3This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Damascus,
even for four, I will not turn back ˻my wrath˼.
Because she threshed Gilead
with sledges having iron teeth,
4I will send fire upon the house of Hazael
that will consume the fortresses of Ben-Hadad.
5I will break down the gate of Damascus;
I will destroy the king who is in the Valley of Aven
and the one who holds the scepter in Beth Eden.
The people of Aram will go into exile to Kir,”
says the LORD.
6This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Gaza,
even for four, I will not turn back ˻my wrath˼.
Because she took captive whole communities
and sold them to Edom,
7I will send fire upon the walls of Gaza
that will consume her fortress.
8I will destroy the king of Ashdod
and the one who holds the scepter in Ashkelon.
I will turn my hand against Ekron
till the last of the Philistines is dead,”
says the Sovereign LORD.
9This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Tyre,
even for four, I will not turn back ˻my wrath˼.
Because she sold whole communities of captives to Edom,
disregarding a treaty of brotherhood,
10I will send fire upon the walls of Tyre
that will consume her fortresses.”
11This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Edom,
even for four, I will not turn back ˻my wrath˼.
Because he pursued his brother with a sword,
stifling all compassion,
because his anger raged continually,
and his fury flamed unchecked,
12I will send fire upon Teman
that will consume the fortresses of Bozrah.”
13This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Ammon,
even for four, I will not turn back ˻my wrath˼.
Because he ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead
in order to extend his borders,
14I will set fire to the walls of Rabbah
that will consume her fortresses
amid war cries on the day of battle,
amid violent winds on a stormy day.
15Her king will go into exile,
he and his officials together,”
says the LORD.
2:1This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Moab,
even for four, I will not turn back ˻my wrath˼.
Because he burned, as if to lime,
the bones of Edom’s king,
2I will send fire upon Moab
that will consume the fortresses of Kerioth.
Moab will go down in great tumult
amid war cries and the blast of the trumpet.
3I will destroy her ruler
and kill all her officials with him,”
says the LORD.
Original Meaning
THE WAR ORACLE Against the Nations (1:3–2:16) describes the sins and punishment of eight nations. It can be logically divided into two parts: six oracles against the foreign nations (1:3–2:3) and two final oracles against Judah and Israel (2:4–16). This series of highly repetitive oracles is grouped in pairs based on three elements.
(1) Family connection: Ammon and Moab came from the children of Lot (Gen. 19:30–38), while Judah and Israel were the two Hebrew nations
(2) Repeated words: “I will destroy the king . . . and the one who holds the scepter” in Amos 1:5 and 8; offenses against one’s “brother” in 1:9 and 11; and “war cries” plus the death of the king and his officials in 1:14–15 and 2:2–31
(3) The stylistic construction of each pair2
These characteristics argue that these oracles fit together as a well-planned rhetorical argument aimed to change the Israelites’ view of their future political status.3
Oracles against the nations are found in later prophetic books (Isa. 13–23; Jer. 46–51; Ezek. 25–32; Nahum; Obadiah), but they are primarily given to encourage a Hebrew audience to trust in God’s sovereign ability to destroy the nations that threaten them or to encourage political leaders to trust God and not in alliances with these nations. Amos’s oracles are related to the first purpose, but he twists what his audience thinks is a message of salvation from foreign domination into a judgment message by ending his oracle with words of Israel’s demise (Amos 2:6–16).
This unique approach suggests that Amos may have patterned his words after a war oracle that prophets would give before a nation went to war (similar to the war oracles he has probably heard in the military camp at Tekoa). Before an army would march off to battle, a priest or prophet was usually asked to inquire if this was God’s will (cf. Judg. 1:1–2; 20:23–28; 1 Sam. 14:18–19). The answer promised the defeat of their enemies and Israel’s victory (Judg. 7:9–14; 1 Sam. 23:2, 4, 9–12). The prophets would then charge up the troops with this news so that they could face the violence of war with confidence, knowing they would win (Josh. 6:1–5; 8:1–8). Such pep talks inspired the enthusiasm of the troops as they agreed with the news of their impending victory and shouted out their approval.4
The setting of Amos’s oracles is not identified. We assume they are given in the capital city of Samaria like all the other oracles in Amos 1:3–6:14. Andersen and Freedman maintain that this message is given later in Amos’s career and not at the beginning, but we see more evidence for treating the messages in Amos as chronological.5 The event at which Amos delivers these messages is not stated and the audience is not identified. The military nature of the war oracles and the final prediction concerning Israel’s army suggest that some military officials are in the crowd. It would be ironic if Amos actually gives this to some troops before they go out to war.
Oracle Against Syria (1:3–5)
AS THE AUDIENCE listens to Amos begin his prophecy, they hear a word about the past atrocities of a Syrian military battle and that nation’s future punishment for these deeds. Since his listeners know the circumstances surrounding these battles across the Jordan in Gilead and have heard about the horrendous barbarity of the Syrian troops, most would agree with what this new prophet from Judah is saying.
Amos begins by claiming to declare the word of Yahweh (“this is what the LORD says”), a credentialing formula that legitimates his message. The regular charge against each of the nations in this list is that they have sinned (pšʿ ), a word that refers to willful rebellious acts against an authority in a political (1 Kings 8:50; 2 Kings 3:5) or religious context (Isa. 1:28; Jer. 2:29). This rebellion is heightened by its continued occurrence on three or four occasions.6 This is a pattern of detestable behavior, and God will not overlook it any longer. Because the offense is so great, his wrath7 against them will not cease to burn against Damascus until it accomplishes justice.
The rebellious act of the Syrians that Amos mentions is undated, but it probably happened years earlier, either when Hazael took the Israelite territory around Ramoth Gilead (2 Kings 8:28–29; 10:32–33) or when Ben-Hadad conquered Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:1–7)—or perhaps at both of these defeats! The atrocity involved the threshing of people in Gilead like grain (possibly a metaphorical statement). It was as if they ran over the people with threshing planks that had iron teeth protruding out of them to separate the grain from the stalk. What this symbolism refers to is unclear, but the graphic imagery represents a most inhumane humiliation (treating people like stalks of grain) and harsh cruelty to people made in the image of God.
Finally, although many of these people in Gilead are Israelites, this uncivilized act by the Syrians was probably not committed against the people Amos is talking to at this time. Nevertheless, their blood boils when they are reminded of these evil deeds against other Israelites; they too see these as acts that should arouse God’s anger.
The punishment Amos announces involves the destruction of the king’s house and military fortresses that have given him security and protection from reprisal. The king ordered the assault; he was the commander ultimately responsible for these evil deeds. Thus, he is pinpointed as the guilty party. Fire from military conquest will destroy the protective gates of Damascus, Syria’s capital. With the defeat of the king and his army, the fall of the surrounding Syrian city-states like Beth Eden is sure (Bit Adini is about two hundred miles north of Damascus on the Euphrates River).8 Those captured in the defeat of Syria will go into exile in Kir, the place where the Arameans (Syrians) came from (see Amos 9:7). Amos closes this brief oracle with a reminder that these are the words of the Lord for Syria—a claim that Amos’s audience surely accepts, based on the content of his message and their own hatred of the Syrians.
Oracle Against Philistia (1:6–8)
LIKE ANY GOOD rhetorical sermon that wants to emphasize certain points, Amos builds on the patterns and theological support he has developed in his first oracle. The Lord has spoken again; he has seen the rebellious acts of the Philistines and will act in wrath against them for their many sins. These identical statements create a link between the speaker and the audience, because the latter now can anticipate what the speaker will say and say it with him. What is true of God’s dealings with Syria is also true of his handling of Philistia.
The Philistine rebellious acts against God’s authority involve capturing whole communities. Since both foreign and Israelite law allowed for taking prisoners of war (Deut. 20:10–11; 2 Chron. 28:8), the crime cannot refer to a military action in war.9 Instead, this is a wholesale kidnapping of peaceful people for the purpose of turning a profit. These slave raids set gangs of armed thugs against defenseless rural villages, who had no one to protect them. These innocent people are suddenly deprived of all rights, treated like cattle, and sold to the highest bidder. The size of this atrocity and the motive for doing it condemn the Philistines. Their desire for wealth has led them to dismiss the basic value of human dignity for every person, and to repudiate the people’s deep ancestral connection to the land of their ancestors. When it comes to making a buck, they seem to have no problem sacrificing moral principles to get what they want.
With a main trade route from Gaza to Beer Sheba and on to Edom, it was easy to ship these people off to other nations and collect a handsome financial reward. We can probably assume that these poor people who have been captured and sold are Israelites, though Amos does not say that, nor does his case depend on that assumption. Regardless of who they are, it is wrong to sell free people into bondage.
Philistia’s punishment is similar to Syria’s. God will cause the walls of its five major cities to fall; their strong military fortresses will crumble. The various kings who reign in these cities have apparently approved of these slave raids; thus, they carry a heavy responsibility and are picked out as special recipients of God’s wrath. The final end of the Philistines is complete; annihilation will greet even the common people, and no one will be left.
Amos ends this oracle with a reminder that this is the message of the Lord for Philistia—a claim that Amos’s audience surely accepts, based on its content and their own hatred of the Philistines.
Oracle Against Phoenicia (1:9–10)
THIS ORACLE FOLLOWS the same initial pattern as the two previous messages: God has spoken; Tyre, the leading city of Phoenicia, has rebelled many times; God will act in wrath against them. Their sin seems to be similar to the crimes of Philistia, and one wonders if Tyre, Philistia, and Edom were not in some sort of organized business of trafficking slaves. The difference between Tyre and Philistia is that Tyre is only accused of selling whole communities, not of capturing them. Thus Tyre may have primarily functioned as a middleman, brokering captured people from various nations to the highest bidder—and particularly to the Edomites.10
The more limited involvement of Tyre does not lessen their guilt, however, for they evidence the same callous disregard for human rights and allow their business profits to override basic moral convictions about the dignity of human life. Their sin is presented as a betrayal of friends, for the very people they have political treaties with are being sold as slaves. They are “disregarding a treaty of brotherhood” with these nations. Amos does not specify which nations have this treaty with Tyre, but we know that in the preceding century Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel, daughter of the king of Tyre, established a significant cooperative relationship between Phoenicia and Israel.
Although Amos does not fill us in on the details or the reasons for Tyre’s action, Jehu’s violent purging of Ahab and Jezebel’s heirs (2 Kings 10:1–11) may have provided an excuse for Tyre to retaliate against Israel. Although this is one possible explanation, the date and the name of the people who have been enslaved are not Amos’s main interest. He emphasizes the betrayal of those who have trusted in Tyre’s loyal observance of her covenant relationships. Everyone hates a traitor, and Amos’s Israelite audience would say “Amen” to his accusations.
The punishment statement is brief and is not followed by a final formula like the earlier oracles, but the point is clear. God will go into action against the people of Tyre, bring down the thick walls of the city, and cause its strongly fortified palace-fortresses to go up in flames. Amos’s audience would certainly agree with God’s decision to punish them for their sins.
Oracle Against Edom (1:11–12)
THIS MESSAGE STARTS the same as the preceding oracles: God has spoken to Amos about the rebellious deeds of the Edomites and will not reverse his determination to act against them. These people were related to the Hebrews because Esau, the father of the Edomites, was Jacob’s brother (Gen. 25:21–26). This brotherhood between Hebrews and Edomites should not be seen as a political treaty relationship, for no treaty is mentioned.11 They have a deeper, blood brotherhood with kinship obligations that demands support and love for one another.
But no love was lost between these peoples. Edom’s rebellious acts involve chasing his brother with a sword, having no compassion, and exhibiting a continuous attitude of rage that flames out in an uncontrollable manner. One gets the picture that Amos is describing a mad beast with rabies that foams at the mouth in a senseless, destructive lust for blood and revenge. The deep emotional ties between brothers has turned bitter, and the familial connection has been replaced with vehement attacks of relentlessly inhumane rage.
The incidents that Amos refers to are not specified, but Scripture describes years of animosity between these two brothers. It should be noted that the Hebrews did not treat the Edomites as brothers either (2 Sam. 8:11–14; 1 Kings 11:15–16; 2 Kings 8:20–22; 14:7; 16:6). The people that the Edomites have lashed out against are not specified, but since Edom is situated east and south of the Dead Sea, its evil deeds are probably committed against Judeans from Amos’s home country and not the Israelites in his audience in Samaria. Nevertheless, the Israelite listeners would agree with God’s displeasure with Edom’s rebellion.
The punishment clauses are brief and devastating announcements of God’s intention to end the terror that Edom has unleashed on its neighbors. The key cities of Teman and Bozrah are targeted for destruction, thus removing the Edomites’ prime military and economic centers. Nothing is said about who will conquer Edom or about the possibility of survivors.
Oracle Against Ammon (1:13–15)
THE FOURTH AND fifth oracles against the two tribes that descended from Lot return to the formal structure of the first two messages. This oracle announces God’s word about Ammon’s rebellious acts, which deserve his wrath. The Ammonites have carried out military campaigns to take control of Gilead on the east side of the Jordan but in the process have massacred innocent and defenseless pregnant women. These women are of no military value, and their slaughter is a heartless and savage act of cold-blooded murder. These acts have terrorized other people living in Gilead, causing them to leave the area so that the Ammonites can expand their borders. Such merciless inhumanity to both mother and unborn child outrages Amos and his listeners; these people deserve God’s judgment.12
God’s judgment on Ammon involves the destruction of their capital, Rabbah (modern Amman, Jordan), and the military fortresses in it. Amos foresees a great battle with blasting trumpets, shouting troops, ferocious primal yells as the battle progresses, and a great slaughter of Ammonites. It will be like a great storm, an image frequently associated with a theophany when God himself appears on the Day of the Lord to execute his wrath (Isa. 29:6; Nah. 1:3). God will enter the stream of history and change Ammon’s future. Her king and officials responsible for Ammon’s military policies will go into exile. Now they will suffer humiliation and know what it means to be powerless and at the mercy of others. Certainly Amos’s audience would wholeheartedly approve of God’s word about Ammon.
THE LAST FOREIGN nation mentioned is Moab, the sister nation of Ammon. The Moabites live just south of Ammon and just north of Edom, on the east side of the Dead Sea. Their willful rebellious act has been to burn the bones of the king of Edom, an act that did not involve any Israelites. This desecration of the buried bones of a royal figure was bad enough, but the Moabites have gone one step further by using the king’s remains as lime, possibly to plaster the walls of a house. This was an act of total disrespect for the dead, something that no one would want to happen to anyone in their family. In the ancient Near Eastern world there was a strong sense of connectedness between the living and the dead who occupied the family tomb. This act broke that bond, but also the connection between a people and their political leader.13
God’s judgment of Moab is similar to what will happen to Ammon. The military fortress at Kerioth (which also has a temple for Chemosh, their god)14 will burn with fire, and God will defeat the Moabites in a great battle. When the trumpet blows, they will yell as they charge, but God will destroy their ruler and key officials. The final “says the LORD” emphasizes again that God has spoken and thus it will happen.
Bridging Contexts
THESE POWERFUL ORACLES about the specific sins of foreign nations do not apply to any modern Middle Eastern nation today, but they do help the ancient and modern reader with insights concerning the broad principles that guide God’s evaluation of government policies that are oppressive and inhumane. The very fact that God knows exactly what each nation has done and is involved with their histories shows that he is the Lord of all nations. One might be tempted to restrict God’s work and concerns to his chosen people Israel and ignore non-Israelite nations in the Hebrew Bible. Yet God reveals himself to Amos as the One who controls all nations.
These speeches suggest two primary principles that we will develop more fully below; one relates to the content of what Amos said, and the other relates to the way he said it. These oracles demonstrate that (1) God holds all nations accountable for their acts of inhumanity to individuals, and (2) Amos first identifies with the facets of his audience’s theological worldview in a nonthreatening setting, so that he can later show how these theological beliefs should impact their own self-evaluation.
Nations being held accountable. Kings, presidents, prime ministers, military generals, and other persons with political and economic power have a tremendous responsibility to use their power sparingly, wisely, and with equity. Their actions show whether they value personal riches and status or service to the needs of those under them. These oracles against several ancient Near Eastern countries describe how certain leaders and officials did not judiciously set wise policies concerning the treatment of weak or innocent people. They did not wisely control the behavior of generals, troops, or gangs of lawless thugs who had the power to take advantage of other people.
Although we are still shocked when we hear about it, everyone knows that heinous acts of violence like these are committed by crazy people somewhere in this world in almost every century. But Amos is not referring to a rare deranged act of insanity by an individual. He describes national governments that support, legitimate, and foster such violence as acceptable behavior. God sees what these nations are doing and will hold them accountable for their actions. He knows what they value and put first.
Accountability is usually based on knowingly breaking a law, principle, or social expectation that a group of people has accepted as a norm for their behavior. In Amos’s speech, God holds six foreign nations responsible for the barbarous treatment of defenseless people, but the prophet never mentions what laws have been broken. On the basis of terms like “treaty of brotherhood” (1:9), G. E. Wright has proposed that these nations were guilty of breaking their covenant relationship, since they were once united by covenant with Israel and a part of the larger Israelite empire during the time of David and Solomon.15 D. Stuart has a similar view, though he assumes that God has a covenant relationship with these nations.16
This reasoning seems inadequate for several reasons. (1) Amos himself speaks of Israel as the only family God has chosen (3:1–2); (2) several of the nations mentioned have not committed sins against the northern nation of Israel; (3) none of these nations are condemned for their rejection of a unified Davidic empire; and (4) Tyre was never a part of David or Solomon’s kingdom. It is better to follow J. Barton’s suggestion that these nations are guilty of breaking laws of right and wrong that were based on conscience, national law codes in their own countries, international treaties, and common-sense principles of morality.17
Archaeologists have found Sumerian and Assyrian law codes, Hittite and Egyptian treaties, plus wisdom texts containing laws and moral principles that guided the behavior of people in these foreign nations.18 They knew right from wrong—for example, that both ripping open pregnant women and selling innocent free people as slaves just to make extra money were unacceptable acts toward people within their own village.
Romans 2:12–16 indicates that no one has an excuse before God; those who do not specifically know the law of God will be judged based on what they do know because it has been written on their hearts as human beings made in the image of God. They have a conscience that intuitively warns them about wrong behavior, they have social laws that govern the proper way to treat other people in society, and they know that they should keep the agreements (business, political, and personal) they have made. Not one of these nations would have said it is morally right for another nation to come into their territory and desecrate their king’s grave or thresh their defenseless citizens after a war.
It may seem as if nations today and in the past have acted as if they had no conscience, but this is only possible because they have numbed their conscience through repeated senseless atrocities. Every heathen and Christian nation is responsible for its actions; every big and little nation will need to give an account of what it has done. The Lord of all nations is attentive to the way people treat one another. Acting on the appropriate values does make a difference.
When God finds a nation repeatedly misusing its power against others, he considers this a rebellious and willful act of defiance. Human beings have the freedom to choose to do what is legally, religiously, or socially ethical, or they can rebel and forcibly assert their power over other people. Perverted human values are not exempt from responsibility and will not escape God’s hand of justice. God can forgive if a nation is repentant (see the story of Nineveh in the book of Jonah), but persistent violations of acceptable patterns of behavior require some kind of punishment. God is the moral standard of right and wrong, and he will not cool his wrath until it is spent to remove the evil that defiles the earth.
Sins of other nations. These principles underpin everything Amos says, but one wonders why he is telling the Israelites about the sins of other nations. What is the purpose of having his audience agree that these foreign nations should be punished? Amos is not just concerned about what will happen to Tyre; he is trying to persuade his audience that these principles apply to every sinful nation. If Amos is going to convince his Israelite audience to change their own oppressive and violent behavior in a later oracle, and if he wants them to believe that God is actually going to destroy them for their rebellious acts, he knows he must base his arguments on clear theological principles acceptable to his audience.
Do they accept the idea that God reveals his will to prophets like Amos? Do they believe that God sees the rebellious deeds of nations? Do they believe that God will judge nations who have committed atrocities against others? If so, then they will be hard-pressed not to accept the same principles if the prophet happens to hear a word from God about the Israelites. They know the difference between right and wrong and abhor these barbarous deeds. They are happy to accept these principles and apply them to other nations.
Amos wisely establishes these basic theological agreements with his audience on noncontroversial issues about other nations in the first half of his sermon so that he can use the force of these arguments when he begins to talk about how God views the Israelites in his audience. Amos is not too different from the apostle Paul, who went to Mars Hill in Athens and waxed eloquent about the altar to the unknown God (Acts 17:16–31), or Jesus, who talked to the woman at Jacob’s well near Sychar about drawing living water that will quench one’s thirst forever (John 4). In each case the speaker knows the thought framework of the audience, uses the context of their setting as an aid to emphasizing a principle, and then brings a theological conclusion to bear on the principle already accepted. A speaker cannot be held accountable for how people respond to God, but these messengers do everything in their power to persuade some to accept the truth of their divine messages.
Contemporary Significance
HOW DOES GOD view inhumane violence? If one is looking for situations to apply the principle that God holds every nation accountable for its acts of inhumanity against people, one can look for atrocities in peaceful foreign nations that have a poor record on human rights, discover how military personnel treat innocent civilians in war time, or move away from the national focus to examine the way individual people use their power to abuse others.
The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948. Article 1 states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood.”19 In 1948 the United States Secretary of State George Marshall condemned the widespread modern denial of basic human values where “millions of men and women live in daily terror, subject to seizure, imprisonment and forced labor without cause and without fair trial.”20 Although great progress has been made since 1948, this is still a problem today and should be a concern of all believers who take Amos’s warnings seriously.
Foreign immigrants are still treated with hatred, racial and ethnic minorities are killed to maintain majority rule (so-called “ethnic cleansing”), and economic enslavement is still a reality for many. Even in peaceful times nations abuse their own citizens by degrading human dignity. Yuri Orlov, a Russian doctor who started a human-rights group in Moscow, found himself in jail less than nine months later. Yelena Bonner and Dr. Scharov, fellow members of Orlov’s group, were exiled against their wills to Gorki, while Anatoly Scharansky was jailed for nine years. The Soviets were uncomfortable with the claims of human-rights abuses made by this group and violated their freedoms to remove the embarrassment they were causing.
Worse crimes of torture are chronicled in Jacobo Timmerman’s Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number. This respected Argentine journalist and editor of the newspaper La Opinion was arrested, tortured, and left to rot in a forgotten maze of totalitarian political abuse. In India ancient attitudes toward people in the lower caste and women still linger. Thousands of female babies are killed each year because families value male children. Ancient Indian tradition maintains that “to educate a woman is like placing a knife in the hands of a monkey. . . . Woman, thou hast three good qualities (to sing, to burn as a sati [cremation at the death of her husband], to produce sons) and 400,000 bad.”21 These attitudes and acts of inhumanity to other human beings can be multiplied over and over.
Although it is somewhat natural for ethnic tribes, nations, races, and interest groups to act in their own political or economic interest and show a favoritism or loyalty to members of their own group, acts of torture, unreasonable seizure and imprisonment, and murder deny people even the most basic respect and dignity. Government systems can get out of control, official policy can be discriminatory, and even religious tradition can be marshaled to support cultural practices that deny value to another person’s human freedom. God hates these inhumane acts and considers them a rebellion against his plan for good social relations.
Another arena of application is found in the way the military conducts war. It is relatively rare that a person will have an opportunity to address national figures about the weaknesses of a nation’s military policies or the way soldiers should treat prisoners of war. Nevertheless, citizens of every country need to be informed about the military policies of various candidates for office so that they can vote intelligently and protest illegitimate actions their government has approved. Military chaplains have a special opportunity to apply what Amos says to the troops in their care so that each soldier can ethically take full responsibilities for his or her actions in battle. In addition, individual enlisted men and women who may fight in future wars need to hear from God’s Word about the dangers of misusing one’s power over those defeated.
Some Christians believe all war is inhumane because of its violent killing of individuals. Mennonites and Quakers, for example, believe that we are to fight only spiritual battles, to love our enemies, and not to resist one who is evil (Matt. 5:38–48).22 Others maintain that “just wars” are a legitimate means God uses to rid the world of evil. Thus, it was not wrong to oppose Hitler’s philosophy of eliminating the Jewish race; the war effort against the Third Reich was a vindication of the divine standard of justice. Those who have entered military service undoubtedly hold to the second position, and most of their concerns relate to the just conduct of war, particularly the proper treatment of prisoners and innocent noncombatant civilians.23
Military people believe that they can uphold the virtues of loyalty, courage, selflessness, and justice by fighting a war against an evil oppressor who rejects peace and the process of free self-determination through normal political means. S. P. Huntington maintains that military people believe that (1) people are selfish and prone to seek greater power and wealth, fighting for what they want; (2) in the uncertain times of war an organized and disciplined group approach to conflict helps control the fears of the combatants and more efficiently accomplish the task of the group; (3) selfless subordination of the individual to the purpose of the unit produces the best results; and (4) when military orders conflict with the moral conscience of the individual, a person can make the difficult choice of disobedience.24
These principles sound good, but what happens in the heat of battle? Should one torture a prisoner to obtain information that could prevent the bombing of an innocent village, pinpoint the real location of the enemy, and save the lives of some troops? Is there an absolute rule that applies to every ethical dilemma, or should a soldier take a utilitarian approach that is more concerned about the final better outcome than the slightly questionable method of achieving it? Although the utilitarian answer seems to compromise ethically the highest standards, it seems in a nonmilitary setting, for example, that any good husband will lie about his wife’s being in the house to protect her from being unethically killed or raped by a burglar.
But utilitarianism has its limits. The massacres of large civilian populations seems to have no ethical justification; the indiscriminate destruction of noncombatant women, children, and the harmless elderly citizens is senseless violence that must be condemned.25
In the end the military person must also ask what God thinks of his or her act. A superior commander may order it, the deed may have some possible utilitarian benefit, and other soldiers may favor it. Yet as Amos maintains, God sees and will judge those who illegitimately violate the dignity of other human beings.
If we move beyond the obvious military settings that are the context of Amos’s statements, we can raise general questions: What value does society or do we as individuals put on human life? Do we let people take advantage of others and do nothing to stop them? Are we concerned about the ethical treatment of the “worthless” people in society? Do the unborn have a right to life and protection from the selfish desires of a parent? What political laws need to be changed and what additional social services need to be provided to ensure the sacred status and dignity of each person?
Improving your power in persuasion. Amos identifies with the facets of his audience’s theological worldview in oracles about other nations so that he can later show how these theological beliefs should impact their own self-evaluation. He is probably listening for their reaction to see if they believe that God is speaking through him. He wants to know if they also think that these nations deserve God’s judgment for their willful rebellion against God.
Amos needs to know whether his listeners oppose inhumane atrocities against innocent people. If they do not agree with Amos, then his later words about Israel will not be particularly convincing. But if they agree with Amos, his listeners cannot logically deny these theological beliefs when they are applied to their own situation. Amos is not just preaching; he wants to change the way people think about their own relationship to God. Because of the military power and prosperity of Israel, Amos knows it will not be easy to convince people that God will judge them, so he carefully plans his entire sermon for the maximum possible persuasive effect.26
Amos’s sermon raises questions about how to preach for results. It stresses the importance of preparing our audience to receive what God is saying. We need to do more thinking about how to present the truth of God’s Word so that listeners will be grabbed by the force of the argument and find it logical to agree. Aristotle’s rhetorical studies emphasized the need for logical argumentation, where what is said is supported by solid evidence. If sermons make a statement that God is going to do this or that, it is important to present real-life examples and biblical evidence that justify the conclusion one proposes. Loosely arranged random thoughts on a passage rarely provide a solid base for people to make a significant commitment.
Hermeneutical tricks that do not treat the biblical witness honestly but wring out of it thoughts that are not really there do not convince most people. If you are preaching to the choir about things they already believe, you do not have to worry about having a persuasive argument. But if you dare to preach things that the audience does not believe, then persuasive effort must be put into constructing the logic of the sermon in such a way that it convinces the skeptic.27
This sermon also demonstrates the need to talk about God in concrete ways that people understand. Although Amos could have talked about God’s universal sovereignty, he has chosen instead to describe his dealings with many nations. Amos could have raved on about God’s wrath against atrocities and inhumane treatment of defenseless people, but instead he simply describes known historical cases where other people have treated innocent people in a barbaric fashion. This does not suggest that the preacher should water down the sermon with a multitude of illustrations (certainly some are needed), but it argues for using terminology that is understood and avoiding theological babble that does not communicate clearly.
Finally, a convincing sermon engages the emotions. Amos’s audience is undoubtedly enraged by the atrocities of the neighboring states. It is terrible, inexcusable, sadistic, animal behavior! They are angry and want God to bring judgment now! As Amos goes through nation after nation, the crowd’s enthusiastic support for Amos’s message of judgment grows stronger and stronger. Today most preachers tend to favor a more thoughtful approach. But rationality and emotions are not opposites. Emotions move people to action and motivate the will to act.28 One should never manipulate people’s emotions, but the strength of a listener’s determination and the level of commitment should involve a change in both the mental and emotional aspects of a person’s being. Powerful persuasion interacts with the whole person so that the Spirit’s work in his or her heart will produce lasting results.