustrated Israel’s flagrant disregard for the poor. An extra-biblical illustration can be seen in the Yavneh Yam ostracon, where a seventh century (BC) worker near Mesad Hashavyahu complained to the governor that his garment had been unjustly confiscated. [16]

God’s Gracious Provision, 2:9-12

Verses 9 through 12 transition away from the eight introductory oracles, allowing Amos to amplify his message about Israel. Still marked by the first person, they provide examples from history and religion illustrating the Lord’s gracious provision to Israel as a backdrop to their disobedience. Deliverance from Egypt and wilderness guidance (10a) are set off by the conquest (9a). The Amorites were Semitic peoples of western origin that occupied part of Canaan, and while the inhabitants of Canaan are loosely referred to as Amorites, the term links to God’s original promise of the land to Abraham (Gen. 15:16). They were like mighty trees, symbols of strength and height in Scripture, but God allowed Israel to triumph over them. Yet Israel rejected the One who provided the land. They wanted the gift but not the Giver.

Next, Amos points to God’s provision of spiritual leaders (v. 11-12). Both Nazirites and prophets were non-hereditary positions occupied by persons dedicated to God. Mention of the prophets surrounds the Nazirites, perhaps because they were more numerous and became a more visible voice for God. But the prophets he raised up (11a) were silenced (12b), and the Nazirities (11b) were polluted (12a).

A key function of prophets was to declare the word of God (Jer. 20:9; Amos 3:8; Mic. 3:8), yet eighth century economics and politics produced an increasing dissatisfaction with prophetic words. This desire to silence God’s appointed voice is also noted by Isaiah (Isa. 30:10) and corroborated in Micaiah’s encounter with King Ahab (1 Kings 22:13). The contrast between what God did and what Israel did is sharpened by the movement from first person (“I,” 2:9-11) to the second person (“but you,” 2:12). What God did, Israel attempted to undo! Nazirites marked their calling by observing dedicatory regulations (Num. 6:13ff.), regulations that Israel spoiled.

Warning Of The End, 2:13-16

Invoking the picture of an overloaded wagon that creaks and totters under its weight, the Lord hints at how close judgment really is (v. 13). He was tired of carrying this rebellious people any further. Amos uses two forms of the verb עוּק, ʿûq (“to split, cleave,” v. 13), and since they are the only occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Bible, their use has generated a great deal of discussion. In addition to the wagon imagery, the idea of an earthquake is widely held. While the image is strong, reasons to soften it are weak. [17] Striking images of the Lord (more frequent among the prophets) help the reader to grasp the dire nature of the situation and the perspective of a gracious and merciful God.

The end of the chapter portrays a devastating military situation where even the bravest and most skillful fall or flee (vv. 14-16). Seven phrases mark the completeness of destruction. The opening and closing phrases frame five other phrases, each of which use the negative ('לא, lōʾ) to emphasize the disastrous nature of the situation. [18]

While the same root word for flight (נוּס, nûs) occurs in the first and last phrase, it portrays opposite concepts, helping to emphasize the panic of a terrible end. If Amos is alluding to a final eschatological battle, he envisions a bleak situation that reminds all of the inescapability of the day of the Lord (cp. 5:18-19).

Pictures of warriors failing during a time of crisis illustrate the hopelessness of the time. Amos envisions courageous crack troops abandoning their positions and running from battle. These are the strong (חָזָק, ḥāzāq) and the brave (גִּ'בּור, gibbôr), the latter being a term frequently used for the best troops. [19] Even those especially skilled for battle (“he who grasps the bow”) [20] abandon their positions, throwing away their weapons as they flee. Three times the same verb is used (מלט, mlṭ) to show that they would not “save their life” or “escape” (vv. 14, 152). The flight of a naked warrior pictures defeat, captivity, and shame (v. 16).

Amos reminds us that human strength and ability will not deliver people from the hand of the Lord. The strongest cannot save his own soul (life) let alone protect others (cp. Ps. 49:7-8). Because one cannot hide from God, it is better to hide in God (Nah. 1:7).

Three Discourses And Two Messages Of Woe, Chaps. 3-6

The First Discourse, Ch. 3

The next section of Amos combines three messages, each introduced by the heading “hear this word” and followed by the intended audience (3:1; 4:1; 5:1).

The Family Of Israel, 3:1-2

The first message is directed toward the “sons of Israel” who are further defined as the “family” (מִשְׁפָּחָה, mis ̌pāḥāh) redeemed from Egypt. Amos’s emphasis upon election is confirmed by verse 2 where God’s specific choice is set against the other families (מִשְׁפְּ'חות, mis ̌péḥôt) of the earth. A more literal translation of the opening clause would be, “Only you [plural] have I known,” where the verb “to know” (יָדַע, yādaʿ) reflects an intimate relationship between the two parties. In choosing Israel God did not dis-elect the other nations; rather, he choose Israel to be his people and to fulfill his purpose for all people. This, of course, is part of Amos’s declaration. By referring to the exodus, he indirectly includes Judah, but his focus is Israel’s neglect of the covenant relationship.

To further secure his message Amos draws upon his own credentials as a prophet. We later learn that he was in the northern kingdom by God’s choosing rather than his own (7:15). The message is not from Amos, it is from God.

The Firmness Of Prophecy, 3:3-5

To explain that his calling was from the Lord, Amos proceeds with a series of keenly crafted rhetorical questions. Like his opening oracles, Amos elicits audience agreement with his list of seven questions. Each question illustrates a cause and effect relationship, while calling for mental affirmation. [21]

Beginning with snapshots from rural areas, the prophet shifts to an urban setting at the end. Grammar supports this shift, since the first five questions are introduced with the interrogative הֵא, hēʾ (vv. 3-5), while the last two are marked by the particle אִם, ʾim (“if,” v. 6).

The questions are quite transparent. People do not conduct harmonious relationships by chance. Even lions do not growl without reason. Traps and trumpets are not involuntary, but work by design. God does not work without a plan either, and Amos is the designated interpreter.

Amos The Prophet, 3:7-8

Verse 7 is an important moment in the book, since it provides a rare glimpse of Amos while adding to our understanding of the role of prophets in ancient Israel. Blended together with the lion’s roar (vv. 4, 8) as well as prompting questions, it sets Amos’s commission in bold relief—so bold that many dismiss it as an intrusion and therefore a later (Deuteronomistic) addition. [22]

Prophets functioned as the Lord’s messengers. Their call into a new relationship included being privy to God’s revelation. While prophets frequently spoke to society in light of God’s previous revelation, they also brought explanations and information not of their own making. [23]

The message Amos brought, heralding a firm end to Israel, was not of his own design. He classed himself as God’s servant who was bringing a word from Yahweh. The prophet also understood that he was under divine compulsion to deliver the message. Jonah tried to run (Jonah 4:2) and Jeremiah tried to stifle the message (Jer. 20:9), but God’s word persevered. So powerful is God’s word that Hebrews likens it to a doubled-edged sword (Heb. 4:12). It is a weapon that believers should never be without, and it needs to be kept sharp.

God’s Proclamation, 3:9-10

Abruptly, an invitation was extended to southern powers to assemble on the mountains of Samaria. God summoned traditional enemies, Ashdod, a Philistine city, and Egypt, the major southern power, to witness Samaria’s violent behavior and pending destruction. Such a gathering “on the mountains” speaks of both witness and war; and while neither Egypt nor Philistia were directly involved in the destruction of Samaria, neither were interested in lending support.

So depraved was the population that Amos said, “They do not know how to do what is right.” David Dorsey sees this statement as the center of the chapter, which he arranges in chiastic order. [24] A few recent scholars have taken this unit to be flavored by wisdom terminology and understand the word “right” (נְכֹחָה, nékōḥāh) within that setting. [25] It may be better, however, to understand a legal setting, where God invites witnesses and judges his people by standards that even pagan nations would understand.

Perhaps more telling is the application of the word חָמָס, ḥāmās (violence) to Israel. [26] Instead of justice, they were storing up violence and destruction in their city. Even so, the grace of God is evident in the prophetic warning, but the calling of witnesses is a reminder of human responsibility. God’s gracious provision of both word and witness leaves humans without any excuse (Rom. 1:18-20).

Judgment On Samaria, 3:11-15

The announcement of coming judgment by an enemy is signaled by the word “therefore” (3:11). But who is the surrounding enemy? At this point there is no reason to see the Philistines and Egyptians as anything more than invited witnesses (3:9). Eventually Assyria destroyed Israel, but Amos probably understands the adversary to be the Lord, since his focus is more on God’s sovereignty than human means.

The reference to pulling down their “strength” (v. 11) foreshadows the destruction of Israel’s defenses. Samaria invested heavily in its defense system, and archaeology attests to the quality masonry used in the construction of the capital. [27] Samaria’s walls were destroyed, and Micah graphically portrayed them as rolling down into the valley (1:6). Mention of the citadels or fortresses (אַרמְנֹות, ʾarménôt) links back to the oracles leveled against the foreign nations, portending a similar judgment upon Israel.

Shepherd imagery probably came easy to Amos, although here he presents a distasteful picture. Remains from a wild animal’s attack would be used to exonerate the shepherd. While later shepherds (leaders) were charged with eating the sheep (Ezek. 34:3), and the earlier Jacob had to pay for each loss himself (Gen. 31:39), the law exempted a caretaker if evidence was produced (Ex. 22:13). But Amos speaks more of the violent action by applying the verb “snatched” (יִנָּצְלוּ, yinnāṣélû) to the people of Samaria. Those remaining would only carry the bare necessities into captivity (3:12b). The picture is one of complete destruction. Any who survived destruction would go into captivity and not return.

Two imperatives in verse 13 serve to focus judgment on the house of Jacob, or the northern kingdom. The tone of the announcement is in keeping with the legal flavor of the unit (3:11-15). While Amos may still be thinking of foreign nations as witnesses, they are left unnamed. The announcement however transitions to more specific charges around the longest authority formula in Amos. Judgment comes by directive of “the Lord GOD, God of Hosts” (Adonai Yahweh, Elohim Sabaoth, 3:13), certainly an impressive arrangement of some of the names of God.

Again and again Amos brought his audience face to face with the inevitability of judgment. Believers in Christ are secure from God’s judgment by the grace of our Lord (Rom. 8:1), but such knowledge should lead us to speak clearly to those who do not yet know his mercy and grace.

The final verses of this oracle pronounce judgment on Israel’s religious paraphernalia and expensive real estate. God’s judgment (“punishment, visitation,” פָּקָד, pāqad, v. 142) is directed against Bethel as Jeroboam’s key cult center (1 Kings 12:29; Amos 7:13). Breaking the horns of the altar symbolized desecration, but more clearly it represented the cessation of sacrifice (Lev. 4:7; 16:18) and the loss of any hope for asylum. [28] At the same time, items of luxury and pride would fall prey to the invaders (v. 15). Excavations at Samaria have produced examples of ivory inlays that decorated the royal buildings. [29] The summer and winter house probably represents two different houses that enabled the king to take advantage of favorable locations during climate changes. [30] Amos mentions both decorations and locations as an example of royal luxury and materialism. People are unwise to artificially separate religion and economics. Just as our view of God shapes our ethical decisions, so too our view of material goods influences how we serve the Lord (Matt. 6:24).

The Second Discourse And The First Doxology, Ch. 4:1-13

Amos’s next oracle, introduced with the same phrase as the previous one (“hear this word”), addressed some women of Israel. After describing their fate (4:2-3), their actions are pictured using irony (4:4-5). A longer section, divided by refrains (4:6, 8, 9, 10, 11), follows, and rehearses God’s attempts to reach Israel. The message ends with a powerful announcement of judgment (4:12) that is coupled with a brief doxological reminder of God’s ability (4:13).

Society Women, 4:1-3

By addressing society women as “cows of Bashan” Amos employed a pastoral image (v. 1). Located east of Galilee, Bashan was an area renowned for its fertility; and just as those fertile hills were rich with sleek cows, so he viewed Samaria’s upper class ladies. Amos was not against women; rather he was directing his invective towards various sections of society, especially the leaders (6:1). A graphic statement about the oppressed (4:1b) is sandwiched between his indictment of the women (4:1a) and their husbands (4:1c).

By coupling a visible word-pair for the poor (poor, needy) with two strong verbs for oppression (oppress, crush), Amos reveals the effects that these influential persons had upon society (v. 1). [31] But a great reversal awaits these women in the future. Driven by his holiness, the Lord again announces coming captivity, and neither rank in society nor money would exempt them from the evils of captivity (vv. 2-3). Amos’s use of “hooks” to represent the brutality of captivity is graphic and genuine. Pictures of captives strung together by various implements, including hooks, are known from ancient near eastern iconography. [32]

Captivity in any time is a humiliating and brutal experience. The women are portrayed as moving single-file through broken city defenses on their trip northward (v. 3). Harmon, thought to be Mt. Hermon, is in a northern direction. How quickly circumstances changed for these women! Once proud, haughty, and surrounded by opulence, they are now viewed as being dragged into a life of separation, pollution, and humility.

Misguided Worship, 4:4-5

Amos appears to have been an effective preacher desiring to gain the attention of his audience. His choice of two historically meaningful places merges sacred space and tradition. For Israel, Bethel’s roots stretch back to patriarchal times as the place where Jacob met with God (Gen. 28:13), while Gilgal gained priority during the conquest as Israel’s initial base of operations (Josh. 5:10). But he speaks with a sarcastic tone when he invites the people to perform their religious duties at these idolatrous centers. Their thank offerings, originally designed to show gratitude to God, were polluted. Instead of providing opportunities for worship and fellowship, their freewill offerings were failures. Frequently the prophets remind us that empty ritualism cannot substitute for a meaningful relationship with God (Isa. 1:12-16; Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6-8). Instead of loving God, the people loved their own works. In an age where we read about the “domestication of God” and self-proscribed liturgies, we still have much to learn from Amos and Israel’s prophets.

Environmental Disasters, 4:6-9

It is amazing how easily the Lord takes charge of world events. Israel’s eighth century famine was superintended by God. Believers should affirm God’s sovereignty over world events, even though he does not cause evil. Job’s disaster, for example, was not caused by God, but he was in control of the situation. He also brought good out of Job’s trials. People today are quick to blame God for regional disasters like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or the southeast Asian tsunami, but rarely do they reflect on the fullness of God’s person or revelation when doing so.

First the Lord sent a famine (4:6), and then he sent a drought (4:7-8). Perhaps they were related. The famine affected all their cities and places, while the rains, being more localized, affected one city (עִיר, ʿîr, vv. 6, 72, 82) or location (חֶלְקָה, ḥelqāh, v. 7) at a time. God used these natural disasters to speak to the people and then added the voice of his interpreter, but the people were not listening.

Sending and withholding rain was related to the covenant blessings and curses (Deut. 11:11-12; 28:24). The hydrology of ancient Israel was different from the great irrigation-based societies of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Israel depended upon rainfall, so God used it as a picture of his blessing (Deut. 11:14; Jer. 5:24; Joel 2:23). Withholding rain was in God’s power (not Baal’s) and evidenced his displeasure. Subsequently, the wandering of cities (נוּעַ, nûaʿ) in search of water pictures confusion, frustration, and fruitlessness. [33]

The aim of good discipline is restoration. At times alienation will result, but restoration should always be the intended goal. Seven times God pounded away at Israel, but they refused to listen. Then, as an extra measure of grace, he sent his prophet. But their response was to kick him out of the land (7:12).

Enemy Attack, 4:9-10

The opening famine, exacerbated by a drought, brought agricultural disaster. Then mildew (internal disease), combined with scorching wind and locusts (external disasters), made matters worse, affecting key crops like grapes, figs, and olives that were often exported to provide annual income. [34]

Judgment number four shifts from economic disaster to external threat. In Egypt the tenth plague was the death of the firstborn. Here plague and warfare would result in the death of their choice young men (בַּחוּרִים, baḥûrîm, v. 10). The stench from the fallen suggests that there were more corpses than could be buried and portrays how the land was now cursed (cp. Isa. 34:3). Perhaps this refers to the ninth century Syrian invasion by King Hazael (2 Kings 13:3). But more likely an unknown but chronologically closer loss under Jeroboam I is intended.

Preparing For God, 4:11-12

Then, as if an Egyptian comparison was not enough, the prophet compares Israel to Sodom and Gomorrah. Like Lot, Israel is snatched from total annihilation because of the grace of God. As Wolf has observed, this judgment is not among the covenant curses, and neither does it find any place in Solomon’s prayer (1 Kings 8). [35] Yet Sodom and Gomorrah preserved a strong historical tradition for both the North and the South, so it pictures the finality of God’s judgment.

Grouping similar judgments provides a powerful rhetorical effect, yet this similarity has caused some scholars to view this whole section as creative literature that employs stereotypical language for an effect. [36] But these environmentally related disasters are historically viable events. Their visibility in the covenant curses (Deut. 28:17-26), renewal ceremonies (1 Kings 8:33, 35, 37), and judgment passages (Isa. 11:15; Jer. 11:22; Hag. 1:11) does not necessarily mean that the passage is only rhetorically or liturgically construed. Rather, it speaks of God’s sovereignty over natural events and his grace in providing an interpreter for those events for his people. Amos’s mention of a known eighth century earthquake and solar eclipse underscores his use of such events (cf. 8:8-9).

A concluding judgment, marked by the word “therefore” (4:12), seals the end of the five visitations. Repetition of first-person verbs illustrates God’s personal attempt to reach Israel, but their failure to repent moved them to inevitable judgment. So Amos warns them to prepare to meet God. But how can one prepare to meet God?

The First Doxology, 4:13

At this point the first of three doxologies breaks the language and tone of judgment. The authenticity of the doxologies has been the center of continued debate. [37] Perceived intrusiveness is usually cited for viewing these hymnic statements as later editorial insertions. In addition, it was widely held that earlier prophets (like Amos) only brought words of judgment, so these positive statements were automatically suspect. More recently, however, the rhetorical role that they play in the book has been pointed out in support of their authenticity. [38] Just as this doxology completes the listing of five judgments, so too, the third doxology (9:5-6) completes Amos’s five visions.

The Lord, as Creator and Sustainer of the universe, has made his abilities known to people and graciously continues to supply his presence. The God who forms and creates (both verbs initially occurring in Genesis 1 and 2) wills to reveal his ways to those he has created. Here is an indirect reflection on the role of Amos as a prophet (cp 3:7). But just as God made the day, so too he controls the night, and darkness was coming to Israel. This is the God that Israel rejected. This is the God that they must now be prepared to meet. His powerful name is “the LORD God of hosts.”

The Third Discourse And The Second Doxology: The Leaders Of Israel, Ch. 5:1-17

The third message of Amos, again marked by the phrase “hear this word,” castigates the leaders of Israel, perhaps the royal house (“O house of Israel”). Several studies have pointed out the chiastic arrangement of this oracle (5:1-17).

Lament, vv. 1-3
Call to Seek the Lord’s Way, vv. 4-6
Emphasis on Injustice, v. 7
Doxology, vv. 8-9
Emphasis on Injustice, vv. 10-13
Call to Seek the Lord’s Way, vv. 14-15
Lament, vv. 16-17

Not only does the structure emphasize the Lord as Creator, but it argues forcefully for an original placement of the doxology.

Lament, vv. 1-3

The opening lament or dirge [39] mourns the death of Israel. Coming invasion is anticipated by the use of the verb נָפַל, nāp̄al (“she has fallen,” v. 2), often associated with military contexts, while the title “virgin Israel” reflects the people’s original betrothal to the Lord. But the end has come for Israel, and like a fallen warrior in a defeated battle there is none to assist.

Verse 3 applies the dirge, using the same succinct style to announce the death of the majority. A dramatic reduction of people (90 percent) follows, to illustrate the scope of destruction and the mercy of God in allowing a remnant (10 percent) to escape. The practical application of God’s mercy occurs in the following exhortation in an attempt to reach the people before it is too late.

Seeking The Lord, 5:4-7

The prophet continues to speak to the house of Israel in verse 4, but there is a shift to direct address. Using the imperative “seek” (דֱּרַשׁ, dāras ̌), he sought to gain a greater audience for the call to repentance (4b-6a). The word is a technical term for inquiring of God or idols, [40] and here Amos enjoins his audience to seek the Lord and live. God is so gracious. His prophets were looking for repentance, and God still graciously seeks for people to come to him today (Luke 19:10).

This offer of life (4b, 6b) envelopes the geographical chiasmus of verse 5 that moves from Bethel to Gilgal on to Beersheba then back through Gilgal to Bethel. All three places have connections to the work of God in Israel’s past.

Bethel, visited by Abraham (Gen. 12:8), became a significant location in the life of Jacob (Gen. 28:19-20; 35:1). But Bethel (“house of God”) had become a center of idol worship. Gilgal gained prominence as Israel’s center of operations during the conquest (Josh. 4:19-20). This site, still unidentified, held visibility under Samuel and Saul, but became a center of pagan worship during the divided monarchy (Hos. 9:15; 12:11). Finally Beersheba, the center of the chiasmus, was located in Amos’s country of Judah. Previously inhabited by the patriarchs (Gen. 21:31; 26:33), Beersheba formed the traditional southern boundary of Israel (Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20). In time, Beersheba also became a pagan cult center, and among the objects unearthed at the site was a well-preserved altar thought to be hidden to avoid the reform of Hezekiah. [41] Amos truly understood the implication of his words for his own country.

As if to underscore the Lord’s offer, the announcement concludes with a reminder of coming judgment (vv. 6-7). It is addressed to Bethel, the northern cult center, and to the house of Joseph, a phrase that combines the two major northern tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. Guilty are those who pervert justice and righteousness. Their distortion of justice is compared to wormwood, a plant with a bitter taste that symbolizes disfavor with God.

The Second Doxology, 5:8-9

Amos’s second doxology celebrated the Lord’s creatorial ability with characteristic hymnic participles. Although specific constellations are named (Pleiades and Orion), there are obvious associations with day four of creation when God made the stars. And like the Genesis 1 account (1:16), Amos emphasizes the activity of the Creator over night and day by refraining to name the sun and moon. With the hymn, Amos reminds his people that the Lord had the power to do what he said. He then applies the hymn by referencing the destruction of both the strong and the stronghold (v. 9).

Throughout the book, Amos is serious about God’s coming judgment. His previous reminder, “prepare to meet your God, O Israel” (4:12), was a warning that the end was near. But Israel remained silent and unchanged. Daily we are reminded about our vulnerability, and daily there are messages about God’s great grace; yet how little movement we see towards our loving Lord in our own society!

Further Crimes, 5:10-13

Evil times had enveloped the northern kingdom, perverting the leaders’ perspective of justice. The city was a place of accessibility for all people, but not necessarily a place of equality. Amos shifts back to his prophetic invective by accentuating the corrupt actions of leadership. Evil was being supported over good. In the ancient Near East the city gate was a place of commerce and interaction; it was where elders met and justice was dispensed. [42] But little to laud was found in Samaria’s gates, since the unjust treatment of the more vulnerable of society (דַּל, dal, poor, v. 11) was a violation of God’s provision (Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:37; Deut. 23:19-20). Brutal oppression is portrayed by the NIV translation of the verb in verse 11 as “trample” (“you trample on the poor” [taking the verb from the Hebrew בּוּס, bûs]), while consistency is gained by the NASB translation, “you impose heavy rent on the poor” (taking the verb from the Hebrew בָּשַׁס, bās ̌as). Either way, it provides a vivid example of injustice.

Amos hints at the use of taxes, received as grain, for luxurious spending. This accusation harmonizes with earlier charges (2:8) and illustrates the unity of his message. Reference to cut stone (גָּזִית, gāzît, v. 11) houses alludes to the luxurious architecture of the upper class like Ahab’s ivory house (1 Kings 22:39; Amos 3:15). Evidence of quality masonry is still observable at sites like Samaria and Shiloh and indicates the beauty and expense of administrative structures in the early divided monarchy. [43] For sure, Amos had specific examples in mind and used them as visual aids for his audience. Because the end was near they would not profit from the fruit of their schemes. Indeed, none of the beautiful houses and luxuriant vineyards offered protection when Assyrian invaded the land.

Amos accentuates the inverted perspective of justice with the verb “distress” or “attack” (צָרַר, ṣārar, v. 12). Instead of defending the righteous, the leaders attacked them. Two examples illustrate his point; they were accepting bribes and refusing the help the poor (אֶבְיֹונ, ʾebyôn). [44] Such blatant corruption from those in power moved good people to silence rather than service. Toleration of corruption frustrates truth and stifles hope.

Call To Repent, 5:14-15

Turning from explanation (verbs in the perfect and imperfect tense, vv. 10-13) to exhortation (imperatives), Amos calls for repentance and for a third time employs the imperative “seek” (dāras ̌, 5:4, 6, 14). Then he adds three more imperatives (“hate,” “love,” “establish,” v. 15), while reversing the position of the two opening nouns (“good,” “evil”). By seeking good and not evil, they would hate evil and love good to establish justice. Instead of hating the righteous (5:10), they needed to change their own deeds. But that is the nature of repentance. The offer was neither automatic nor guaranteed. Its conditionality is seen by the audience citation “just as you have said” (v. 14) and the qualifying “perhaps” (אוּלַי, ʾûlay). More dependable is the grace of God coming from the God of grace (Ex. 34:6).

The idea that these lines should be rejected because their positive nature does not fit the tenor of Amos is a dictum carried from past scholarship where the genuine prophetic word was a negative word of judgment. [45] But indications of its legitimacy can be found in the language and nature of the pronouncement. In addition to the imperative “seek” (earlier at 5:4, 6), the phrase “Lord GOD of hosts” (v. 15) links well with Amos’s frequent use of this title for God. The positive language is also consistent with Amos’s later attempt to stay God’s hand of judgment against Israel (7:2, 5).

Lament, 5:16-17

The alternative was judgment. Amos pictured the coming reality of judgment by speaking of sorrow and death (vv. 16-17) coupled with a phrase reminiscent of the exodus, “I will pass through the midst of you” (cp. Ex. 12:12). The vineyards, usually places of joy, would be full of mourners. Three times in verses 16-17 Amos uses the term מִסְפֵּד, mispēd, which is translated “wailing” and “lamentation.” Death was apparently so widespread that even the farmers were called to join the professional mourners. As a farmer, this prophet could speak from experience about crop devastation, and his book hints at an eighth century famine (4:6; 8:11). He expands the occasion, however, to speak of a greater trouble, the day of the Lord.

The First Woe, 5:18-27

The Day Of The Lord, 5:18-20

A significant goal of Amos’s message was announcing the end to Israel, providing a natural link to the day of the Lord. Amos preached the coming day as unavoidable. Like the hapless individual who escaped the lion and bear only to be done in by a snake, coming judgment was inevitable (v. 19). Such moments, like Monday mornings, are inescapable (cp. Isa. 24:18, Jer. 48:44). Like the end of Israel, the eschatological end is coming and sure. [46]

Amos is one of the first prophets to speak about the day of the Lord. Even so, it was already a recognized concept. Indeed, the people were longing for that day. His remarks on the day of the Lord seem to link with his opening salvo concerning the nations surrounding Israel. Just as Israel was avoiding their own plight but seeking judgment upon the surrounding nations, so too they saw themselves in a favorable light during the day of the Lord. Amos, therefore, warned them about their misconstrued perspective. The coming day would bring them darkness rather than light (5:18, 20). What the people had misconstrued as a day of judgment upon their enemies was actually to be a day of judgment upon sin, and Amos’s preaching labeled them as sinners.

Exactly what Amos had in mind for the day of the Lord is more difficult to identify. His concept of God as Creator, affirmed so clearly in the doxologies, suggests that it moves toward an eschatological end. Since Amos was from Judah and he speaks of the destruction of Israel, he would not necessarily be identifying the day with the fate of the northern kingdom. Even Amos knew that kingdoms rise and fall, but the ultimate (eschatological) end to all nations was in the hand of the sovereign Lord.

Empty Ritualism, 5:21-27

God’s rejection of Israel’s religious actions is couched in the strongest language. Repetition of the second person pronoun captures the distance between God and the people’s ceremonies. They became “your” festivals (v. 21), “your” gifts (v. 22), and “your” songs (v. 23) performed ritualistically rather than from the heart.

By combining specific items (“fatlings” and “harps,” vv. 22, 23) with general religious activities and occasions, Amos drew attention to the scope of Israel’s ritualism. Festivals (חַג, ḥag, v. 21) were formalized occasions that followed the religious calendar (Ex. 23:15-18), while assemblies (עֲצָרָה, ʿǎṣārāh) were more popular gatherings. [47] In the North they had even been replaced by pagan practices at idolatrous centers.

The Lord rejected such legalistic ceremonies. While not unique, this message seems to be a keynote of the eighth century prophets. [48] It is a controversial picture of God rejecting the very institutions that he instituted. The sacrifices were no longer serving their intended purpose. Even their songs had degenerated to noise before the Lord (v. 23). One can only ask what the Lord might say about church worship and practices today. It is so easy to elevate traditional actions, even good ones, above a true relationship with the Lord.

An indication of the people’s error was to be found in their exercise of justice and righteousness (v. 24). They were important concepts for Amos and the Lord.

Isaiah likens them to the very garments of God (Isa. 11:5). Amos’s picture is that they would flow forth, unencumbered, like torrents of refreshing water. From the beginning Amos condemned Israel for failing in these very areas (2:6-8; 5:7). He offered them as pillars of reform (5:15), and here promoted them as central to his message. As the people of God, Israel had to reflect his character. So must we. Our call to reflect the righteousness and justice of God is consistent with the message of new life in Christ, for the new must move away from the old and provide growth and witness by the work of the Spirit (Gal. 5:13-18).

As further evidence the prophet reviewed their history where segments of Israel embraced idolatry (vv. 26). The wilderness period, at times viewed as the initial “honeymoon” between God and Israel (Hos. 13:4-5; Jer. 2:2-3), was marred by their rebellion. Though obscure, the reference to Sikkuth and Kiyyun probably reflects wilderness idolatry. One need only be reminded of God’s gracious provision of the bronze serpent that was later revered as an idol for a significant part of Israel’s history (2 Kings 18:4).

This chapter closes with echoes of its beginning. Israel worshiped the stars (planets, 5:26) instead of the One who made them (5:8). Leaders perverted justice (5:7) rather than promoting it (5:24). Their ceremonies marginalized God (5:5, 21), so they were bound for captivity (5:3, 27).

The Second Woe, 6:1-7

Woe To Those At Ease In Zion And Samaria, 6:1-3

By mixing Zion and Samaria in a woe oracle (6:1-7), Amos continued the international flavor of his message. As a southerner he knew of growing problems in Judah even though God had sent him north to Israel. The prominence given to Zion hardly supports the idea of a later insertion, since his mention of the South is consistent with the book’s title (1:1) and the opening oracles (2:4-5). [49]

The real threat to Israel and Judah was not Assyria or Egypt but God. This is consistent with the charges of covenant violation earlier leveled at Judah and Israel that distinguished them from the nations (2:4, 6ff). True, the eight-century brought a time of economic prosperity and political peace, but it proved to be false security. While this always welcome, often related, but frequently dangerous combination of events should turn people to God, it often moves them in the opposite direction. [50]

Having announced the woe, Amos interrupts it to confront current thinking. His abruptness is seen in the rapid-fire sequencing of four imperatives challenging the leaders to rethink their position in light of recent politics (6:2).

Hamath, and nearby Calneh, had felt the expansionistic policies of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25), while Gath, notably excluded from the earlier listing (1:7-8, cp. 2 Chron. 26:6), was already out of the Philistine fold. Not enough is known about these cities to explain why Amos selected them, but one is not forced to accept a later date for the passage because of their eventual conquest by Tiglath-piliser III. Amos’s emphasis is upon the arrogance of the leaders, not on the examples he uses. [51]

Amos postulated that the leaders were attempting to push away (נָדָה, nādāh, “to put off” or “to push away,” v. 3) coming judgment. Yet they were propagating false security, because their authority (“seat”) was built upon violence rather than justice (v. 3).

The Marzeah, 6:4-7

Amos bolsters his judgment speech with a brief example from a current socio-religious practice. The shift away from the second to the third person delineates this unit (4-7), while its continuity is seen in the use of participles, a favorite form for Amos.

His topic is a cultic banquet, more recently designated by the Hebrew term, “marzeah.” This banquet was apparently some type of festival to honor the dead which combined funerary rituals with feasting that was characterized by lavish indulgence. Few solid details exist about this ceremony, but two clear biblical references to it are Amos 6:7 and Jeremiah 16:5. Jeremiah speaks of the house of the mourning, while Amos provides a more complete description of its excessive practices. [52]

The degree of indulgence was outrageous. The upper class was engaged in ritualistic funerary ceremonies of obscure origin, while closing their eyes to growing spiritual and moral corruption. Mention of “beds of ivory” appears to be a reference to wooden furniture with decorative ivory inlay, while “sprawling on couches” heightens the description of opulence (v. 4a). At these banquets the diet was meat, an expensive item in the ancient Near East, which apparently included the finest cuts (v. 4b). It is an interesting image for our society as it struggles with a population that is increasingly overweight but not in the area of godliness.

Music too was a part of this cultic feast with the נֵבֶל, nēbel (harp or lyre) being a favored instrument in the ancient Near East (v. 5). [53] Accompanying festivals with music specifically designed for the occasion would be a sign of luxury. Like David they composed songs, but unlike David’s godly compositions they did so for their own pleasure. Christians today should be far less concerned with the type of instruments involved in contemporary “Christian music” and much more concerned with the theology and cultural leanings of the singers. [54]

To top off the list of luxurious activities, participants were viewed as drinking wine from bowls (quantity), while using the finest oils (quality) to anoint themselves (v. 6). By way of contrast, Amos notes that they were neglecting the greater problems in Israel. His use of the perfect verb (נֶחְלוּ, neḥlû) further illustrates the finality of the end. Joseph had collapsed and “they have not grieved.”

Both the feasting and the city would come to an abrupt end (v. 7). Their finery and luxurious positions would not be able to deliver them. Indeed, those who were first at feasting would go first into exile.

The Fearful End, 6:8-14

Interjecting God’s oath after the woe oracle accentuated the seriousness of the charge and the finality of God’s decision. In Amos 4:2 God swore by his holiness and later by the pride of Jacob (8:7). The different referents do not reflect varying degrees of certitude but the surety of Judah’s fall. For God to swear by himself is to invoke his person in a legal setting. One cannot help but reflect upon Hebrews 6:13-18, where God’s promise and oath provide an immutable witness to coming redemption. Here his oath spells disaster for the pride and people of Jacob.

Mention of Judah’s fortresses (אַרְמוֹן, ʾarmôn, v. 8)) added further weight to Amos’s continuing critique of the nobility (4:1; 6:1). As a key word it links back with the prophet’s opening refrain (1:4, 7, 10, 12; 2:2, 5) and shows how his message was developing the missing refrain for Israel (2:6ff).

Coming Death, 6:9-11

A shift from author to audience is signaled with the use of the third person in an alarming example of fear, death, and distance. Even the remnant appears to be in danger, for none of the ten men who remain escape (v. 9).

It is a little unclear who removes the corpses (literally, “bones”) from the house, but the terminology suggests the obligation fell to a close relative (v. 10). [55] People hide in the remotest part of the house, and the silence of fear pervades. Perhaps it is the very last individual (one of ten) who declines to speak the Lord’s name for fear of disclosure and death.

But the judgment of God is unavoidable (v. 11). It touches both great and small alike. Reference to the great and small house may allude to the materialism previously mentioned (3:15) or it may be a merism to include the whole city from nobility to commoner. D. A. Hubbard is probably correct in seeing another reference by Amos to the destructive force of an earthquake. [56] The shaking of a massive earthquake would affect all houses (rich and poor) and reduce many to the fragmented state envisioned by Amos. Aftershocks would explain the residual fear of those who survived. In any case, the inevitability of exile awaited them all.

Coming Captivity, 6:12-14

Two rhetorical questions indicating obvious situations to be avoided lead to a critique of the leaders’ inept handling of basic values (v. 12). By depreciating God’s standards of justice and righteousness, the leaders were feeding the people poison. [57] Apparently economic success was a major factor in blinding the eyes of the political leaders of the eighth century. Whatever the major cause of their blindness, the prophets decried such willful inversion of values (cp. Isa. 5:20; 30:11; Mal. 3:15).

Amos moves to a geographical example by pointing out cities taken, apparently under Jeroboam II’s expansionistic policies (v. 13). [58] Such military victories spoke success and strength to the nation but Amos warned otherwise. In the early eighth century, Assyria was experiencing a period of decline, and Aram had also suffered defeats (2 Kings 13:25). But Israel (the entrance of Hamath) and Judah (Arabah) would soon experience the heavy hand of Assyrian resurgence under Tiglath-pileser III (v. 14).

Five Visions, 7-9

Amos centers the third major section of his book on five visions. Each vision begins with a statement of God’s revelation to his prophet. The first two visions evoke a strong reaction from the prophet, while visions three and four find the prophet in dialog with the Lord. The account of the fifth vision simply records what Amos saw, suggesting the futility of any response. Two interludes are strategically placed among the visions to provide a more graphic illustration of the message.

1. Vision Of Locusts, 7:1-3

Amos does not tell us where he was when he received the first vision, but the context suggests that he was still in the northern kingdom obediently proclaiming the message of God. The Lord showed his prophet a locust plague that consumed everything in its path. Recent accounts of locust plagues testify to their capacity to inflict utter devastation and the harm they can do to the economy of an entire area. [59] In a matter of days an entire region can be stripped of its agricultural production.

Destruction of the later spring crops would have been especially hard on the farmer. [60] Taxes were already paid (the king’s mowing), and they needed the remainder for a future food supply. Amos was sympathetic toward the plight of the poor, so this must have been difficult for him to observe. But God was forming the plague. The word “forming” (יָצַר, yāṣar, v. 1) hints at his ability as Creator. He who had formed (yāṣar) people (Gen. 2:7) and the earth (Isa. 45:18) was forming a locust plague. Use of the participle suggests that it was a current activity and, as God’s prophet, Amos was privy to the Lord’s council. Upon seeing the plague run its course, Amos responded. The force of his response is indicated by the imperative, “Pardon” (סְלַח, sélaḥ, v. 2).

Since the northern kingdom was politically strong during the time of Jeroboam II, the argument from Jacob’s size was a reminder of the people’s position before God (v. 2). God chose Israel because he loved them, not because of their size (Deut. 7:7-8). By spurning his presence, they had opened themselves to opposition and judgment.

In response to Amos’s intercession the Lord changed his mind and cancelled the plague (v. 3). Much has been made of the verb “to change or regret” (נִחַם, niḥam) by theologians attempting to understand God’s ways. Process theologians and open theists view God’s change in an active and positive light, with many asserting that he changes because he does not know the future. [61] But Scripture (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8) and the concept of fulfilled prophecy align to teach that God does not change his character or nature; and while people can perceive a change in God’s plan, it is one that he has already anticipated. So why did he change (niḥam)? His revelation to Amos was to provide a greater understanding for his prophet and more insight into the grace of God for his people. God is a God of love and mercy who is not willing that any perish (Ezek. 33:11; 2 Peter 3:9).

2. Vision Of Fire, 7:4-6

Again the Lord showed Amos a vision of future judgment. This time Amos saw a great drought sweeping across the land as the Lord contended by fire (v. 4). Fire, which can symbolize drought (Joel 1:19-20), provides yet another link to the opening messages of judgment (1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5). The people’s guilt in violating the covenant was signaled by the verb “contend” (רִיב, rîb, v. 4), a term frequently found in legal contexts. In addition, drought was a judgment specifically related to the covenant curses (Deut. 28:23-24; cf. 1 Kings 8:35-36).

The scope of judgment was far-reaching. It consumed local fields and, oddly, even the water. The term “great deep” (תְּ'הום, téḥôm), used of the original subterranean waters (Gen. 1:2; 7:11), illustrates the extent of God’s judgment, while the word for “farm land” (חֵלֶק, ḥēleq) pictures an inheritance [62] and shows the individuality of judgment. In addition, the metaphorical mixing of fire and water is attested elsewhere in Scripture as accentuating severity and extent (1 Kings 18:38; Ps. 66:12; Prov. 30:16; Joel 1:20).

Once again Amos interceded for Israel. But his cry changed from “pardon” (v. 2) to “stop” (v. 5). God responded by canceling the judgment, but no pardon was issued (v. 3). Amos seemed to be growing in his awareness that the end was indeed fixed.

3. Vision Of The Plumbline, 7:7-9

A third vision, marked by a shorter introduction (“he” instead of “Lord God,” v. 7), reveals a change in the Lord’s tactics with his prophet. Instead of pending judgment, the prophet saw a symbolic presentation of the people’s condition. Most apparent is the grace of God in teaching his prophet. It is as if the Lord stepped back for the sake of Amos so that the prophet could better perceive the Lord’s agenda. [63] Amos saw the Lord holding a plumbline in order to reveal the stature of his people. The use of participles (“standing” [v. 7] and “setting” [v. 8]) emphasizes the immediacy of the situation.

Much has been written on the word אֲנָךְ, ʾǎnāk (v. 7), which has traditionally been translated “plumbline” (NASB, etc.). Studies have shown that the word ʾǎnāk means “tin” and not “lead” as previously understood. [64] The word occurs four times in the Hebrew Bible, but only in these two verses. Its limited use and representative nature makes its translation a challenge, especially in the latter half of verse 7 which literally reads, “The Lord was standing by a wall of tin and tin in his hand.”

Of the many suggestions, two ideas prevail. A number of commentators take the “wall of tin” to be a picture of weakness, creating the opposite image of Jeremiah 1:18 or Ezekiel 4:3, where the wall of bronze or iron stands for strength. But since a wall of tin is unknown and unattested, it makes better sense to retain the traditional understanding of “plumbline.” To render the word ʾǎnāk “plumbline” seems to fit the context better, since this vision shifts the focus from judgment to explanation.

The Lord’s question to Amos seeks confirmation of the vision by way of a response (v. 8). [65] Amos’s response reveals that he understood the Lord’s intentions; but to avoid any confusion, the Lord added a final word: “I will not spare them any longer.” This is the message of Amos. Years of grace have fallen upon deaf ears, and now the end is sure. The patience of God eventually meets the justice of God, and the day of reckoning arrives. For Israel that day of reckoning was at hand, and Amos was announcing it to the northern kingdom.

Mention of Israel’s sanctuaries in verse 9 reaffirmed the people’s guilt while providing a transition to Amos’s encounter at the more notable sanctuary, Bethel. Further links to the next unit are observable in the mention of Isaac (cf. v. 16) and the house of Jeroboam (cf. v. 10-11). The former reference provides another link with the South where Isaac lived (Gen. 21:31), while the latter accentuates Amos’s current ministry in the northern kingdom.

The First Interlude: Amaziah Versus Amos, 7:10-17

After three visions the flow of the passage is abruptly broken by an interchange between Amos and the high priest of Bethel, Amaziah. Its intrusive nature has given rise to many theories, including the rejection of its authenticity. Careful examination of the context, however, reveals how nicely this passage supports the message of Amos. In addition, its placement may be an illustration of the prophet’s work at editing his own writings.

The entire interchange is reported in only eight verses (7:10-17), but they masterfully capture the tension of the moment. Amaziah was threatened by the presence of this imported prophet. Amos, being from Judah, most likely spoke a southern dialect, which added visibility to his intrusiveness.

Several reasons can be listed for the notability of this portion of Amos, which has been labeled by Jorg Jeremias as the best known section of Amos. [66] Two stand out particularly. First, is the obvious shift in genre. As a piece of autobiographical prose in the middle of poetry, it seems to intrude. Second, since the vision reports are in a series, it interrupts the flow from the third to the fourth vision. Many scholars solve the matter by viewing this section as a later (biographical) report placed here primarily on the catchword idea of linking it with King Jeroboam, whose only other mention apart from the book’s introduction is in verse 9. [67]

Bethel was the king’s sanctuary, so Amos’s pronunciation of judgment was immediately reported (7:10-11). Bethel was also where Jeroboam’s earlier namesake first erected one of the golden calves in Israel (1 Kings 12:28-29). Such idolatry was strikingly different from the older memories of Bethel, or “house of God,” that were associated with Jacob’s encounters with the Lord (Gen. 28:18-19; 35:9). In choosing Bethel, Amos was confronting both the religion and the government of Israel at their highest levels.

Even a quick reading of this passage reveals the anger and intimidation of Amaziah. Who did this new prophet think he was to muscle in on his territory? Why didn’t he earn his living in the South (7:12)? But Amos surprised Amaziah, and us too, with his disclaimer, “I am not a prophet and I am not the son of a prophet” (7:14). He wanted to make a point. God was the only reason that he left his comfort zone to be in Israel, and now he would obediently deliver the message. His diligence is a reminder to believers today that they are ultimately working for the Lord. Christians are not earning money to further their own ambitions, though some of that may be necessary, but they should be working for God. Amos truly had a good perspective on what being called into God’s service means.

Despite Amos’s disclaimer, Amaziah recognized his activity as prophecy. His use of the term חֹזֶה, ḥōzeh (seer, v. 12) is not surprising, since the two terms for prophet had been used together since the tenth century (1 Sam. 9:9). The obvious frequency of the word prophet/prophesy however, is significant. The noun occurs twice (נָבִיא, nābîʾ, v. 142) and the verb four times (נבא, nbʾ), but in a chiastic arrangement. Amaziah uses the verb twice in his attempt to move Amos out of Israel (vv. 12, 13). Amos responds using the noun twice in a disclaimer about his position, not his message (v. 14). He then uses the verb, but in both occasions is quoting another (vv. 15, 16). First he cites the Lord’s command using the imperative (“prophesy!” v. 15), and then he summarizes Amaziah’s opening injunction not to prophesy (v. 16). In a significantly arranged report, Amos disclaims self-motivation, while emphasizing the command of the Lord versus the wishes of his opponent.

That Amaziah connected the activity of eating food and prophesying hints at an incorrect motive (v. 12). Prophets did receive gifts from the people (1 Sam. 9:7; 1 Kings 14:3; 2 Kings 8:9). These were voluntarily given for services rendered, but they were not to be misused. Elisha turned down Naaman’s handsome reward to emphasize the unique work of the Lord (2 Kings 5:16), while Micah denounced some prophets for using food as a false motive (Mic. 3:5).

Amos’s self-reference is an important part of the narrative. Mention of his occupation as a herdsman and grower of sycamore figs affirms that he was not prophesying for the money (v. 14). Neither was he in Israel to make a name for himself, but simply in obedience to the Lord’s directive (v. 15). Having made his point, Amos then announced the Lord’s word. But contrary to Amaziah, it was not against his own land, the house of Isaac, but directed at Amaziah and Israel (vv. 16-17).

The Fate Of Israel, 7:17

His words are direct and forceful in announcing the fate of Israel, but in keeping with the whole narrative this is the Lord’s message, not Amos’s. By referencing the fate of family members, Amos evoked images of shame and vulnerability. Their land would be divided, or measured by rope, and given to others, while the people would go into captivity and die away from their land (inheritance).

The church today needs individuals like Amos. Certainly not Old Testament prophets (Heb. 1:1-2), but godly men and women who are willing to confront evil around them at any level. Confrontation in God’s name was part of the prophetic task. Correct application of the Word of God to difficult situations, inside of or outside of the church, is still needed today. Peter and John confronted the religious leaders of their day (Acts 4:18-20), and in a similar way many throughout the history of the church have been called upon to stand fast for the message of Jesus Christ. So, too, should Christians strive to be faithful to the message of our Lord.

Amos’s encounter, then, provided an effective illustration of just how crooked Israel had become. Both leaders and people were corrupt. It also provided Amos with a personal instance of that depravity. Amos began to understand why God’s judgment, as difficult as it would be, had to come.

4. Vision Of Summer Fruit, 8:1-3

The fourth vision is brief and centers on a word play in verse 2 that is hidden by the English translation. Once again the Lord showed his prophet a picture. This time it was a basket of overripe summer fruit. Perhaps Amos was strolling along the marketplace looking at the recent harvest of fruit. Among the vendors would have been baskets of very ripe fruit reduced for quick sale, or even spoiled and destined for disposal. While the true setting of this vision is unknown, the marketplace scene must have been quite familiar to Amos. [68] Showing Amos a basket of summer fruit (קָיִץ, qāyiṣ), the Lord then announced that the end (קֵץ, qēṣ) was coming (v. 2). This was a major point in Amos’s message. God was affirming that the end of the northern kingdom had been decreed and said, “I will spare them no longer” (v. 2, cp. 7:8).

Death images pervade the book of Amos as a constant reminder of the coming end, and the final note of this vision adds another gruesome reminder of the bitterness of invasion. With corpses piled high the only songs left would be laments followed by the silence of burial (v. 3).

The Second Interlude: Judgment Speeches, 8:4-14

A series of judgment speeches, introduced with the imperative “hear” (v. 4), follow this vision. It is directed towards the upper class and those who aggressively mistreated the more vulnerable of society and whose persistent actions resulted in the humble (עָנָו, ʿānāw) being driven from their land and probably life itself.

Assessing The Heart, 8:4-6

Amos enlivened his statement by portraying the inner thoughts of the oppressors. These slippery shopkeepers were skilled at subterfuge and driven by higher profits. Religion was an annoyance to them, and losing one day a week meant less income. Amos referred to the new moon and Sabbath as general religious occasions that would have been observed even in the northern kingdom (v. 5). By reducing quantity (an ephah was a large dry measure) [69] and using any means available (dishonest balances), they pushed the profit margin higher (v. 5).

Reading this section of Amos is a little like listening to the evening news. People in that society could not wait for the Sabbath to end so that they could conduct their own business. Time has become a precious commodity in today’s world and can be a measure of one’s priorities. I know of more than one church where people back into parking spaces and sit in the back of the building so that they can be first to the local restaurants. Such actions betray the attitude of the heart in God’s presence.

Three times Amos speaks of the poor as an illustration of Israel’s sin and guilt (2:7; 5:11-12; 8:4). Mosaic law encouraged people to care for the poor, and a number of prophets pointed to the treatment of the poor as an indication of obedience to the covenant. [70]

Amos spoke as an observer of actions, so he verbalized the true outcome of these greedy merchants as the buying and selling of people (v. 6). Earlier the reference was to selling people (2:6); here it is to buying them. Debt slavery was an ancient institution, yet laws attempted to preserve the dignity of poor persons (e.g. Deut. 24:10-13). Amos sharpened his rhetoric by noting the low value placed on persons by merchants whose inverted ethics caused them to substitute (and sell) bad for good.

Observing Creation, 8:7-10

The Lord, however, was still very much in charge. His oath (v. 7, the third in Amos) affirmed Amos’s announcement of the end, while reference to “the pride of Jacob” recalled better times in Israel (cp. Ps. 47:4; Nah. 2:2). No actions slip by the Lord unnoticed, and the Bible speaks of judgment or forgiveness in terms of God’s memory. That he would never forget their deeds (8:7) speaks of the certainty of coming judgment. The grace of God, however, is portrayed by Jeremiah’s new covenant message where he records God’s statement: “Their sin I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:34). Frequently misunderstood, this statement does not contradict God’s omniscience, but means that God will not actively participate against believers for sin.

Amos next makes reference to three phenomenological events that were undoubtedly preserved in the memories of his audience (8:8-9). Two more ominous (an earthquake and a solar eclipse) and one more patterned (the flooding of the Nile) were all reminders of the Lord’s power.

The earthquake that shook Canaan in the eighth century provided Amos with a notable event at the opening of his book (1:1) and was later recalled by the post-exilic prophet, Zechariah (Zech. 14:5). At least one excavation boasts evidence of this quake by linking quake disturbance with the eighth century. [71]

The flooding of the Nile was rhythmic and legendary. Seasonal rains produced like clockwork an overflow that flooded the river’s banks, irrigated the land, and receded. Amos may have been thinking about a similar cause and effect. The people’s sin would inevitably spill judgment over the land. His third illustration may have referenced an eight-century eclipse of the sun. An eclipse occurred in that region on June 15, 763 BC and would have provided the prophet a perfect backdrop for his warnings about the end. [72]

Amos’s illustrations from creation that combine the rhythmic flooding of the Nile with the strident disturbances of nature result in the observation that the songs of Israel’s celebrations (already critiqued by Amos, 5:21-23; 6:5) would be turned into occasions of sorrow (v. 10). Actions like the wearing of sackcloth or shaving the head speak of a funeral. Here the mourning is especially bitter, like the loss of an only son.

Coming Famine, 8:11-14

To make matters worse Amos spoke of a coming famine, but not a famine for food—rather, a famine for the word of the Lord (8:11-12). During severe drought or famine people travel great distances in search of food and water. Famines moved Abraham and Israel to Egypt (Gen. 12:10; 45:11) and Naomi to Moab (Ruth 1:1). Amos, however, may have also been thinking about the coming day of the Lord.

When judgment comes, the Lord will be silent (v. 12). The silence of God is a significant topic in Scripture. Sometimes God is silent for teaching purposes (Job 42:1-4), but his silence can also depict a broken relationship (1 Sam. 28:6; Ps. 13:1). When people continually choose to reject the Lord, the message from Romans 1:21-23 is that God lets them go their own way.

Amos portrays the people as staggering (נוּעַ, nûaʿ) and wandering (שׁוּט, s ̌ûṭ), indicating the fruitlessness of their quest (v. 12). Eventual recognition of danger would arrive with the Assyrian army, but the cries of the people would then be met with silence and the reminder of Amos’s sad but succinct statement that “they will not find it” (v. 12). Even the young and the beautiful would faint (v. 13). At this point, Amos provides us with a helpful reminder to reflect upon the true source of our strength. In the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Yet those who wait for the Lord will gain new strength” (Isa. 40:31).

Because idolatry was in the capital (Samaria) and pervaded the land from the north (Dan) to the south (Beersheba), the Lord had withdrawn from them (v. 14). Historically Dan had become an early center of idolatry (Judg. 18:29-31), and Jeroboam selected it as one of the locations for his golden calves (1 Kings 12:28-30). By the eighth century, apparently, Samaria also boasted of having a calf idol (Hos. 8:5; Amos 8:14). Beersheba, however, was in Judah; and while it was a traditional location for defining the parameters of Israel (1 Sam. 3:20), the phrase in Amos, “the way of Beersheba,” suggests pilgrimage to a cult center. [73]

Amos’s point is that neither oath, idol, or cult center would save them in the day of judgment. The end was coming, and it was coming upon them. While Amos does offer words of hope in his book, he does not offer any encouraging word of return from this fall.

5. Temple Vision, 9:1-4

In the previous four visions the Lord revealed a picture to his prophet (the Lord “showed” me, 7:1, 4, 7; 8:1). In the final vision Amos sees the Lord issuing commands of judgment upon Israel. The Lord is standing at the altar and perhaps even “upon” (עַל, ʿal) it (v. 1). Given its notoriety in the book, Bethel is probably the intended location.

The vision portends the end of Israel as temple masonry comes tumbling down. Ornate limestone capitals that crowned the top of structural pillars have been uncovered in Israel.74 They supported the beams and the roof structure. These came crashing down, perhaps from an earthquake, killing the worshippers inside. But those outside did not escape for they faced the sword of the Assyrian army (v. 1).

Five hypothetical situations are introduced to illustrate the impossibility of escape and heighten the inevitability of pending judgment. Amos’s penchant for repetition provides a rhythmic cadence to the futility of flight. Each statement begins with the conditional particle אִם, ʾim (“though/if”) and is followed by a third masculine verb to envision what Israel might do. The phrase “from there” (מִשָּׁם, mis ̌s ̌ām) followed by an action in the first person (“my/I”) provides God’s response. Each statement concludes with the third plural suffix to clearly identify Israel as the intended recipient as it moves towards the shuddering conclusion that God is against them.

Amos has already challenged the people to prepare to meet their God (4:12). From coming judgment there is no escape. Neither the grave (Sheol) nor the powers of heaven would shelter them from God’s judgmental presence (v. 2). Amos’s poetic parallel is intended to stress the omnipresence of God (cf. Ps. 139:7-8). No geographical space is hidden from his reach, so neither the summit of Carmel nor the depths of the sea could hide them (v. 3). Although the sea evidences God’s creatorial power, it was viewed as a fearful and remote place. By mentioning Mt. Carmel with its connection to Baal (1 Kings 18:19) and the sea (the Canaanite god Yam), Amos may also be hinting that their religious mythologies would not deliver them from God’s hand. Even the powerful serpent, perhaps Leviathan, was under God’s dominion and could be set against them.

On a final yet prophetic note the prophet spoke of captivity (v. 4). Their exile from the land would not take them away from God’s presence. The statement that his eye would be against them aligns with the dispersion of the tribes of Israel that, unlike Judah, did not return. Those who did not want the Lord’s presence could not now escape from it. Romans 8:38-39 provides a wonderful contrast to these events by noting that nothing, including the grave, supernatural powers, height or depth, will ever separate the believer from the love of God in Christ Jesus. The God whose hand can reach anywhere for judgment is the same Lord who is able to protect us wherever we may go.

The Third Doxology, 9:5-6

For the third time in his book, Amos breaks into a short burst of praise. Can God really do what he says? Just look at creation and be reminded of his great power! This third “creatorial doxology” begins and ends with the name of the Lord. It is a reminder that God is to be praised even in judgment. Judgment affirms God’s absolute universal holiness. People rightly struggle with biblical passages that speak about the judgment of God. Some theologians have attempted to mollify the situation by falsely dichotomizing the God of the Old and the New Testaments. Others have opted to redefine the biblical message into a universalism that nullifies the justice of God. But Scripture affirms the justice of God’s ways.

Melting land and mourning people image the Lord’s approach (v. 5). Reference to the flooding Nile links with Amos’s earlier illustration (8:8); but instead of picturing coming judgment, it references the Lord’s control of all natural forces. [75] This beautiful poem also extols the Lord as designer (“builds,” “founded”) and caretaker (“calls” and “pours out the waters”) of the earth (v. 6). The book of Hebrews relates this ongoing activity to the work of Christ who “upholds all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3).

The Sifting Of Israel, 9:7-10

Amos changes the topic abruptly. Shocked or mortified are words that might have described how the Bethel crowd felt at his two questions (9:7). To equate them with foreign nations was scandalous but consistent with his opening message.

Ethiopia (or Cush) was a distant and feared people to Israel (cf. Isa. 18:2). The Philistines were nearby southern enemies, and the neighboring Syrians (Arameans) were northern foes. Yet God reminded Israel that he was in charge of people-movements beyond their own exodus. As part of the Sea Peoples, the Philistines appear to have migrated from the Aegean arena, including the island of Crete (Caphtor). Less is known about the movement of the Arameans, who seemingly infiltrated from the northeast, but in all instances the Lord ultimately controls the rise and fall of all kingdoms (cp. Dan. 4:25), and his omniscience (eyes, vs. 8) exposes all their sins. So Israel was just as guilty as those who surrounded her, but the Lord promised Israel that a remnant would survive (v. 8b). The people would be sifted to separate the grain from the chaff (v.9). The rebellious would be judged, while not one of the remnant would be lost.

Restoration, 9:11-15

The final section of Amos is marked by the phrase “in that day,” which nicely divides this portion into two sections, [76] while first person verbs provide continuity with the previous material. Installation of a victorious king is addressed in verses 11 and 12, while verses 13-15 address the restored kingdom.

Raising A King, 9:11-12

God’s plan was to raise up the weakened Davidic kingdom. Mention of the “booth of David” is unique to Amos (v. 11). The booth (סֻכָּה, sukkāh) was a hut made of branches and is usually associated with the festival of booths (Sukkoth). The verbs that follow, however, image lasting architectural structures, depicting a return to unity and strength. The goal is Israel’s expansion among the nations coupled with a time of unprecedented blessing (v. 12). The nations participate in this blessing, but only under the Lord’s direction. Edom’s symbolic portrayal of Israel’s enemies, [77] along with the parallel phrase “the nations who are called by My name,” provided James scriptural support for understanding the inclusion of the Gentiles into the church. Citing this passage, James argued that the inclusion of the Gentiles into the plan of God was previously revealed by the prophets (Acts 15:15-18). He quoted from the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) that took אֱדוֹם, ʾědôm (Edom) as אָדָם, ʾādām (man or humankind) and the verb יָרַשׁ, yāras ̌ (to possess) as the verb דָּרַשׁ, dāras ̌ (to seek). James’s point, emphasized by the Septuagint, was the same. If God spoke about the Gentiles being blessed in the future through Israel, they did not need to become Jewish converts (circumcised) to receive the blessing of Christ (salvation). Recognition by the early church that the gospel had expanded to include the Gentiles rested upon the work of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47; 11:18), the teaching of Jesus (Acts 1:8), and the testimony of God’s word (Acts 13:47).

Restoring The Kingdom, 9:13-15

God’s great blessing showered down upon his people is portrayed in the final three verses of Amos, when restoration will be marked by a time of unprecedented fruitfulness and complete security in the land. Verse 13 images fruitfulness beyond control. Unimaginable abundance takes over the land to such a degree that the hills dissolve from the overflow of new wine (v. 13). Such overlapping agricultural productivity was a mark of God’s blessing. [78] Israel’s involvement is portrayed using six future statements, but God does the restoring. [79] Not only will he restore them to the land, he will plant them “never again to be uprooted” (v. 15, NIV). The scope of this statement transcends the post-exilic community. Israel has never enjoyed the security pictured by this verse. And while the believer enjoys eternal security in Christ, Israel awaits a future time of lasting security.

Amos’s conclusion is refreshing and strikingly different from the book’s overwhelming tone of doom. The Lord, who dries up the land as he roars against sin and injustice at the beginning of the book, unveils a time of unmatched fruitfulness at the end. Sadly, eighth century Israel did not enter into the blessings that God held out to them. Simply put, they did not hear and they did not believe. Sometimes God shouts, sometimes he speaks in a gentle whisper, but always we need to listen. Amazingly, God is still speaking today. The real question is, are we listening, and will we respond in faith?

Notes

James W. Watts finds in the two terms different stages of the collecting of the book, Vision and Prophecy in Amos, Anniversary edition (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 85-86. The frequent paralleling of these terms in other places suggests that they should be understood as pointing to prophetic reception and exposition (cp. Num. 12:6; 24:4; 2 Sam. 7:17; Isa. 30:10; Jer. 23:16).
David L. Petersen, “A Book of the Twelve?” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney (Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 2000), 6.
Shalom M. Paul, A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 41.
Biblical citations are from the New American Standard Bible (The Lockman Foundation, 1995), unless otherwise noted.
Chisholm portrays this as a noose around Israel’s neck, Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 378.
The word “formula,” influenced by form criticism, may give the wrong impression. Such expressions are not an exact science. The phrase “thus says the Lord” is a statement of authority that is found in the OT and the ancient Near East, often on the lips of messengers. The message would be announced in the name of the person who sent it in a similar fashion, “thus says so and so,” hence its label, “messenger formula,” Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 93.
The idea of increasing a number by one also occurs in ancient near eastern texts, but its impact is illusive. It is not seeking to point out three or four specific crimes. Rather, the impact may be analogous to our giving a child “three or four” guesses about something. More important is the common denominator and the invitation to enter the dialog.
For recent challenges against ascribing great political unity and power to the “Sea Peoples” see Bill T. Arnold, Who Were the Babylonians? (Boston: Brill, 2005), 76-77.
In addition to the writings of Trude Dothan, a key excavator of Philistine culture, David Howard has written a helpful summary article in Peoples of the Old Testament World, edited by Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996). A general summary of the Philistines and the Bible has been provided by Neal Bierling, Giving Goliath His Due (Grand Rapids: Baker Books), 1992.
Jean-Michel de Tarragon, “Ammon,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:194-95.
Shalom Paul notes other ancient near eastern sources that refer to this brutal behavior, Amos, 68.
The first parallel occurs in the initial bicola with the use of the words “law” (Torah) and “statutes.” The second parallel is a bit more complex. The word “lies” can represent idols, but the word is usually שֶׁקֶר, v\q\r not כָּזָב, K`z`b as found here. This latter word more frequently identifies a false prophecy, and so Anderson and Freedman understand it, Francis I. Anderson and David Noel Freedman, Amos, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 301-04. A parallel reference from Isaiah 28:17 is often invoked in support of a political or non-idolatrous use of the term, but a closer reading of the Isaiah passage reveals that Isaiah was speaking both of Judah’s political sin (alliances = “sheol/death”) and their concomitant religious sin (idols = “falsehood/deception”). Thus the Isaiah passage actually supports a reading of “lies” (K`z`b) as “false gods.” Parallel, then, is the idolatry of the sons (Israelites) who, like their fathers, walked after idols.
On a\byon see TWOT1:4, for D~l, TWOT 1:190, and for u`n`w, TWOT 2:682-683.
Shalom Paul, Amos, 81.
See Gary V. Smith, Hosea, Amos, Micah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001), 257-58.
Dennis Pardee, “The Mesad Hashavyahu (Yavneh Yam) Ostracon (3.41),” in The Context of Scripture, Vol. III, edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (Boston: Brill, 2002), 77-78.
Feinberg holds that the imagery presents “an inelegant picture of the Lord,” Charles Feinberg, Joel, Amos and Obadiah (New York: American Board of Mission to the Jews, Inc., 1948), 54. Findley seems to concur, but argues from contextual and linguistic evidence, which even he admits is obscure at best, Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos and Obadiah (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 173. By using this word, Amos’s image of the longsuffering nature of the Lord may also hint at the earthquake mentioned earlier (1:1).
Amos 2:14-16 is a very artistically arranged unit, challenging Alberto Soggin’s position that it employs “conventional themes,” The Prophet Amos (London: SCM Press, 1987), 49, 51. Attempts to rearrange various phrases have not been successful, moving a number of scholars to retain the traditional order. For summary statements see Karl Moller, Prophet in Debate, The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 209-212.
NIDOTTE 3:811.
“The one grasping the bow” is an archer, and the verb (תָּפָשׂ, T`p~c) suggests a skilled individual, KB, 1779.
On the rhetorical device of entrapment see Robert Altar, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1985), 144.
Jorg Jeremias, The Book of Amos (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), 54; Soggin, Amos, 58 and Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1977), 187 are among those who take the verse as an amplification or later assertion, but D. A. Hubbard notes its rhetorical function and suggests that it enhances suspense, D. A. Hubbard, Joel and Amos (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 149.
Elizabeth Achtemeier states this concept well when she writes, “The word of the Lord is not the product of the prophet’s own inner musings or of his meditations on the events of his day, but rather a word that comes solely from God, often without any preparation by faith or experience, on the part of the prophet,” Elizabeth Achtemeier, Minor Prophets I, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 120.
David Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament; A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 280.
Both Jeremias, Amos, 58 and Woff, Joel and Amos, 193 support a wisdom background. This, however, is challenged by Shalom Paul, Amos, 117.
It is difficult to communicate the strength and ugliness of the word “violence” (j`m`s). Its brutality moves beyond normal boundaries, destroying any balance of life. See Wolf, Joel and Amos, 193-94 for a discussion of the word pair “violence and destruction.”
Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 406.
The one accused of homicide was brought before God’s altar (Ex. 21:14), and the gesture of grasping the horns signaled a plea for asylum, see 1 Kings 1:51 and 2:28-31.
Philip J. King notes that five hundred ivory fragments were recovered from Samaria. A few nice pieces illustrating foreign influence remain from the ravages of war and fire and are illustrated in his book, Amos, Hosea, Micah—An Archaeological Commentary(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988), 143-46. The actual location of Ahab’s ivory house, however, is still a matter of speculation, as shown by the recent reexamination of the ivories from Samaria. See, Ron E. Tappy, “The Provenance of the Unpublished Ivories from Samaria,” in Archaeology and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji, 2 vols. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 2:637-656.
Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Volume One (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1989), 224.
The words D~l “poor” and a\byon “needy” occur together in contexts of socially weak persons who are in need of help or who are being marginalized (1 Sam. 2:8; Isa. 14:30; 25:4; Amos 8:6; Pss. 72:13; 82:4; Prov. 14:31 are some examples). The two verbs, עשׁק, u`v~q (“oppress”) and רָצַץ, r`x~x (“crush”) occur together in legally colored contexts (Deut. 28:33; 1 Sam. 12:3-4; Hos. 5:11) and point to the violation of the covenant.
While the exact meaning of the word “hooks” (צִנֹּות, x]nnot) is debated, both the context and extra-biblical references affirm Amos’s pictures of captivity. An illustration can be found in ANEP, 440.
Use of the word “wandering” (nW~u) for judgment is seen in Cain’s fate (Gen. 4:12) and Israel’s wilderness judgment (Num. 23:13). See also NIDOTTE, 1:63.
See Oded Borowski, Daily Life in Biblical Times (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 29.
Wolf, Joel and Amos, 214.
Wolf, for example, views the series as a homily expanding upon older material, Joel and Amos, 214.
For a summary of positions see Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Book of Amos (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), 83-89.
One helpful analysis comes from Thomas Edwin McComiskey, “The Hymnic Elements of the Prophecy of Amos: A Study of Form-Critical Methodology,” JETS 30.2 (June, 1987): 13957; or more briefly, Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos and Obadiah, 332.
The term קִינָה, q'n`h (v. 1) is often translated as “dirge” or “lament.” Signaling a lamentation, it is usually marked by funeral customs and mournful language and often employs a 3 + 2 meter, but not with any regularity.
NIDOTTE 2:996.
Yohanon Aharoni, “The Horned Altar of Beersheba,” BA 37.1 (1974): 2-6.
Ferdinand E. Deist, The Material Culture of the Bible, An Introduction (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 202-03.
King,Amos, Hosea, Micah,65-67.
Amos does not speak in generalities but shares specific examples. These were actions that reflected poorly on those in power and those who had enough resources and influence to make a change. See Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 36-37.
Wolf takes verses 14-15 to be a later interpretation added by the disciples of Amos (Joel and Amos, 250), while G. Smith sees it as an ironic expression of the opposite and not a genuine offer of repentance,Amos,131-14. J. Jeremias, however, who follows Gerhard Von Rad at this point, understands the verses to be within the prophetic tradition of seeking justice and so accepts them at face value, Amos, 95.
David Prior clearly portrays this dual aspect of the end when speaking about Habakkuk’s prophecy. He views it as being a temporal termination and the ultimate end or eschaton, David Prior, The Message of Joel, Micah and Habakkuk (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 237.
Paul, Amos, 190.
Earlier, Samuel challenged Saul for his disobedience (1 Sam. 15:22-23), but similar sentiments are reflected by the eighth century prophets Isaiah (1:11-15), Hosea (6:6), and Micah (6:6-8).
Increasingly, scholars admit the possibility of Amos, who was from Judah, including his own people in his message, rather than excising all references to the south as later additions. See Paul, Amos, 200.
Earlier, Moses set the stage by reminding Israel not to forget the Lord during the good times, Deut. 8:7-14. Such biblical reminders add support to a believer’s opportunity to remember the Lord on a weekly basis.
A number of scholars relate verse 2 to Tiglath-pileser III and understand it as a later addition (e.g. Jeremias, Amos, 114-115). Shalom Paul, however, makes a strong case for an earlier destruction of Hamath and Calneh by Salmaneser III, Amos, 202-03. A third position takes the reference as Israel’s expansion under Jeroboam II who recovered areas of north Syria and defeated Damascus and Hamath (2 Kgs. 14:25-28), D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 359 and Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 389-90.
For a list of extra-biblical references and a brief summary see King, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 13761, and the more detailed Joachim Braun, Marzeah in Ancient Israel/Palestine, Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
Joachim Braun, Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine; Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 22-24.
For a recent critique of contemporary Christian music and current culture, see the chapter “Jesus on Vinyl,” in Stephen J. Nichols’s book, Jesus Made in America (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 122-45.
The term 'דּוד, Dod may refer to an uncle, or, as in the Song of Songs, a beloved. The parallel term “undertaker” (NASB) may also refer to a relative (DCH 5:377), or it may refer to one who is charged with burning the bodies (see G. Smith on this reading, Amos, 341 n. 13).
Other passages that relate to an earthquake are 1:1; 2:13; 8:8; 9:1-6, D. A. Hubbard, Joel and Amos, 198.
Amos understood shepherding, and while these images may not specifically relate to shepherds, his knowledge of agriculture does provide background examples. Poisonous plants are part of the environment and often grow in unwanted places (Hos. 10:4). Good shepherds seek out good pastures for the sheep (Ps. 23:2, Ezek. 34:14; John 10:9), while evil shepherds are not concerned and even eat the sheep (Ezek. 34:10). Amos pictures these leaders as feeding their own people poison.
John Bright, A History of Israel. Fourth Edition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2000), 257.
A general picture is given by Robert A. M. Conley, “Locusts: ‘Teeth of the Wind,’” National Geographic136.2 (Aug., 1969) 202-27 and the older but more biblically related article by John D. Whiting, “Jerusalem’s Locust Plague, National Geographic 28.6 (Dec., 1915): 511-50.
For a brief note on the plight of farmers see Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2001), 87.
Clark Pinnock’s position, for example, is that “God does not foreknow every future choice or the outcome of every human decision. God is all-knowing in the sense that he knows all that it is possible to know and powerful enough to do whatever is needed,” The Openness of God, edited by Clark Pinnock, et. al. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 124. Discussion of the open theists’s position on God’s limited knowledge of the future can be found in Bruce A. Ware, Their God is Too Small (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003), 28-36.
NIDOTTE 2:162.
Occasional glimpses of God’s work with his prophets are encountered in the Old Testament. The Lord’s willingness to entertain his people’s arguments is seen in Abraham’s debate about Lot’s future (Gen. 18:22-33) or Moses’s attempt to avoid a return trip to Egypt (Ex. 3:10-4:17). Such attempts to move God are met with grace and not harshness. In a similar way, the Lord worked with Ezekiel when he requested a change in cooking procedure (Ezek. 4:14-15).
CADA II:127-30.
Compare Jer. 1:11, 13; Zech. 4:2; 5:2; cp. Amos 8:2. In each case the question is followed by the form wayiqtol of the verb a`m~r plus a description of what was seen from the vision.
Amos, 136.
So Paul, Amos, 238.
Prophets frequented public places and the marketplace setting at this point is suggested by the economic activities mentioned in 8:5-6.
The word “ephah” is also translated “bushel” or “measure.”
See R. Spender, “Poor and Poverty,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 617-18.
Yigael Yadin,Hazor, The Rediscovery of A Great Citadel of the Bible (New York: Random House, 1975), 150-551.
See Paul, Amos, 262-3 on this eclipse.
Wolff, Joel and Amos, 332.
Visualization and explanation of this architectural feature can be found in Mazar, Archaeology, 426, 474-75.
J. A. Motyer, The Message of Amos, The Day of the Lion (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974), 195.
See “in that day” (v. 11) and “days are coming” (v. 13).
Edom’s representative role has been discussed by Marten Woudstra in his article, “Edom and Israel in Ezekiel,” Calvin Theological Journal 3 (1968): 21-35 and more recently Ehud Ben Zvi has applied it to Obadiah in, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), 230-46.
Continuous and bountiful supply is a mark of covenant blessing (Lev. 26:5) and was an image from the ancient near east (CAD D, 164).
All six verbs are third person masculine plurals of conjoined perfects and set in contrast the first person opening, “I will restore...my people.”

Eamon Younis

Wednesday, 15 May 2019

The Message Of Amos

No comments:

Post a Comment