FAILURE IS TERRIBLE. Most people do not want to face the fact that they have failed in life, and even fewer enjoy having others remind them about their past mistakes. Kids do not like to be told that they are not skilled enough to avoid being cut from the sports club. College students dread getting back an exam they have failed, and older adults hate to admit that a business venture was not a financial success.
It is also hard to tell people that, in spite of all their good intentions and efforts, they have failed in some way. It is easier to ignore a soured romantic relationship than to face the music and end it with an honest talk. It is easier not to inform people or to send an impersonal form letter telling them that they will not be hired, than to confront them with a character flaw that their references mention. Giving bad news is not an enjoyable task, and finding the right words to say is always a struggle. Because of this, many are left to guess at what the problem is. This can leave people confused and angry, because no one warned them ahead of time or advised them on things they could do to avoid failure.
It is also not easy to tell people that they have failed to meet God’s requirements and will not enjoy his blessing. How does one break the news to religious people that their good lives, deeds, behavior, and theology do not please God? How does one tell others that God will judge them for behavior they see as ethical? What is the right way of exposing deceptive theology or of undermining one’s security in useless acts of worship? Such difficulties cause many not to bother addressing the issues of spiritual failures in others. This has the advantage of minimizing interpersonal conflict for the moment, but it does not change the eternal destiny of those who are not in a right relationship with God. If a person really cares about another person, will there not be some effort to point out that a problem exists, to warn that person of the dire consequences of inaction, and to convince him or her to accept a different way of thinking and acting?
The prophet Amos faced some of these issues when he was called to warn the Israelites about a great punishment God was going to bring on them because of their failures. This prosperous and strong nation would soon be defeated and sent into exile. The palaces that the rich lived in would be reduced to rubble, and a strong foreign military force would humiliate the elite troops in Israel’s army. Amos called the nation back to their ancient religious traditions in the Torah1 and introduced new ideas that called for a transformation of the way his audience thought about God and their relationship to him.
But Amos communicated a revelation from God that was based on standards that were in conflict with the norms that many people were living by at that time. His words included criticisms of inadequate worship, misguided priorities, oppressive acts against the weak, and a lack of holiness. His messages were not given to degrade or ostracize the listeners, but to help people understand God’s view of reality, to warn them of the judgment God would bring on the nation, and to cause a remnant of the people to change their behavior and turn to God. Amos wanted people to love God with all their heart and to live like God’s people in his chosen land, but they would not be able to do this if they continued in their sinful ways.
Amos’s message was a call to recognize the deceptive nature of some of the people’s failures. The prophet earnestly prayed for his listeners, lamented, and wept over what he saw coming on the land of Israel. He tried to motivate his brothers and sisters to transform their theology and personal behavior to avoid God’s hand of punishment.
When we read what Amos said and wrote, it is clear that he was speaking to an ancient people group who lived over twenty-five hundred years ago in a different part of the world. Their culture was very different from the jet age we live in, and they spoke in a Hebrew dialect. Thus this commentary, and any interpreter who wishes to communicate what God was saying through the prophet, must pay careful attention to their world of ideas. What did the prophet’s message mean to his audience at the capital city of Samaria? What was the economic, political, social, and religious situation in the northern nation of Israel? How did these people construct their view of reality?2 What was the nature of the theological problems being addressed in each of his sermons? How did he communicate to convince people to change their thinking and behavior?
In revisiting the world of the prophets we must try to imagine their setting so that we can relate the principles in the prophet’s message to our culture and our own personal lives. What can we learn from the failures of the Israelites during these years? Do the sermons of the prophet address basic issues that people still struggle with today? Can we discover something about effective strategies for sharing the truth God gave with audiences that fail to serve him? Does the spiritual life of the prophet and his view of ministry set an example for me in some area of my ministry? What areas of thinking is God trying to transform in my life? In order to do this we must go back to the time of Amos and gain some appreciation of the world in which he lived.
Israelite Society During Amos’s Ministry
Worship in Bethel
IF ONE WERE able to ask Amos what happened when he went to preach at the city of Bethel, he might tell about his experiences at the temple. Bethel, meaning “house of God,” received its name because Jacob saw a vision of angels going up and down a great stairway, with God himself at the top. At this place God declared that Jacob would receive the great promise of Abraham (Gen. 28:10–22).3 But this sacred place where God appeared had changed dramatically since Jacob’s day. The northern nation of Israel had separated from Judah after the death of Solomon (1 Kings 11–12). Jeroboam son of Nebat, commonly called Jeroboam I, became the ruler of the new nation of Israel. In order to maintain national loyalty, he built new temples at the northern end of his kingdom (at Dan) and at the southern end (at Bethel). He put a golden calf in each temple to represent the God who brought them up from the land of Egypt (cf. Ex. 32), anointed non-Levitical priests to serve in these temples, and instituted new feasts that replaced those celebrated in Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem.
New pagan innovations were introduced some years later by King Ahab and his wife Jezebel, when they built a temple in honor of the Canaanite god Baal in the capital city of Samaria (1 Kings 16:29–34). During these years the prophets of God were murdered and the prophets of Baal and Asherah were accepted by the common people and in the king’s palace (18:13, 19). The prophet Elijah fought against the influential Baal prophets, and King Jehu tried to eradicate this pagan worship from Israel by destroying the temple in Samaria. But many people continued to embrace it (only seven thousand rejected Baalism in Elijah’s day; see 1 Kings 19:18; 2 Kings 10:18–28).
This legacy of perverted syncretism, which mixed the worship of Baal, the golden calf, and Yahweh together, still existed when Amos spoke at the temple in Bethel in 765–760 B.C. (Amos 7:10–17). Amos not only condemned the worship of other gods (5:26; 8:14) but also questioned the motivations of those who claimed to be worshiping Israel’s God. They seemed to give their tithes in order to be noticed for their generosity, not to turn truly to God in repentance with their whole heart. They would sing and sacrifice at the temple without any sense that their theology should influence the way they treated people after the worship service (4:4–13; 5:21–24). Amos believed there was a need for the Israelites to transform both their worship and daily behavior. He wanted them to seek God so that they could live (5:4).
Politics in Samaria
WHILE AMOS WAS in Israel preaching, he was confronted by Amaziah, the temple priest (7:10–17). The priest not only kicked Amos out of the temple but sent a message about Amos’s treasonous words to Jeroboam, the king of Israel (commonly called Jeroboam II). Politics determined what was politically correct in “the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom” (7:13); any words against the king or official practices at his temple were strictly forbidden.
There is no evidence that Amos ever met Jeroboam II or condemned him personally, but he knew of his military fame and predicted the end of his reign in the near future. Thus, it seems best to date Amos’s ministry in the second half of the reign of this king (around 765–760 B.C.), after he defeated the neighboring nations and was able to establish Israel as a wealthy nation.4
Many people supported Jeroboam II because he brought freedom from oppression and prosperity to the nation. Before his reign, Israel had suffered under the weight of Syrian domination (2 Kings 10:32; 13:3, 7), but God was gracious to Israel and did not completely destroy the nation (13:22–23). Jeroboam II gained considerable political and military power in the region because Syria was defeated around 800 B.C., and Assyria had a series of weak kings who were more concerned about threats on their northern borders.5 This allowed Uzziah, king of Judah, to equip an army of 307,500 elite troops and gain great prosperity through military victories (2 Chron. 26:1–15; Isa. 2:6–7). Jeroboam II was just as powerful, extending the borders of Israel to Hamath in the north, as Jonah the prophet predicted (2 Kings 14:25; Amos 6:14).
The military and political strength of Israel under Jeroboam II was a source of great pride and resulted in a smug feeling of complacency by the wealthy (6:1–2). This attitude of superiority created a stumbling block that prevented people from taking Amos’s messages of God’s future destruction of the nation seriously (2:13–16). The weak political status of Syria and Assyria made his claim that Israel would go into exile beyond Damascus seem preposterous (5:27). They thought that Israel’s army would have no trouble defeating the “superpowers” of that day.
Economics in Israel
SINCE AMOS WAS a businessman before he became a prophet (a manager of shepherds and a grower of figs, 7:14), he was interested in the dynamics of Israel’s national economic system. He saw how the geographic expansion of Israel’s borders led to a new supply of tribute from defeated enemies and a demand for expanded trade for expensive items by the wealthy. As financial resources grew, a new affluent class of merchants and government officials gained economic control of Israel. Amos was overwhelmed by their wasteful and luxurious lifestyle and ashamed of their magnificent palace fortresses and winter homes full of the finest ivory furniture (3:15; 5:11).6 Amos even visited one of their opulent funeral banquets, where he saw the prime meat they ate, the expensive wines they drank, the wild music they played, the imported oils they used, and the ivory inlays on the furniture they lounged on (6:4–6).
Amos also met individuals on the other side of the economic scale. He saw the poor, oppressed by merchants who cheated them with dishonest scales and mistreated by wealthy landlords who charged high rents for the use of farm land (5:11; 8:4).7 The poor were especially hard pressed because God had sent various plagues on the land, which devastated their agricultural means of making a living (4:4–10). Much of what the poor had was taken from them by the upper class, and no one pitied them.
Amos did not preach political revolution or lead the poor on economic boycotts. One might assume that the poor appreciated his criticisms of the injustices against them, but there is no indication in his sermons of any support from among the poor. His main purpose was not to lobby for economic revolt by the poor; he was sent to announce God’s judgment on Israel and to call for spiritual transformation that would influence economic, social, and religious behavior.
Social Relations in Israel
PERHAPS AMOS PREACHED in Israel for only a year, but he observed what was happening to people in Bethel, Samaria, and the little villages and farmsteads he visited. Amos found that the social relationships among people were no longer governed by principles found in the Mosaic covenant instructions. Society changed from following the principles of justice and care for the weak to a much more selfish and aggressive approach.
Amos was most disturbed by the pervasive oppressive behavior against the poor and disadvantaged people in the ancient Near Eastern world. This violence was seen in the cruel ways nations treated innocent civilians during wars (1:3–2:3) and in the way Israelites took advantage of one another. One could go to the temple in the evening at Bethel and see the rich wearing the clothes of the poor. These garments were given to assure that the debtor would repay his debt, but they were not returned in the evening as they were supposed to be (2:8). If you went to a court proceeding, you might see someone bribing a judge to win a case against another person who was actually innocent (5:12). The wealthy upper class was guilty of violence so that they could maintain their lifestyle. It almost seemed as if they did not know the difference between right and wrong (3:9–10).
Amos’s Ministry in Israel
Amos’s Background
AMOS CAME TO Israel from the small city of Tekoa, a village in Judah about ten miles south of Jerusalem. This was close enough to Jerusalem to permit visits to the temple on feast days and Sabbaths, but far enough away not to be directly influenced by many of the political events taking place there. Amos’s worldview developed in this small rural city that had a military fortification to protect Judah’s southern flank (2 Chron. 11:5–12). It provided him with the opportunity to learn information about earlier military battles and to hear a war oracle before the local troops headed out for battle (cf. Amos 1:3–2:16).
The topography around Tekoa was dry and uninhabitable to the east by the Dead Sea. To the west were the rocky rolling hills that were suitable for grazing sheep and goats. Before Amos became a prophet, he was a shepherd and one who cared for sycamore figs—these grew in the lower elevations of the Shephelah to the west (1 Chron. 27:28) and in the Jordan Valley north of the Dead Sea (Amos 1:1; 7:14). The word for shepherd (nqd) is a relatively rare word, which refers to one who manages shepherds, so Amos probably had a middle-class job and was not a poor, ignorant peasant.8 God called him from his secular responsibilities to be a prophet to the neighboring nation of Israel (7:14–15). From a modern perspective, some might consider him one of the earliest foreign missionaries. This event transformed his life and required him temporarily to leave his way of life and travel north to Israel to speak for God.
In Israel, Amos had to communicate with people who thought differently from him, who had cultural and religious practices that were inconsistent with his worldview, and whose behavior was based on theological principles he could not accept. As a prophet, he knew that God spoke to him and that he was responsible to speak what God communicated to him (3:7–8).
But Amos’s purpose was not just to say the words he was supposed to say and go home. He needed to communicate God’s intention to destroy Israel with clarity and power, but he also wanted to change the thinking and behavior of some in his Israelite audience. If he was going to speak to their needs and present God’s thoughts in the most persuasive manner, he would need a thorough background in the culture of his Israelite audience. He would want to listen to what people were saying, observe what they did, talk to people in many different occupations to find out how they thought, go to the temple with them, watch them worship, and learn their way of looking at life.
There is evidence that Amos did all this, for he visited the temple in Bethel (7:10–17), attended a funeral banquet in Samaria (6:1–7),9 and observed how the wealthy treated the poor and practiced violence in their homes (2:6–8; 3:9–10). He also used literary forms of speech like the war oracle (1:3–2:16) that the people were familiar with from military speeches. If Amos hoped to change his audience through his preaching, he would need to argue his case in terms that made sense to the listener and depend on the Spirit’s power to transform the people’s hearts.
Amos’s Preaching
AMOS’S MINISTRY COVERS less than two years (1:1), somewhere between 765–760 B.C.; in fact, it is probably only several months long. He gives his sermons at two key cities: Samaria, the capital and center of Israelite government (probably 1:3–6:14), and Bethel, a center of Israelite religion (7:1–9:15). He spoke two years before a great earthquake hit the nation and devastated many government buildings, temples, and private homes.10 The solar eclipse recorded in Assyrian annals in 763 B.C. may have helped Amos to describe the cosmic events that await the nation (4:13; 5:8; 8:9). This general date fits the second half of the reign of Jeroboam II, who was involved in the military expansion of the nation’s borders in earlier years. By 765–760 B.C. these battles were over, and the upper class in Israel was enjoying the fruits of military victories and living in great prosperity.
The sermons preserved from Amos’s preaching demonstrate a familiarity with events recorded in the Pentateuch, especially God’s covenant with his chosen people. The prophet condemns them for not following God’s stipulations in the covenant (2:4), such as not returning a garment taken in pledge (2:8; see Ex. 22:26–27; Deut. 24:12–13). He sees the powerful crushing the weak into the dust (Amos 2:7) rather than sharing with them (as required by Ex. 22:21–23; Deut. 16:11, 14). He reminds the nation of the Exodus traditions, God’s care for them in the desert journey, and his destruction of the tall and strong Amorites in the land (Amos 2:9–11; see Ex. 14–18; Num. 13–14; Deut. 1; 29). He refers to the creation of the earth (Amos 4:13), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (4:11), the plagues in Egypt (4:10), and the Nazirite vow (2:11).
Amos connects natural disasters with covenant curses (4:6–11), reviews the Day of the Lord traditions (5:18–20), and recalls the Davidic promises (9:11–14). He is therefore deeply steeped in the religious traditions of Israel, which suggests that his audience has at least some knowledge of and appreciation for these sacred traditions. These traditions remind the listeners of what God has done for them and point out false and deceptive interpretations that some people give to their traditions. They legitimate the prophet’s claims that God will punish them for failure to follow previous instructions. Amos firmly grounds his sermons on what God has said earlier so that his messages will have maximum persuasive power.
Amos’s preaching is highlighted with literary devices that give rhetorical punch to what he is saying. With irony he puts some sting into his words to the wealthy women, who boss around their husbands and oppress the needy. He irreverently compares them to the well-fed “cows of Bashan” (4:1). He characterizes the wealthy merchants as people who can hardly wait till the Sabbath is over, so they can get to the market to cheat more people with deceptive weights (8:4–6). He spices up his visions with wordplays between qayiṣ (summer fruit) and qeṣ (the end, 8:2). By repeatedly using the word “first” in “the foremost nation” (6:1), “the finest lotions” (6:6), and “the first to go into exile” (6:7), Amos ironically shows that those who are first in privilege will be the first to experience the degradation of defeat. It is only poetic justice that they should suffer first. Another technique Amos uses is that of quoting what others think (e.g., 9:10).11
Finally, Amos loves to surprise people, to throw them a curve ball that will force them to rethink their theology. He does this by reversing the way they usually look at something. This technique of preaching is illustrated in 3:1–2, where Amos quotes the positive theological themes that God miraculously delivered Israel from Egypt and called them to be God’s special people from among all the families of the earth. What a wonderful, affirming message of God’s grace. Many Israelites thought that this automatically assured them of God’s continued protection and favor in the coming years, for they are God’s people.
But then Amos takes this same idea and reverses its message by reminding his audience that great privilege requires accountability before God’s blessing can be received. God does not automatically supply an unending guarantee of blessing to those who reject him. The covenant relationship is a mutual commitment of love, with reciprocal devotion that cannot be turned into an absolute and eternal promise that has no connection to the emotional or behavioral responses of the people of Israel.12 This idea is somewhat revolutionary and unwelcome.
Consequently, Amos comes back to this idea near the end of the book (9:7–10), when he claims that other nations like Philistia and Aram (Syria) have also had exodus experiences. If God has done this for other nations, is Israel really that special? Does having an exodus experience guarantee a nation a special place in God’s eyes? No, but one key is the sinfulness of a nation, for God will eventually destroy all sinful kingdoms (9:8). These surprising ways of looking at reality are the prophet’s wake-up call to his audience. They must change their culture’s way of thinking and get in touch with God’s perspective.
THE BOOK OF Amos never states the purpose for writing down the prophecies Amos spoke in Israel; in fact, the book never clearly states who actually did write down these oracles. Since print media is so common today, we tend to look at this as a natural thing to do and assume that all prophets recorded their messages. This is not the case, for Amos may be the first written text of a Hebrew prophet’s messages. He started a new trend, which became the standard practice for later prophets. There is no record that God told him to write out his sermons, but the dramatic earthquake that took place two years after his sermons (1:1) may have given his prophetic words about a coming earthquake (possibly in 2:13; 8:8; 9:5) such stature that people wanted to know exactly what Amos said. Although some critical scholars question whether Amos wrote all of the sermons contained in this book, I do not believe the evidence supports the view that there was a long editorial history for the composition of these sermons.13
Since we do not have much information about the writing of this book, it is important to understand what Amos’s purpose is in preaching these sermons in Israel. His mission or commission is to “go, prophesy to my people Israel” (7:15), but the key themes in his sermons suggest that his central responsibility is to warn the people about God’s roaring attack that will bring the nation to an end (2:13–16; 3:8, 11; 5:2, 18, 27; 6:7, 14; 7:9, 11, 17; 8:3). This is astonishing news, for the people of God think that God loves them and will protect them from foreign threats. This news of the demise of the nation seems an impossibility for a rich and powerful nation like Israel. It runs contrary to everything the people have been taught and everything they are presently experiencing. This message seems out of touch with reality.
Amos wants people to rethink their theology and change their view of God’s dealings with Israel. Thus, he has several themes or strategies in his preaching. (1) Amos questions the prevalent view that Israel has a sacred, untouchable, and indestructible status based on ancient covenant and Day of the Lord traditions (3:1–2; 5:18–20).
(2) He probes the true nature of the people’s worship of God. Is it a genuine turning to God or something different (4:4–5; 5:21–26)?
(3) He draws the attention of the wealthy in the land to the violence and injustices that they perpetrate (2:6–12; 4:1–3; 5:11–14; 8:4–6). If they see this behavior as unacceptable to God, maybe they will “hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts” (5:15).
(4) He attempts to destroy the upper classes’ trust in their wealth, pride in their military achievements, and security in their grand homes (6:1–14). These cannot save anyone, and each will be taken away if the nation does not change.
(5) He reminds everyone that the coming destruction of the nation of Israel does not mean that God’s covenant promises will never be fulfilled. The promised time of peace and prosperity will come in the future, sometime after Israel’s destruction (9:11–15).
Each of these issues raises questions about God’s intention to end the nation of Israel. Through these strategic approaches, Amos is able to communicate in a persuasive manner what God will do and why he is doing it. This provides the audience with information on God’s future plans for Israel and gives them an opportunity to change their theology and behavior.
Amos’s Intercession
IN ADDITION TO his sermons, Amos receives five visions (7:1–9:4) that graphically portray the coming end of Israel. In the first two visions (7:1–6) he delays God’s judgment of a locust plague and huge fire by interceding for the people of Israel. Amos prays, “Sovereign LORD, I beg you, stop! How can Jacob survive? He is so small!” (7:5). In both cases Amos knows that the people of Israel do not deserve God’s mercy. He is aware of God’s intention to end this wicked people. They have not repented of their sins and fully deserve God’s wrath. In spite of this, his heart goes out to the people. He cares about them; he wants to see them change their lives and avoid these terrible judgments.
Like the prophet of old, Moses, who interceded for the children of Israel at the golden calf (Ex. 32–33), Amos identifies with these people and moves God to relent concerning these plagues. Amos stands in the gap and extends God’s mercy twice so that his audience will have another chance to respond to God. In the third vision God reveals that he will spare them no longer (Amos 7:8), so Amos knows the possibility of holding back God’s hand is now past.14
Amos’s Theology
THE THEOLOGY IN these sermons is a practical theology that interacts with what the audience thinks and how they relate to other people. Amos’s theological methodology is to intertwine the common things of life with the listener’s larger theological framework. He sees a theological connection between the things his audience knows about (wars, homes, furniture, banquets, selling grain, sacrifices, the courts, temples, kings, water, crops, and locusts) and what God is doing in relationship to their lives.
Broad theological principles can be identified, such as God as the One who formed the mountains and created the winds (Amos 4:13). These, however, are not so much theological doctrines about creation as practical statements of God’s power. Amos warns that the sinful people of Israel will face the mighty power of the Creator when this judgment comes on them. Thus, his theology is a description of God’s relationships with people in all aspects of their world.
God is at the center of Amos’s theology. Theology is about what God does to, for, against, or with his created world. He may interact with individuals, nations, animals, places, or parts of nature. All of his relationships are affected by the fundamental belief that he is the sovereign Lord, who controls all nations on the earth; thus, Israel and all her neighbors are under his rule. Because he is in charge of everyone, he can move nations from one geographic area to another and raise up one nation to destroy another—yes, even to destroy the people of Israel, the nation he promised to bless many years earlier (3:11; 4:2–3; 5:27; 6:14; 7:17).
But God does not do this without a reason, for a basic determiner of God’s relationship to a nation is that nation’s sinfulness (9:8). God sees all violent behavior, and those responsible are held accountable for their sinful deeds (1:3–2:16). Although all people are dear to God (even the distant Ethiopians), some (like the Philistines, Syrians, and Israelites) are given special treatment by God (9:7). These factors suggest that Amos sees God as acting with justice on some occasions and in loving creative freedom at other times. Although God’s justice is understandable because it is related to obedience or disobedience, there does not seem to be a human way to explain his gracious deeds that are undeserved.
Some of these theological beliefs are not accepted by Amos’s audience, while others are applied to other nations but not to themselves (i.e., God’s judgment on the Day of the Lord is for the nations but not Israel). Therefore Amos has to argue his case persuasively to show both the commonalities and differences between God’s treatment of Israel and the other nations. God’s special covenant relationship to Israel resulted in this people being chosen as his people (3:1–2). In great power and grace God delivered these people from Egyptian slavery and defeated their enemies so that they could possess the land of Palestine (2:8–10).
But this great privilege meant that Israel has the responsibilities to act like holy people and not like the other nations (Ex. 19:4–6). The Israelites are to treat even the weak and helpless with justice and mercy and not take advantage of them. They must worship God alone, and worship him with a transformed heart that turns toward him in praise and love (Amos 5:21–24). This meant that they are not to be conformed to the ways of their contemporaries, but must pattern their behavior after God’s instructions in the Torah and his revelations through his prophets.
Amos’s theology classifies people (both Gentiles and Jews) who treat others with injustice and violence as sinful people who will be judged by God (1:3–2:16). His theology will not let him approvingly smile at bribery in the courts, the rent-gouging of wealthy landlords, or the deceptive scales of the merchants. These people have sinful relationships that God despises. If they do not restore their worshipful relationship with God and consequently change their daily relationship with others, God’s continued blessing on them will cease (4:6–12). They can “seek God and live” so that God may be gracious to them (5:4–6, 14–15), or they can suffer God’s judgment on the Day of the Lord with the other pagans (5:18–20).
Unfortunately, most in Amos’s audience are theologically blind to God’s way of dealing with people because they do not have a living and dynamic relationship with God. They have a deceptive “religious” sense of well-being because of their faith heritage, but they have no mature faith development and thus are shocked by Amos’s radical analysis of their faith relationships.
Amos also sees that God works through nature to accomplish his will in people’s lives. God can use a locust plague, a great fire, a drought, a blight, mildew on the crops, and even an earthquake to warn people of his coming judgment (Amos 4:6–11; 8:8; 9:1). These are some of the covenant curses God said he would send if his people did not obey him (Deut. 27–28). But in the distant future, when God sets up his kingdom, the covenant blessing will be poured out on the earth so fully that wine will flow down the mountains and the reapers will not be able to keep ahead of the planters (Amos 9:11–15).
Unfortunately, some Israelites do not make the connection between their sinfulness and God’s cursing of nature; thus, they do not have the spiritual insight to understand his warnings. Consequently, God reveals his secrets to Amos and sends him to warn the people. In spite of this, some Israelites reject his words and refuse to let God’s prophet speak (2:11–12; 3:7–8; 7:12–13).
Amos’s theology also affects the way he acts, for God has instituted a new relationship with him. When God called Amos to be a prophet, Amos responded by giving up his secular employment and going across the border to Israel (7:14–15). When God spoke, Amos felt he had to speak; he could not avoid this burning obligation (3:8). When God gives visions of destruction, a true messenger of God must communicate the message to the intended audience with accuracy and power; there can be no distortion of the truth or its implications.
HOW DOES ONE move from the experiences and theology of Amos to relate what he says to audiences and experiences in our modern context? To develop a contemporary significance of what Amos says, it is necessary to look beyond the specifics of what is being done—the bribing of officials, charging high rents, selling people into slavery for small debts, and cheating people by using two sets of weights for a scale. These sinful acts represent the moral values of the community that these individuals represent.
(1) Moral principles or ethical values guide people in Amos’s audience to conclude that certain attitudes and actions are (a) acceptable in the community that establishes these mores, (b) consistent with the moral absolutes God requires, or (c) the kind of behavior that will promote the welfare of an interest group. But when circumstances change in a society, pressure is exerted on one’s values, for there may be no predetermined norms that identify the proper response in a new context. People will then argue over what is the best, ideal, or right behavior. It is not always clear how one should react to the gray areas presented in some situations. In these settings people honestly struggle to know what is best.
At other times, however, there is no gray area involved, and the community is not facing a new situation where the proper moral reaction is still being debated. People sometimes purposely reject or pervert what is known to be right; they are no longer concerned about ideals such as the good of the whole, the stipulations of God, or sanctions from the community. Values like pride, greed, self-interests, gaining wealth at any cost, maintaining one’s status regardless of the pain it causes others, military might as more important than what is right, and deceitfulness can replace moral commitments widely accepted by others in the society. These broader principles are behind the accusations Amos brings against his audience. Such issues allow us to search our contemporary context today to find analogous settings where we can address the values that govern on the societal level as well as in individual relationships.
(2) Another area where the preaching of Amos presents principles that can be developed into issues for application to contemporary situations relates to the deceptive understanding that people develop to justify their worldview. In Amos’s context the issues arose from: (a) a deceptive way of looking at God’s earlier promises of peace and prosperity as an absolute blessing unrelated to the people’s covenant behavior (Amos 3:1–2; 9:7–10); (b) their notion that they will be guaranteed the rewards of God’s kingdom on the Day of the Lord regardless of their present action (5:18–20); (c) their deceptive view that their present wealth and military power will secure their future against destruction (6:1–14); and (d) the false view that one can actually worship God by going through the ritual and not turning oneself fully to God (4:1–13).
The heart’s ability to deceive is legendary (Jer. 17:9), and this fundamental problem will permit us to inquire about deceptions that parade around as truth in our culture. Some false perceptions may exist in our understanding of Scripture (like the Israelites’ misunderstanding of the covenant relationship) as well as in our estimation of how God views what we do and say. Honesty can be painful, and facing the tricky process of evaluating our emotions, motivations, and deeply held assumptions can be difficult. Nevertheless, two of the most important things we can do is (a) to commit ourselves to the lifelong task of transforming our minds from conformity to the secular culture, and (b) to insulate ourselves from the false security of the quasi-Christian subculture that can ensnare us.
(3) A third area where principles can be developed comes from Amos’s theological and rhetorical method of persuasively interacting with the thinking of his audience.15 How does he attempt to transform their practical theology of living their daily lives? How does one address the underlying failures and sins that beset the church today? What rhetorical skills and communication practices will enable the Spirit to penetrate the hearts of listeners who may be defensive, uninterested, offended, threatened, or openly hostile to our application of God’s Word to their situation? How does spiritual transformation take place, and what is our role in encouraging it? Can general principles of persuasion used by Amos be used to bring about change in our settings?
Challenges for the Modern Church
CONTEMPORARY ANALOGIES THAT allow the application of broader principles in these three areas are present in the settings of most churches. Such applications will vary from community to community, but if we carefully analyze the culture of our communities and reexamine our exegesis of the Bible, transformation may be possible. Kosuke Koyama suggests in his Water Buffalo Theology16 that effective change is unlikely in our world if there is no commitment to these two tasks. We must first think about how Amos’s questions about Israel’s moral values and deceptive beliefs relate to our culture. Then, following Amos’s example of questioning whether Israelite ways were consistent with the expectations in the Mosaic covenant, we must compare the behavior and beliefs of people today with biblical principles. Once we know what is needed, a strategy for persuasion can be developed and implemented.
What Are Our Values?
SOME YEARS AGO John Naisbitt’s study of Megatrends described ten factors that will lead to the restructuring of American society.17 Most of these related to technology, globalization, and political changes. On the surface they seem to have little to do with a major change in values. Yet under each of these reorienting movements is an underlying change in principles that people find important. The movement to a more technological sophistication is not motivated simply by the fact that someone invented it. Innovations are accepted because they have the value of making life more enjoyable, productive, and cost-efficient, or they make products or services more attractive to consumers.
Some employers have found that it is advantageous (they value higher productivity), for example, to move to a more participatory relationship with employees because they know that workers value privacy, free speech, due-process procedures, equal pay for equal work arrangements, and other worker-rights agreements. It does not matter whether the issue is economic, political, or religious; values are implicitly an important part underlying almost every change we make. Although we may not consciously identify how the restructuring of some part of our life will affect our moral values, there is no way to prevent the transformations of our world from having an impact on what is valued.
Like Amos, we must stop and examine what values are determining decisions that impact our lives. What principles support each new suggestion or policy? What ethical values are being promoted, and what is of secondary importance? Are these changes consistent with the divine values that God has provided in Scripture? What changes can be made in what we are doing to make our actions more consistent with scriptural values?
Changes in moral values are evident in many secular magazines and television, and we as Christians confront them no matter where we live or work. George Barna’s surveys of over one thousand Americans (825 claimed to be Christians) uncovered some disturbing facts about their view of absolute truth. He found that 28 percent of those interviewed “strongly agreed” with the statement that “there is no such thing as absolute truth,” while another 38 percent said they “agreed” (a total of 66 percent in all). Surprisingly, 23 percent of those who claimed to be “born again” Christians “strongly agreed” that there is no absolute truth. Within the Christian and non-Christian Baby Busters age group, 73 percent “agreed” with this statement. This view has infiltrated the church at large (59 percent agree) and society as a whole (81 percent agree).18
These statistics can be used to suggest a reason why people’s values are mixed up and not based on biblical guidelines, yet 70 percent of the adults questioned “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that “the Bible is the written word of God and is totally accurate in all it teaches.”19 This paradox suggests an unwillingness by many of these “Christian” people to let the totally accurate word of God function in their lives as absolute truth in determining the values and choices they make. This is perhaps not dissimilar to Amos’s situation. He is addressing Israelites from the chosen nation of Israel who know about earlier Pentateuchal guidelines that identify what is ethically acceptable, yet they are not living according to these principles.
In recent years there has been a deluge of authors decrying the moral decline in values. William Bennett of the Heritage Foundation reported a 560 percent increase in violent crimes and a 400 percent increase in illegitimate births in the United States from 1960–1993. Educational achievement in schools is not keeping up with other nations, and “there is a coarseness, a callousness, a cynicism, a banality and a vulgarity to our time. There are too many signs of a civilization gone rotten.”20
Richard Eckersley’s research into drug abuse, crime, unemployment, suicide, and child-abuse problems in American culture concludes that these are signs that the culture has “failed to provide a sense of meaning, belonging, and purpose in our lives, as well as a framework of values. People have to have something to believe in and live for, to feel they are a part of a community and a valued member of society, to have a sense of spiritual fulfillment.”21 When values get cut loose from a solid foundation and become the free choice of each person, it is not hard to predict what will happen. Soon the thoughts and attitudes that motivate people will be based on what is important to them at that moment. Inevitably some will value themselves over others, pleasure over work, spending money instead of saving it, and freedom to do their own thing in place of commitment.
Values such as these breed the worst kind of relativism, the kind in which everyone has an equal right to determine his or her own moral preferences without regard to the welfare of others or the good of the community. When there are no rules, when relationships do not count, when there is no imaginative vision of what the future could be, life can become hopeless, valueless, and meaningless.
Amos argues that certain values in Israel are wrong and are producing behaviors that are unacceptable. Even irreligious people can see the wrong motivations in the behavior of others and criticize the shortcomings of another person. Everyone has a conscience and a basic sense of right and wrong that object when powerful people take advantage of weaker people. It is not hard to recognize when a boss or fellow employee does not treat customers fairly by selling them a defective product. Most conclude that promotions to elderly people that promise prizes if a large entrance and processing fee is paid are nothing but rip-offs.22
Most people think of their medical doctor as an honest and trustworthy person, who knows the importance of good interpersonal relations and operates on the basis of ethical principles that cause people to trust him or her. One would not expect the family doctor to make deceptive claims on a résumé about doing research in an area that was never studied. No one would want that doctor to perform surgery on them if he or she had not actually done the studies to become an expert in that area. Yet a University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine study found that 20 percent of the applicants for a medical fellowship lied about their research credentials and 30 percent fabricated information about articles published in professional medical journals. Dr. Gail Sekas, the coauthor of this study in the Annuals of Internal Medicine, said, “I guess I’m a little naive, but I thought doctors were a bit more honorable.”23
We need to look not only at the inadequacies in the value system of our culture, but ask what positive values need to be emphasized. What virtues can we promote to prevent similar problems in our society and in our churches? What passages in the Old and New Testament can we find to help us develop principles for a biblical value system? Are the virtues we practice just based on personal choice, or are there virtues that have universal and eternal value? Can each person decide for himself or herself what he or she wants to value, or do some other criteria regulate behavior? Can society exist if everyone individually chooses a personal set of values? Is God not the true source of values for a Christian?
Deceptive Theology
IT WOULD NOT be hard to find a Baptist who might say that his Presbyterian brother in the church down the street was misguided on his view of baptism (and the feeling would probably be mutual). But usually people are charitable and do not say that the other person has a deceptive or false theology, just a lack of insight into the full meaning of several passages. We can allow for differences of opinion on some issues and still maintain a certain level of Christian fellowship with one another. Amos probably makes the same exceptions for people who do not vocalize every Hebrew word in the Bible just as he does.
But when Amos deals with his audiences at Samaria and Bethel, he realizes that certain theological beliefs have caused his listeners to so misconstrue the truth that false theological conclusions are reached. Somehow the hermeneutical process of understanding or applying what God said has missed a proper step. To Amos, a particular interpretation is definitely not the meaning God intended if the whole context of Scripture is studied.
For example, the covenant blessings God promised were real and part of the great hope of the Hebrew people, but it is false to conclude that these blessings promised to Abraham and his successors are unconditionally granted to every Israelite regardless of his or her beliefs and behavior. That view may sound good to some, but it is not based on what God said. Thus, God’s final plan is to destroy all his enemies on the Day of the Lord and to bring in his kingdom for the benefit of his people. But this great hope does not ensure the future for Israelites who do not love and serve God.
Theological misconceptions and cultural blind spots in our understanding are a thorn in the side of every generation of believers. How can we be sure that we have not misconstrued the faith in some way? I imagine that there will be many people in heaven who will have to eat humble pie and admit that they were wrong about some of their interpretations. The tragedy is that some who use the Lord’s name and have good intentions in their service to the church will be so deceived that they will not enjoy the pleasure of entering the kingdom (Matt. 7:22–23).
Jesus and Paul faced similar problems. Jesus condemns the Pharisees who deceptively think they can please God by tithing everything to the exact penny. This is a false belief about what God wants, for in the process they ignore justice, mercy, and faithfulness, which are far more important to God (Matt. 23:23). Paul strongly condemns those who are teaching the Galatians that certain legal requirements, plus trust in Christ, are necessary for salvation. This is a false and deceptive gospel that rips the heart out of the idea that grace is an undeserved free gift (Gal. 1–2). It is another gospel, which Paul considers anathema.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, that great resister of Hitler’s political designs, spoke out against that evil ideology, but he knew the heart of the gospel was being justified by faith, being free from sin through forgiveness, and leaving all to follow Christ. He was not impressed by some who called themselves Christians, for “those who try to use this grace as a dispensation from following Christ are simply deceiving themselves.”24 This gets at the heart of the matter. Are we actually following Christ, or are we justifying some political or social ideology? Many times our deceptions are so much a part of who we are that only the grace of God can bring clarity and transformation.
What are some of the deceptions that parade as truth today? It is a deception to call drug use and sexually transmitted diseases mere health problems. It is deceptive for the National Association for the Education of Young People to teach children from their “Anti-Biased Curriculum” that witches have nothing to do with evil; they just use herbal remedies to help people.25 It is a deception for the ACLU to twist the First Amendment statement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” into “a wall of separation of church and state,” which in effect creates some sort of secular state. It is significant that on the same day this amendment was passed, this same congress also passed a bill to have a national day of prayer.
Thomas Jefferson, the author of that famous “separation of church and state” phrase, was not intending to outlaw manger scenes on government property at Christmas by this law, for he later approved the use of federal funds to send missionaries to the Native Americans.26 These deceptions that slyly change the truth into a lie today are different from the deceptions that fooled Amos’s audiences, but the same fundamental problem exists. People today cannot transform their minds and behavior if someone does not open their blind eyes to the subtle lies that parade around as what is “politically correct.”
Persuasive Interaction to Transform
AMOS KNOWS ABOUT the dismal state of moral values in Israel, and he is aware of some of the deceptive lies that the Israelites have easily swallowed (i.e., the false idea that Israel is too strong and God will never destroy his chosen people). In order to transform the thinking of some of his listeners, Amos knows he will have to present his ideas in such a persuasive way that his audience will reject their present understandings and accept a new way of looking at reality. Through his persuasive interaction and the Spirit’s convicting and enlightening work, change is possible. Some may accept his news that God is going to destroy Israel.
As Christians interact with people at work, in their neighborhoods, or in their local school districts, they will meet some people who follow a deceptive worldview and others who support an approach that opposes biblical values. How does one interact with these people? They can be confronted and condemned, but probably this will not cause them to change their minds. There is a place for this kind of direct condemnation of those who continually refuse to listen or consider other views (Jesus did speak strongly to the Pharisees), but no one should ostracize people who can be persuaded to change their views. Change and transformation are a key goal of all preachers; we do not want to harden people in their opposition to biblical principles.
Four practical applications are evident in Amos’s ministry. (1) He takes the time to understand what his audience believes. We, like Amos, must walk and talk with those we hope to reach to find out why they accept a deceptive lie. Have they thought about the implications of these positions? Have they questioned the accuracy of statements and the authority of their sources? What do they read, whom do they trust, and what is their attitude to the Bible? If we do not care enough about our audiences to find out what they believe and why they believe these things, we will probably not have much of an effect on their lives. Persuasion requires us to show the weakness in one’s present way of thinking and to present a more logical or authoritative alternative. The only way one can do this is to get to know what our audience thinks.
(2) Amos cares enough about his listeners to pray for God’s mercy on them, to weep when the news comes that God is going to punish them. We also must examine our heart’s attitude toward those with whom we speak. Are we more interested in their condemnation and defeat? Do we not only pray for them, but even intercede on their behalf before God—even when they do not deserve God’s grace? Have we wept for them? Do we care for their eternal souls, or do we just want to be proven right?
Growing up in a conservative country church, I heard that God would someday destroy the evils of the ungodly Soviet Union, but I never heard anyone praying for the salvation of their souls. Indeed, God has destroyed some of the power of the former Soviet Union, and the gospel is now preached there with great freedom, but I doubt that God’s transformation of this evil empire was accomplished because of the prayers for mercy from his people. To our shame, we wanted them killed, not saved. But this is not the attitude of Amos, and it should not be part of our approach to people in our culture. They need to have someone graciously share the truth in a way that they can understand.
(3) Amos legitimates his point of view from the sacred tradition of his audience, their experience, and God’s new words to him about the future. We also must give a reason for our beliefs that is understandable and supportable by the evidence of historical experience and by the witness of clearly laid-out scriptural principles. Some people will be gullible and accept ideas that are unreasonable, but most people want to have good evidence presented to them before they will change their opinion on an issue.
For example, several years ago one of my students found himself serving a congregation that did not accept several theological positions that he found essential to biblical faith. Later he discovered that the people in his congregation had a deep respect for the writings of Wesley, so he wisely used Wesley’s ideas as support for these theological positions. Such practices do not lower the value of Scripture but take people from where they are to a deeper understanding of God’s eternal truth. People’s minds were changed because the historical experiences of a great man of God were a powerful testimony to what God desires in the heart of a believer.
We must use the testimony of Scripture and whatever other evidence we can muster to convince people to change their thinking. Although we may draw some people closer to a better understanding of what God wants, we must always be aware that it is not our rhetoric that changes a person’s will; rather, it is the work of the Spirit within them.
(4) Amos speaks with a rhetorical skill that forces people to consider the truthfulness of his case. Amos, or any person today, can speak a word of truth about an issue, but that does not mean it will be accepted. We can point out deceptive thinking or failures in moral values, or we can give solid reasons why people should change, but all too frequently nothing happens. Why? Why are people not persuaded? Because people can choose to say no to the prompting of the Spirit, the devil can steal the seed that is sown and prevent it from taking root, or the listeners may foolishly harden their hearts against change because of social embarrassment. We cannot force people to transform their lives.
Nevertheless, we can improve the receptivity of our audience by skillfully presenting our material. We can avoid putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in front of people that make it harder for them to accept a new idea. All of us have heard effective speakers and boring duds. All of us have seriously considered changing our opinion on a topic and then suddenly decided not to when the speaker foolishly said something that just does not fit. Honing one’s rhetorical skills does not minimize the work of the Spirit any more than memorizing your testimony limits the Spirit’s power in a witnessing context. Developing solid communication skills makes good sense if we are really interested in persuading people to change.