4This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Judah,
even for four, I will not turn back ˻my wrath˼.
Because they have rejected the law of the LORD
and have not kept his decrees,
because they have been lead astray by false gods,
the gods their ancestors followed,
5I will send fire upon Judah
that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.”
6This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back ˻my wrath˼.
They sell the righteous for silver,
and the needy for a pair of sandals.
7They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
8They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
9“I destroyed the Amorite before them,
though he was tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed his fruit above
and his roots below.
10“I brought you up out of Egypt,
and I led you forty years in the desert
to give you the land of the Amorites.
11I also raised up prophets from among your sons
and Nazirites from among your young men.
Is this not true, people of Israel?”
declares the LORD.
12“But you made the Nazirites drink wine
and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.
13“Now then, I will crush you
as a cart crushes when loaded with grain.
14The swift will not escape,
the strong will not muster their strength,
and the warrior will not save his life.
16The archer will not stand his ground,
the fleet-footed soldier will not get away,
and the horseman will not save his life.
16Even the bravest warriors
will flee naked on that day,”
declares the LORD.
Original Meaning
AMOS 2:4–16 TREATS the final pair of nations, Judah and Israel. These oracles bring the sermon to a climax by applying the theological principles developed in 1:3–2:3 to Amos’s own countrymen in Judah and then to his Israelite audience in Samaria. Since this is merely a continuation of the preceding section, the same date, background, and structure are maintained.
The surprising reversal of the usual positive ending of the war oracle gives this section a dramatic conclusion. Instead of ending his message with the expected promise of victory, saying that Israel will be saved by God’s strong hand and defeat all her enemies, Amos predicts the unparalleled defeat of Israel’s army. This shocking conclusion probably catches most of his listeners off guard and forces them to imagine what was previously thought to be impossible. How could God ever destroy his own people whom he earlier promised to bless? How could Israel’s strong army actually be annihilated? Is God speaking to Amos? Has Israel rebelled against God, and will they be punished for their sins of oppression just like the other nations?
Oracle Against Judah (2:4–5)
WHEN AMOS MENTIONS the rebellion of Judah, some people in his audience are likely surprised that he attacks his own countrymen.1 Yet God has given him a message about Judah, and Amos knows the people in Judah are sinful. He may have also assumed that his credibility will be weakened if he shows any favoritism toward his own people. Thus he follows the same structural pattern that he has employed earlier. Nothing has changed: God speaks against another people, they rebel again and again, and God will judge them severely.
The willful sin of Judah is not described as an oppressive act against some foreign nation that has ignored the ethical standards of the Judeans’ conscience, but a direct refusal to follow God’s stipulations and instructions in the Torah. They are breaching covenant responsibilities with God. Moses warned the people not to forget what God did for them in the past and what God said to them at Sinai. If they did forget, they might soon become proud and self-sufficient, thinking that they really did not need God (Deut. 8:1–20). This presents a high standard for Judah, for they have been given the full revealed truth of what God wants them to do; they do not have to wonder what is right and wrong based on their conscience.
In spite of such privileges and extraordinary knowledge of God’s will, many Judean people have turned to follow “lies,” which leads them astray from God. Some translations suggests that these lies are actually “false gods,” but this interprets the Hebrew too specifically.2 The Hebrew root kzb (falsehood, lie) is used in other prophetic oracles to describe the lies that the false prophets and political leaders tell the people (Isa. 3:12; 9:15–16; 28:15; Mic. 3:5). Although the deceptions of these leaders and prophets may have included encouraging people to worship other gods, they lead the people astray in other ways too. They have adopted social, economic, and political principles from the neighboring cultures and pervert the moral, ceremonial, civil, and economic guidelines in the covenant. These leaders have a clear understanding of what God wants from them, but they still fail to lead the people to follow after God. Who should be followed, God or these liars?
Because of this direct refusal to accept what God has said, God will treat Judah just like every other nation. No special mercy will come and no second chance is mentioned. The people of Judah have sinned; they will have their secure fortresses destroyed and the capital city of Jerusalem devoured with flames. The political and religious leaders living in Jerusalem will be punished for leading the nation astray.
Amos’s Israelite audience probably agrees that Judah deserves this judgment, but when they do this, they are admitting that God’s law is a legitimate standard to judge a nation’s morality. If so, it may then serve as a scale for evaluating Israel’s behavior as well. Many in Israel are somewhat aware of what God demands in the covenant stipulations. By supporting God’s punishment of Judah, the listeners recognize the authority that will spell out their own shortcomings.
Oracle Against Israel (2:6–16)
NOW AMOS TURNS toward his audience in Samaria and addresses them directly. Although the Israelites are likely expecting Amos to give a salvation oracle that describes their defeat of the surrounding nations (like other war oracles), he surprises them with an announcement of their own demise. Suddenly the cheering stops and no one shouts “Amen.” By using the same terminology used against the other nations, Amos communicates that Israel is no different in God’s eyes. God does speak to Amos about Israel, they rebel repeatedly just like the other nations, and they will suffer defeat like everyone else.
The specific accusations against Israel are grouped into two paragraphs: Verses 6–8 describe how Israel oppresses the weak, and verses 9–12 make the point that God graciously cared for Israel when they were oppressed. Amos does not mention just one rebellious act of Israel, as in the earlier oracles against the foreign nations, but seven ways that the Israelites have taken advantage of the powerless. Their sin is made even more inexcusable by the fact that they are oppressing members of Israelite society, their own brothers and sisters, not unknown foreigners after a war. Those doing the oppressing are state officials and upper-class merchants with money to loan for a business or agricultural need, judges in the court, and wealthy people who can afford to have servants.
Israel’s oppression of the weak (2:6–8). The first accusations in 2:6 involve the unnecessary foreclosure on small loans by money lenders. This process, which may be technically legal, deprives the “righteous” (i.e., legally innocent, or guiltless) debtors of the possibility of getting clear of their debt. If debtors cannot pay up on demand, the lender may confiscate their land and tie them up in court proceedings they cannot afford. Some have probably even been driven into human slavery for an insignificant debt (“a pair of sandals”).3
This accusation is not pinpointing any illegal court action, but the merciless selling of destitute people who could likely remove their debt if given just a bit more time.4 This is a blatant case where wealthy Israelites do not care for the poor as the covenant stipulations required (Ex. 21:2–11; Deut. 15:12–18). Israelites were not to take interest, but were to have an open hand to share with those in need and to have mercy on the needy, for God’s covenant people were freed from slavery at the time of the Exodus from Egypt (Ex. 22:25–27).
The accusations in 2:7 emphasize the physical abuse of the helpless and weak. The strong metaphorically trample or crush the powerless into the ground.5 The NIV adds a comparative “as” to the clause “upon the dust of the ground,” but this seems unnecessary. Thus we prefer the translation “they trample the heads of the weak in the dust.” This is a metaphor of power for one group and utter humiliation for the other. Isaiah also questions the powerful in Judah by asking, “What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor?” (Isa. 3:15). Amos does not say what the stronger are doing specifically to crush the weak, for there probably are several methods of accomplishing their devious ends.6
Another abuse is literally the “turning aside of the afflicted,” a phrase that refers to illegal action in a court context in 5:12; thus, the NIV refers to “deny[ing] justice.” Again it appears that interpreters have been too anxious to specify an identifiable setting for this abuse. When this phrase refers to a court setting in other passages, there is always an additional word to indicate that court justice is in mind; but Amos omits any additional modifiers in this case.7 Therefore, he is simply referring to powerful people who contemptuously manipulate the weak and afflicted, push them around, control their lives, and deprive them of the rights that every free human being deserves. When a person has no power, others can whip you around, make you jump through their hoops, force you to do things you do not want to do, and make life miserable.
The third rebellious act in Amos 2:7 is the sexual abuse of a servant woman by both a father and son. This probably has nothing to do with the sacred prostitution practiced at Baal temples, nor an attempt by fathers to have sexual relations with their daughters-in-laws.8 Instead, it refers to sexual mistreatment of a hard-working household employee. Fathers and sons were not to have sex with the same woman (Lev. 18:8, 15, 17; 20:10–20). The law provided some protection for female slaves because they were so vulnerable to mistreatment by their masters (Ex. 21:7–11; Lev. 19:20–22). In spite of this, powerful men could intimidate them with dire financial consequences if they did not cooperate with their deviant immoral desires. The emphasis is still on the strong-armed oppression of defenseless people.
The powerful probably look at these things as small indiscretions, as minor issues that everyone does. If one does business in the real world, some win and others lose; that is the way life is. But God looks at these oppressive acts as rebellious acts that “profane my holy name.” They are polluting the morals of God’s holy nation, desecrating his reputation, and defiling their sacred covenant relationship. God sets himself apart from sin and has set holy standards for his people to follow. He is holy, and they should be holy (Lev. 19:2). Their sins are a repudiation of God’s honor and glory and a shameful rejection of their holy covenant relationship.
The final accusations of oppression in Amos 2:8 chronicle additional ways the powerful exploit the destitute. Wealthy people who were owed money could legally collect the last thing their debtors owned, their outer garments, to ensure that payment would be made (Ex. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:12–13). This usually happened when people defaulted on their loans. But these legal formulas also demanded that the garments be returned to their destitute owners at night so that they could at least keep warm.9 Amos not only condemns those who break these laws, but points out their shameful practice of wearing these same garments to a temple for a festival or worship event. Will God be pleased to see these well-dressed worshipers sitting on stolen clothes at the temple?
A similar irony is found in the behavior of certain judges who collect legal civil fines for breaking the law. If the guilty party pays the fine with a container of wine, it becomes the property of the state or city. But some of the selfish judges in Israel take the wine to their temples and consume it or give it as a drink offering. Besides taking advantage of the destitute, they are hypocrites and give something that really does not belong to them. It is clear from Amos’s condemnation that God is not impressed with their gifts or how they got them.
God graciously cared for Israel when they were oppressed (Amos 2:9–12). Amos now changes his approach to describing Israel’s rebelliousness. He emphasizes what God10 did for Israel in the past by rescuing them when they were oppressed by stronger nations. One would expect Israel to be thankful to God and obey his covenant stipulations because of his grace. One would also assume that the Israelites would understand from their past history that God consistently fights against oppressors and on behalf of the oppressed. This view of God’s ways puts the present Israelite oppressors in a dangerous position as God’s potential enemies. Their failure to appreciate his gracious deeds in the past and their rejection of his attempts to warn them through the prophets and Nazirites put the nation on a collision course with God.
Initially Amos recites the well-known tradition about God’s great acts of salvation, which were part of the nation’s sacred history (Ex. 15; 20:1–2; Deut. 32; Josh. 24). These contain warning not to forget God’s grace (Deut. 32:15–29; Josh. 24:14–24), but most of the prophets point to this as one of Israel’s main failures and the cause of their rebellion (Hos. 2:13; 4:6; 8:14; 13:6; Jer. 2:6–8). The Exodus story was such a tremendous demonstration of God’s sovereign power over oppressors and such a wonderful story of freedom from enslavement that one would think that it would never be forgotten. But traditions that get told again and again get old. If they are not my personal experiences and my story, they do not seem as real or as earth-shaking.
In 2:9 Amos reminds his audience that God destroyed the many Amorite cities, states, and tribes that controlled Canaan back at the time of Joshua. Some of the Amorites were giants, who seemed to be as “tall as the cedars and strong as the oaks.” This is reminiscent of the spies’ report that claimed that the Nephilim were men of great stature who lived in cities with high walls. This made the spies feel like grasshoppers (Num. 13:31–33). Yet God destroyed every last vestige of these enemies (both “his fruit above and his roots below”) when the Israelites conquered the land, because these supermen were nothing before God’s power.
In 2:10 Amos recalls how God delivered the people from Egyptian bondage (Ex. 14–15), led them through the Sinai desert for forty years (Deut. 8:1–5), and gave them a wonderful land (8:6–10). These events were at the heart of Israel’s identity; they were the people God powerfully delivered from Egypt. Their oppressive power over others was not key to their success; God’s grace provided for all their needs. Oppressors are the enemies of God.
How should Israel be responding to God’s grace? One would think they would respond in gratitude and service to the One who has done all these things for them. Amos’s Israelite audience is rejecting God and the spiritual leaders he has sent. In the years since the Exodus God graciously sent various prophets (Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha) to communicate messages from God, to encourage the people to maintain their covenant relationship with him, and to call them back from their sinful ways. God also raised up Nazirites (Samson in Judg. 13; Samuel in 1 Sam. 1) to be examples of holy living.11 They followed a disciplined manner of life, dedicated themselves to live in an especially close relationship to God, and strictly observed the promises of their vows. They were illustrations of godly living. They were so thankful for God’s grace to them that they purposely changed their lifestyle to show their gratitude.
But some Israelites in Amos’s audience apparently oppose the Nazirites and prophets. In Amos 2:12 he reports that these Israelites coerce people who have taken a Nazirite vow into drinking wine and thus force them to break their vows of abstinence. This is in direct conflict with what God required and is a blatant attempt to substitute their own cultural rules for God’s expectations. Maybe less spiritual people are embarrassed by the dedication of the Nazirites, or perhaps they consider the Nazirite rules as old-fashioned cultural remains from a bygone era. The fact that they make the Nazirites do these things suggests a dictatorial atmosphere in which people feel obligated by social pressure or priestly demands to do something they do not want.
The prophets are also oppressed and rejected. People are telling some of them to stop prophesying. Amos may have been thinking of Jezebel’s killing of many prophets (1 Kings 18:4; 19:2, 10), Ahab’s silencing of Micaiah ben Imlah (22:26–27), or Joram’s attempt to kill Elisha (2 Kings 6:31). Amos later experiences this kind of repression himself (Amos 7:10–17). But this offense is not just the oppression of the revolutionary voice of the prophets; it is the silencing of God’s voice. They are muzzling God’s ability to communicate with them and in the process frustrating his attempts to warn the people of his plans to judge them.
The defeat of Israel’s army (2:13–16). The punishment statement against Israel does not begin like the judgments on the kings and the fortified cities of the foreign nations. Instead, it focuses on the utter annihilation of Israel’s army. God intends to take away the very source of the people’s security—the power they depend on and are so proud of. Once Israel’s strong army is out of the way, the rest of the nation will crumble to pieces.
Verse 13 announces what God will do, while verses 14–16 describe what will happen to Israel’s troops. There is confusion surrounding the translation of the key verb in verse 13. It is clear that God is somehow compared to an agricultural cart or wagon loaded with grain. The metaphor is unique to Amos and both surprising and confusing. Since there are a number of meanings to various related Semitic roots (ʿqq, ʿwq, ʿyq), some suggest that the verb describes God’s “cutting, splitting open” like a full cart cuts into the ground, his “groaning,” his “pressing, crushing” (NIV), or his “hindering.”12
Amos draws his imagery from a common agricultural setting so people can understand it easily. I prefer to interpret this verb as referring to God’s splitting open the ground and think it is Amos’s first prediction of the earthquake that comes about two years later (see other predictions in 6:11; 8:8; 9:1–2, 5).13 Regardless of the specific nature of God’s judgment, what is clear is that God will do it, and his powerful action will be aimed at Amos’s Israelite audience.
The results of God’s action are astonishing. God will shake up the troops in Israel’s army so badly that they will not be able to escape in an upcoming battle. The fast runners will find that they are not swift enough and cannot escape defeat. The strongest and bravest will have no fortitude for battle and will be unable to save even themselves from death. The archers will not stand their ground in the face of the enemy’s charge, and horsemen (probably charioteers) will unsuccessfully try to run away.
In other words, Israel’s strong military force will collapse and run, and none will escape death. This will be an awesome demonstration of God’s power! As Amos’s audience in Samaria hears these words, they must have been astonished and petrified. How can such a thing happen? Will God actually do this? What will happen to them if such a disaster does take place?
Bridging Contexts
THESE CONCLUDING ORACLES continue to build on Amos’s basic principles in 1:5–2:3 that (1) every nation is accountable for its inhumane acts of rebellion against God, and (2) if one can identify some common theological agreement with the worldview of an audience, those points can be used to evaluate the behavior of the listeners. But Amos goes beyond these two points in 2:4–16 to suggest that (3) those who have received greater revelation of divine truth will be evaluated on the basis of what they know; (4) God holds people accountable if they reject his gracious deliverance of them from oppression and start oppressing others; (5) rebellion against God’s design for healthy human relationships erodes his holy reputation; and (6) God fights on behalf of the oppressed.
Greater revelation means greater accountability. A change is evident in the level of accountability in these oracles because both Judah and Israel have received the covenant stipulations in the Torah and are not just dependent on conscience to develop their sense of right and wrong. God does not judge the foreign nations for not keeping his law because it was not revealed to them. According to Paul, the Gentiles will receive God’s wrath if they suppress the truth they understand from viewing the creation, pursue futile speculations rather than honoring God, follow their lusts by abandoning their natural functions, and do not follow the instructions written on their conscience (Rom. 1:18–27; 2:14–15). But the Jews have received the oracles of God (Rom. 3:1–2), and they will be judged based on his law (Rom. 2:12).14
The cost of defying the Lord is high. Moses reminded the children born in the desert of their parents’ failure to enter the land at Kadesh Barnea (Num. 13–14) and described them as “unwilling to go up; you rebelled against the command of the LORD your God. You grumbled in your tents and said, ‘The LORD hates us . . .’ ” (Deut. 1:26–27). After God said that this generation would die in the desert, they decided to go up and fight the Amorites even though God warned them against it since he would not go with them. Nevertheless in arrogance they rebelled against the command of God and were defeated (Deut. 1:41–44).
This principle should not be reversed to suggest that people are better off if they do not know the truth, insofar as they will not be held accountable if they do not know. Unfortunately, many of us have received traffic tickets even when we did not know what the speed limit was, even when we thought it was okay to park in a certain spot. Ignorance may be an explanation, but a police officer will seldom take it as sufficient to excuse guilt. Paul did not consider those without the law to be free from guilt. They have no excuse, though they will be judged guilty on the basis of a different standard.
In the Judah oracle Amos condemns the prophets and politicians of leading the people astray with their lies. They know what God wants in the covenant relationship, but they deceptively guide the nation in another direction. In the Israelite oracle Amos points to judges, moneylenders, employers, and people in power, who probably know about the covenant traditions that should govern their behavior but who choose to reject these divine instructions. People in power are especially warned about the high level of accountability they have. God has entrusted them with special privileges. Their failures not only assure their own demise but may cause others to stray from the narrow path. In the New Testament James uses this principle to warn teachers that they will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).
The purpose of God’s past actions of grace. God also holds people accountable if they reject his grace in delivering them from oppression and start oppressing others. God’s grace in delivering Israel from Egypt, guiding them in the desert, and defeating the strong Amorites should have brought a response of gratitude and obedience from the Israelites. While God does not give grace conditionally on the basis of a promise of praise and worship, no one should ignore or forget his grace. If a person does not let a past act of grace guide his or her future beliefs or actions, that very act will guide God’s responses. In other words, grace is not given to be wasted but is provided to encourage a positive response of thankfulness and service.
Another act of grace happens when a person is warned of danger and is saved from certain destruction. The sending of the prophet, the apostles, and missionaries to spread the good news of God’s love is an act of his grace. Accepting the warning might mean deliverance from judgment and hope for the future. Rejecting the messenger and denying the importance of the message would be a slap in the face of one who put forth the effort to make the warning. Restoration is possible only if people are open to God’s gracious attempts to convict them of sin and his gentle prodding to discipline those who need correction. If people are not affected by God’s grace, they will one day stand accountable before his face.
Human rebellion against God erodes his holy reputation. Amos describes multiple ways in which the Israelites are inhumanely treating one another. They use their economic advantage of having money to loan to their financial advantage, their political status as judges or officials to show partiality in judgments, their power as employers to intimidate, and their ability to manipulate others’ lives to oppress the weak and powerless. This has produced a shameful reputation in the community. Their values are an embarrassment to God. Since most outsiders know God through the lives of those who follow him, God’s holy reputation is ruined by this kind of behavior.
The honor of God’s name is a concern Moses had on Mount Sinai when God wanted to destroy those who worshiped the golden calf (Ex. 32:12). What would the Egyptians say if God destroyed Israel? They would conclude that God had no power and was no better than their own Egyptian gods, who could not protect them. The Israelites were not to worship other gods or follow the abhorrent customs of the nations, because God is holy and his people were to be holy (Lev. 20:22–26). If the Israelites did not separate themselves from the ungodly practices of the Canaanites, how would people ever know about the holy God of Israel?
God’s holy reputation is also a key theme in Ezekiel’s prophecies. The people had defiled God’s holy temple so much that he left it so that it could be destroyed (Ezek. 8–11). Judah profaned God’s holy name by their evil; thus, out of concern for his holy reputation, God would vindicate the holiness of his great name so that all would see who he really was (36:20–23). He would do this by restoring his people to the land, cleansing them from their filth, and giving them a new heart. Then the nations would know that his name is holy (36:23–36).
God fights on behalf of the oppressed. In Amos 1:3–2:3 the prophet emphasized God’s desire to fight against the oppressors of this world, but Amos never predicted deliverance for the oppressed. In 2:9–10 the prophet reminds his audience that God has acted on behalf of his people in the past by delivering them from bondage, leading them, and providing them a promised land. One should not assume, of course, that God fights for the winning side in every case, for some battles were meant to accomplish his will of destroying a nation, not of building up another. Hezekiah’s victory over Sennacherib, for example, was not designed to bring territory or glory to Judah’s king but to bring glory to God (Isa. 37). Assyria’s earlier victory over Ahaz, Pekah, and Rezin was not an endorsement of the Assyrian king (Isa. 7:1–10:19).
God does care for the defenseless widows and orphans (Isa. 1:17, 23; Jer. 5:28; Ezek. 22:7). His eyes see the oppression, and he will restore the afflicted, help the lame to walk, and gather the outcasts to establish a remnant for himself when he sets up his eternal kingdom (Mic. 4:6–8). Although this present sinful world may have much oppression and it may seem at times as if God does not care about those who have no power or riches, his grace is sufficient for each trial and his strength can help one through testing. His reasons for allowing problems and oppression are usually beyond human comprehension, but we can always be sure of God’s sympathies and his eventual deliverance.
Contemporary Significance
THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLES enumerated above seem especially relevant to the church today. (1) We who have received the most revelation from God (both Old and New Testaments) will be evaluated on the basis of what we know. (2) The church will be held accountable if it rejects God’s grace and supports oppression. (3) Rebellion against God’s design for healthy human relationships erodes God’s holy reputation and the church’s testimony in the world. (4) The idea that God fights on behalf of the oppressed should be both a warning to those who are tempted to abuse others and a hope to Christians in difficult situations.
Living in a post-Christian age. In a sense, Amos is living in a postcovenant moral era for most Israelites and a precovenant era for the pagan population in and around Israel. If one looks at the cultures around the world today, one could suggest that some countries are in a pre-Christian era, while others (especially Western) appear to be in a post-Christian era. As far back as 1949 T. S. Eliot examined the culture of England and discovered that the rhythm, structure, and principles of the Christian faith no longer had a pervasive influence on social behavior: “Prosperity in this world for the individual or for the group . . . [was] the sole conscious aim.”15
The church should be less concerned about its loss of status in influencing the general values of society and concentrate more on getting its own house in order. If we hope to influence people in our culture, we cannot hide in a “church ghetto.” We are called to be a light to the world (Matt. 5:14–16)—but we will do so only if we walk in the light of the revelation we have received. Those who ignore or reject what God has made known about his will for humankind in Scripture will be responsible for their decisions and behavior.
Accountability is based on the assumption that people have the ability to make choices to do or not to do something. If they have this ability, a choice will be made on the basis of some reasoning, an emotional process, a traditional belief, or possibly social pressure. If people knowingly and purposely choose to act in arrogance or in defiant rebellion against what they know God desires, the full weight of responsibility falls on the accountable persons. There is a direct relationship between the knowledge one has, the leadership position held, and the responsibility that is expected.
The problem is not that the world and the church have not received any knowledge from God. Although some have never heard the good news about the coming of Christ, the last two hundred years have witnessed a great expansion in the missionary efforts to share the gospel with unreached tribes and nations. Israel’s and the church’s problem is that many people ignore the revelation that is given and do not treat it as authoritative in determining their values or behavior.
Why is this so? One reason is that people have not been clearly exposed to the importance of the authority of the biblical witness. W. Stringfellow believes that
the weirdest corruption of contemporary American Protestantism is its virtual abandonment of the Word of God in the Bible. . . . The Bible has been discarded in Sunday School in favor of baby-sitting, group dynamics, religious gibberish, moralistic counselling, sectarian indoctrination, romantic versions of church history, and stories about the Bible which are, more often than not, editorially biased, badly drafted, and unbiblical anyway. . . . Protestants in America are neither intimate with or reliant upon the Word of God in the Bible, whether in preaching, in services in the sanctuaries, or in education or nurture.16
One might get defensive and claim that Stringfellow surely has not attended a church in my denomination, but for this to exist in any group of churches is a tragedy. Barna’s 1990s survey found that only 58 percent of the Christian adults claimed to read something from the Bible each week.17 My own experience gives some support to these findings, for every year I have seminary students in my class on the prophets who confess that they are having trouble internalizing the material because they had never read the books of Nahum, Zephaniah, Obadiah, or Ezekiel, never heard a sermon on these texts, and never had a Sunday school lesson on them.
These few examples suggest there is a need for more direct exposure to what God has said in Scripture, but there is probably just as great a demand for closing the gap between what people know and what they actually do. Many Israelites probably had a general knowledge of the covenant stipulations in the books of Moses. They knew that it was wrong to oppress others, that injustices in court proceedings were unethical, and that sexual abuse of employees was not something God would approve of. Yet some did just the opposite anyway.
In an age of relativism, Baby Boomers tend to accept everyone’s point of view.18 It is less important to be logically consistent because an argument could be made to suggest that a certain activity is not an absolute wrong in every situation. Others are motivated simply by a desire for status, economic gain, or pleasure and do not worry about whether their actions are right or wrong. They want to enjoy the good life and will do whatever it takes to achieve their goals—stealing, lying, cheating, sexual harassment, hiding evidence from the court, and racial prejudice. The biblical prohibitions against such actions can be rationalized or relativized, or a person may just choose to refuse to be governed by biblical ethics. Some people connect sin and wrong more with getting caught than with doing something displeasing to God.
The cost of such willful rebellion against God is high for the individual, for the fellowship of Christians, and for the reputation of God. Individuals can allow sinful rebellion to so control their lives that they have no spiritual walk with God. The testimony of the congregation in the larger community is blemished with a cloud of hypocrisy and distrust. None of this glorifies God and magnifies his holy name. Through such events God’s reputation is stained and his kingdom is hindered.
Sexual sin. As Amos knows (2:7), one of the most damning instances of this happens in sexual misconduct. In recent years, the most celebrated and devastating examples of sin in the church have been the plague of sexual infidelity by church members and their pastoral leaders. B. Moeller notes that a survey of 3,432 Americans in the early 1990s showed that only 50.5 percent of those who called themselves conservative Protestants maintained that their religious beliefs concerning the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage always guide their sexual behavior. Approximately 17 percent of conservative Protestants and 15 percent of mainline Protestants had slept with more than one person in the last year.19
This problem in Catholic circles is heightened by the requirement of priestly celibacy. D. Rice reported that “almost one quarter of the active priests in the world” have left the ministry for sexual reasons,20 while A. W. R. Sipe concluded that “about 20 percent of priests vowed to celibacy . . . are at one time involved either in a more or less stable sexual relationship with a woman or, alternatively, with sequential women. . . . An additional 8 to 10 percent of priests are at a stage of heterosexual exploration.”21
Although some of the above-mentioned people are lonely, have a disappointing sexual relationship with a spouse, or come from a dysfunctional family background, these excuses do not absolve guilt. Other acts of sexual misconduct are perpetrated by predators who use their power (as in Amos’s example) to take advantage of others. All acts of oppression are wrong, but this one seems to have an overwhelming effect on people.
This sin will usually end the pastoral career of a priest or minister and devastate the trust level between clergy and congregation. It arouses the anger of the congregation, who thought so highly of the one who supposedly preached with such conviction, and ruins the reputation of the church in the neighborhood. Families are broken apart and children’s lives scarred, but one of the greatest tragedies is the lasting shame this will bring to God’s glory. The message of other ministers will have less credibility, cynicism will increase, and calls for holy living will be taken less seriously. This is a betrayal of God. Consequently, God’s holy name is profaned.
All those who might be tempted to oppress others should remember that God is against every type of abuse or oppression and graciously fights for the deliverance of the innocent who are oppressed. Believers must not make the mistake of the Israelites and misuse their power, nor should they forget that God has graciously delivered them from oppression and the power of sin (Rom. 8). As Amos says, the battle will not be won by the swift, the brave, or the mighty (2:14–16). The battle belongs to the Lord, and he will not strengthen the legs of those who oppress others.