HEAR THIS WORD the LORD has spoken against you, O people of Israel—against the whole family I brought out of Egypt:
2“You only have I chosen
of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you
for all your sins.”
3Do two walk together
unless they have agreed to do so?
4Does a lion roar in the thicket
when he has no prey?
Does he growl in his den
when he has caught nothing?
5Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground
where no snare has been set?
Does a trap spring from the ground
when there is nothing to catch?
6When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?
7Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing
without revealing his plan
to his servants the prophets.
8The lion has roared—
who will not fear?
The Sovereign LORD has spoken—
who can but prophesy?
Original Meaning
THIS PARAGRAPH BEGINS the second series of oracles (3:1–6:14).1 In these messages Amos attempts to persuade his audience to believe the disastrous news that he just announced in 2:6–16. God will indeed defeat Israel, his chosen people, because of their rebellious acts.
Since Israel is a strong nation at this time, it would be natural for his listeners in Samaria not to believe what Amos is saying. Some perhaps think that their minor acts of oppression are not really that bad; it is culturally acceptable behavior in that day. Others may be doubting whether the punishment will really be as bad as Amos pictures. Can an enemy actually destroy their strong fortresses? Israel is, after all, a strong nation, a winner, a rich people with a powerful army. A few probably think that this will never happen because the people still do worship God at the temple at Bethel. Moreover, God had blessed them with freedom and prosperity. How could anyone believe this crazy foreign prophet from Judah?
Amos attempts to convince his audience of the truthfulness of his words from God by verifying what God has said to him: The nation will be destroyed. Chapters 3–6 are introduced by a unique series of rhetorical questions drawn from nature and the logic of everyday experience. Amos argues that there is a cause behind everything that happens.
The people listening to Amos can hardly help but agree with the examples he gives in these first few verses, for they are obvious. A trap jumps because some animal has tried to eat the bait; there is a cause behind the result. If people know this to be true regarding the things they see happening in the natural world, then certainly it is true in the spiritual world. There is a reason for God’s plan to punish Israel; such things do not happen by chance. It is logical to believe that nations fall because God wills it. It is reasonable to think that Amos is prophesying because God has revealed the future to him. It is logical to fear when you hear these divine warnings.
Some commentators associate this first paragraph with a wisdom disputational speech; others think it is similar to a covenant lawsuit. But it does not seem to follow the complete structure of either.2 Amos uniquely joins covenant concerns in 3:1–2 with a disputational style of arguing in 3:3–8 in order to break the logic of the faulty reasoning patterns of his listeners. The first five questions in the disputation move from results back to the cause, but in 3:6 the cause precedes the results.3 This change is also consistent with the topical movement from the animal world to the realm of God’s involvement in human history.4
A Chosen, Covenantal Status Does Not Guarantee Blessing (3:1–2)
AMOS IS PROBABLY responding to the expressed or expected objections of people in Israel to what he has said about them in chapter 2. Although their opinions are not quoted directly, in his answer he quotes from the traditions they accept about their election and Exodus experiences (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15).
God has treated the Israelites as a special people, for they are the only people he has intimately known (ydʿ, know, choose) and chosen to be his covenant people.5 Amos uses the rare formula that they were picked out of all the families of the “earth” (ʾadamah, see Gen. 12:3; 28:14), thus representing the patriarchal promise when Israel’s ancestors were initially identified as God’s people. Moses also referred to this promise and to the Exodus of the nation from Egypt in his prayer after the golden calf incident, hoping to persuade God to have mercy on the people who sinned (Ex. 32:11; Deut. 9:26). Many Israelites still believe these experiences (their election and Exodus) will somehow protect them from God’s wrath and guarantee his continued favor.
Amos surprisingly expresses a different understanding of God’s relationship to Israel.6 He does not deny their special status but suggests that this status carries with it an extraordinary responsibility. If the Israelites are God’s people, they are to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6). Like their father Abraham, they must “walk before me and be blameless. I will confirm my covenant between me and you” (Gen. 17:1–2). As at the time of the golden calf, God is still “compassionate and gracious . . . slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished” (Ex. 34:6–7).
The people were led out of Egypt to be God’s people, not a people who followed their own whims and worshiped Baal. They must love the Lord their God with all their hearts, fear him, and serve him alone (Deut. 6:5, 13; 10:12, 20; 11:1, 13). These requirements are integrally connected to following God’s covenant stipulations so that his blessing may be enjoyed. If the Israelites forget what God did for them and do not live as his people, the curses of the covenant are inevitable (Deut. 27–28). Since the oppression of the Israelites (Amos 2:6–8) demonstrates covenant unfaithfulness, Amos announces God’s intention to punish them according to that covenant agreement.
This argument supports Amos’s conclusion in 2:13–16 and removes a deceptive theology of the nation that God will never punish his chosen people. Privilege comes with the heavy weight of responsibility; these advantages do not provide a guaranteed free ride with no strings attached. The Israelites must listen to God’s warning and fear him if they are truly his covenant people.
There Is a Reason for Everything (3:3–8)
THE LOGIC OF 3:1–2 probably surprises and shocks the people in Samaria. It does not make any sense to some of them. Therefore, God directs Amos to draw an unmistakable connection between cause and effect to legitimate what God will do to Israel. He begins with uncomplicated examples that everyone accepts. Each question in 3:3–5 expects the answer No. Everyone knows that two people do not enjoy the results of walking somewhere together unless there is the preceding cause that they agree with one another.7 Enemies do not walk together. This question does not refer to making an appointment to meet (NIV “have agreed to do so”), for many people met and walked together by chance in the ancient Near Eastern world. They did not have telephones to make appointments, but when they were on the road, they naturally found it more comfortable to walk with a person they agreed with on political, economic, or religious issues.
Amos’s second illustration comes from nature. People are acquainted with the habits of lions (3:4), who roar (the result) because they are attacking their prey (the cause). Do lions foolishly roar before their attack and give the prey a premature warning to run? The young lion in the second half of the verse also hunts from his “hiding place” (not his “den” as in NIV) and growls at the appropriate time.8
A similar logic fits the behavior of traps (3:5). A bird does not get caught in a snare (the result), unless someone has set the trap (the cause). Likewise, a trap does not jump shut (the result), unless some animal has been around and sprung the trigger mechanism (the cause). As in chapter 1, Amos uses illustrations that his audience can easily accept. His rhetorical skill of persuasion is nonthreatening so that he can use these principles to prove his point later.
In 3:6–8 Amos lists the cause before the result. Amos begins by asking if a watchman’s trumpet blast from the city wall will have the effect of causing the people in the city to fear for their lives and make preparations to fight the approaching enemy.9 The natural answer is Yes; only a stupid person ignores a watchman’s signal. Amos does not name a city, but in light of what he has said earlier, the audience can hardly help but wonder if he was talking about their city, Samaria.
The second half of 3:6 expands the questioning to ask who causes cities to fall. Most Israelites would agree that cities are destroyed by divine action. Soldiers and generals may do the fighting, but in the end these things are determined by the sovereign power of God. But if this is true, God is also the one who has the power to cause the destruction of Samaria, as Amos hints in 3:2. If one compares these ideas with what he has just said about the roar of the lion, the similarity is astonishing.
The flow of this long series of questions is broken in 3:7 by the bold, parenthetical explanation of what God does before he brings disaster on a city (3:6). God does not just destroy cities or nations on a whim. He does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked but instead desires that they turn from their evil ways (Ezek. 18:23). Consequently, God will send a natural disaster or a plague to wake people up and cause them to turn to him for help (Amos 4:6–11). Or perhaps he will reveal his plans to one of his prophets and send him to warn a city of those plans (Jonah 1:2). God’s secret plans about the Flood were revealed to Noah (Gen. 6:13–21), and his plans to destroy Sodom were made known to Abraham (18:17–21). Like Amos 3:7, each of these examples has the result (God’s action) preceded by the cause (God’s plan), which is explained to a prophetic messenger.
The implications are too obvious to miss. Why has Amos given this news about God’s plan to destroy Israel? He has not dreamed these ideas up out of the blue. God has revealed them to the prophet because he intends to act in the near future, and he desires to have one of his servants warn those he will judge.10
The final verse (3:8) is the conclusion, and it calls for action. It encourages the listener to be aware of the cause (God’s roar) and to accomplish the intended results (fear God). Amos is repeating God’s roaring words to persuade the Israelites that God is roaring against them. They must realize that God can and will destroy Israel.
Amos calls for a personal decision to respond appropriately (with fear) to God’s revelation of his plans. The Israelites are failing to live responsibly and to follow covenant values. The prophet integrates his earlier references to the lion’s roaring just before it attacks its prey (3:4) with his comments about the need for people to fear when God destroys a city (3:6). His prophecy is God’s roaring warning of his impending attack; it is that trumpet blast that warns of an approaching danger. Amos’s words (the results) are based on what God said (the cause). He cannot keep quiet, because he also wants his audience to heed the warning and respond with fear.
Bridging Contexts
THIS PASSAGE PROMOTES the principle of thinking logically and basing beliefs and behavior on God’s revelation. So often disagreements among believers center on emotional feelings, debatable reasoning, cultural traditions, or differences in procedural methods, not on the teaching of the Bible. These minor debates are best solved by examining the evidence for both sides of a question and by avoiding the trap of turning these differences into major divisions through personality conflicts. On some of these issues there is more than one way of understanding things. A Christian spirit of tolerance should rule wherever possible, saving serious disagreements for correcting deceptive interpretations or false applications of biblical passages.
Two theological principles arise from these verses. (1) God’s revelation should not be turned into deceptive lies that make conditional promises into absolute guarantees of blessing. (2) When people hear an unpopular word of criticism or judgment, they should ask two questions: What might cause these results (the criticism or judgment by others), and what results should this lead to (how should I respond)? Both of these issues relate to dealing with conflicts that may arise when one person is trying to change the values or worldview of another person.
Self-deception among believers. Amos addresses a problem within the theology of Israel, the people of God. The question relates to the fundamental relationship between God and his people. Is it purely a one-sided commitment, where Israel will eternally enjoy God’s grace and experience only the fulfillment of promised covenant blessings?
Certainly every believer’s relationship to God is based on his grace. No one would deny its central role. Amos reminds his audience of God’s grace in calling only this one family of the earth to be his special people—a nation whom God graciously delivered from Egyptian bondage (Amos 3:1–2). Many years later Paul similarly reminded the Ephesians that their relationship to God is based on grace received through faith in Christ, not on their own works of righteousness (Eph. 2:8–10). Any attempt to add any other requirements to the gospel turns it into a contrary and deceptive gospel (Gal. 1:6–10).
But Amos is not arguing with his audience about how Israel received God’s favor when they first became his people. This nation clearly did not deserve or earn those blessings (Deut. 7:6–8; 9:1–8), and there is no reason to believe Amos and his audience disagree on this point. Neither is the issue whether Israel can still receive more blessings in the future when God establishes his eternal kingdom.11 The discussion is over what God’s people can expect from him right now, and what he can expect from his people. Will God only deliver blessings? Will he test some with a trial or sickness? Will he absolutely guarantee blessing regardless of the behavior of the recipients? Is not the covenant relationship a two-way street with both blessings and cursings promised (Deut. 27–28)?
The early history of the nation shows that they did not always receive blessings. The account of the Israelite judges contains cycles of the people rejecting God, being persecuted by an enemy, and then being delivered by a judge sent by God (see Judg. 3). How can Amos’s audience think they will be blessed regardless of their behavior? This is a deceptive theology.
In the New Testament Paul states that unbelievers have suppressed the truth and deceived themselves (Rom. 1:18–22),12 but it is surprising to learn that the Hebrew people in Amos’s time and again later on in Jeremiah’s day deceived themselves into believing that they were innocent of sin (Jer. 2:35). Even though Israel had already gone into exile by Jeremiah’s time, people in his day were still deceiving themselves into thinking that God would not destroy Judah (6:13–15; 14:13–14). Jeremiah saw the temple as a source of deception because some thought it would automatically protect them from destruction no matter what they did (7:1–14).
Being born a Hebrew does not guarantee God’s blessing (see Hos. 1:4–9), offering a sacrifice does not guarantee God will forgive one’s sins (Isa. 1:10–15), and proclaiming you believe but not showing it in your life does not impress God since even demons believe (James 2:14–19). Self-deceptions may become so severe that people will actually think they are believers when they are not (Matt. 7:21–23).
For a while, self-deceptions make life easier, happier, less disciplined, and less demanding. They often turn hard questions that people need to struggle with into meaningless, pat answers. An absolute “because God said so” is an appropriate answer to some questions, but it can hide an unwillingness to deal with the complex hermeneutical challenges of making the Bible meaningful today. Many self-deceptions arise when people do not weigh the whole counsel of God together, but inappropriately give undue attention to a few verses that may be taken out of context. Making conditional promises into unconditional guarantees may make people feel good, but they have no authority and will ultimately fail the disappointed victims of deceit.
Understanding causes and results. When people look at events that happen to them, some deny God a place in their lives and conclude that he is uninvolved with their world, that he does not cause anything. Others limit the input of scientific rationalism and believe that God is actively influencing them and leading them to the truth through the power of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in them (John 16:7–13). They know God sovereignly controls nature and can bring either blessing or harm to people (Amos 4:6–11). God raises up nations and destroys others as he brings about his master plan for all peoples (Dan. 2:20–21; 4:28–37). These facts do not obliterate free choice and the participation of humankind in influencing events, for God is not playing games but maturing believers and developing relationships with people (Jer. 18:1–12).
Many people get obsessed with one theological brand of understanding the degree of human freedom or the degree of divine enforcement of his will, but Amos seems unconcerned about these theoretical debates. He simply makes the point that people need to recognize God’s hand in their lives. He puts forth three principles in Amos 3:6–8: (1) On the national level, God is involved with the process of bringing sinful nations (a status they have willfully chosen) to an end; (2) God warns people, often by sending a messenger, to give them an opportunity to influence the results (a choice can then be made by those warned) of his plans to judge them; (3) the appropriate response to God’s warning (the cause) is to turn to him in repentance and to fear him (the results).
These principles are illustrated in God’s plan to destroy the wicked Assyrian capital of Nineveh (Jonah 1:2). God warned the Ninevites through the prophet Jonah (Jonah 3:1–4), and the people responded positively by believing God, fasting, and ending their violent behavior (3:5–10). Both positive and negative causes produced results that went far beyond anything Jonah expected. The Ninevites originally did not think their violence would bring their downfall; instead, they thought it was their ticket to power and riches. Jonah did not expect that getting on a boat to Tarshish would endanger his life and the lives of many other sailors. But free choices can produce disastrous results when a wrong choice is made. God’s sovereign plan to send Jonah to Nineveh was not destroyed by his sinful choice, because God persuaded Jonah to change his opinion about going to Nineveh. The result of his message was the repentance of Nineveh, and this in turn led God to be compassionate and not judge the Assyrians.
In the Jonah story God was actively involved with causing people to choose to do his will so that the results would bring him glory. The results did not happen by accident, the causes were not accidental, and the choices were not trivial. People who realized the importance of God’s plan (even though they did not understand its breadth and complete significance) knew that their choice to be involved with the fulfillment of God’s plan produced results that outweighed any objections—even the ridiculous one of Jonah that God was too compassionate (Jonah 4:1–2).
Contemporary Significance
DEALING WITH DECEPTIONS. Does being baptized in a church automatically guarantee a place in heaven? Does taking Communion magically produce forgiveness regardless of a person’s true attitude? Does confirmation or church membership necessarily bring God’s favor for the rest of a person’s life? Does keeping the Golden Rule guarantee a person will be treated kindly by God? Are these wise maxims or deceptive myths? Are these foolish ideas or rules to live by that are widely believed by religious people? Unfortunately, some people attempt to comfort themselves by rationalizing deceptive ideas that contain a portion of the truth but miss the overall thrust of what is needed to please and glorify God.
Sociologists call this kind of self-deception a reification.13 This happens when people view a social phenomenon in the world as fixed and unchangeable, thus giving it an ontological status. They may believe that a human social institution like the church must operate like the divinely designed pattern used by the early disciples in Acts 4:32–35. If one reifies this pattern as an absolute one, then no one may change any part of this formula. If the church service is a divine pattern of social relationships to be used by all cultures, then it is not possible to adapt it to different situations or cultures.
If, however, the early church was a human social institution guided by God to meet the needs of Jewish people during the famine in Jerusalem while the church was in its infancy, then its structure in the early pages of Acts should not be reified but is open to change. People today are then free to ask how to conceptualize and organize the church to meet the needs of people today in different cultures, such as in China, Brazil, Kenya, and Sweden.
Many in the Amish community, for example, have reified certain cultural patterns of behavior and dress. They have given a certain dress code an absolute status, but other Christians look at the principles of modesty, humility, and separation from the world and conclude that these ideas can be implemented without maintaining such a fixed, reified dress code.
The most serious reified self-deceptions are theological.14 This happens when people give absolute divine authority and status to humanly created perceptions that do not fully represent what God has said or what he desires. The Scriptures teach about worshiping and glorifying God by singing his praise and giving testimony to his marvelous deeds (Ps. 95–99; 104–105). But some people believe that this eliminates certain kinds of music (modern rhythmic choruses), of musical instruments (drums), and of worshiping behavior (lifting your hands). This ignores the fact that every culture has its own indigenous meaningful way of expressing worship.
To reify one cultural means of expressing praise to God is an erroneous approach to understanding the spirit of true worship. If a worship experience is not a meaningful way for people in each culture to express their love for God, then it is not worship that can naturally flow from the inner being of that people group. At one time, for example, Gregorian chants were a meaningful means of praising God, but today they are seldom heard since for most people they are not a part of their culture.
Some people suffer under the delusions of television pastors who promise health and wealth if one gives money to the work of that ministry. Oral Roberts, A. A. Allen, Gordon Lindsay, Kenneth Hagin, and a host of lesser known preachers have published and preached the prosperity message, claiming that God promises wealth and prosperity to those who claim his promises.15 This teaching is based on the King James translation of verses like 3 John 2, “I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health,” Old Testament covenant blessings of wealth for those who remain faithful (Deut. 7:13–15; 8:18; 28:1–14), and God’s promise to Joshua that he would prosper and be successful if he meditated on God’s law (Josh. 1:8). Through Christ, Abraham’s blessing are considered to be available to Christians today.
These preachers also teach that Christ’s atonement has delivered believers from the curse of the law and the three major enemies of the Christian: poverty, sickness, and death.16 Such deliverance and consequent prosperity are usually presented as conditioned by a believer’s willingness to plant a financial seed, so that it can bear fruit a hundredfold. Of course, each of these preachers strongly encourages, and at times badgers, people to give that seed money to their ministries, not to their local church.
Is this a deceptive theology that twists the truth of Scripture? Many think so. Is God primarily interested in developing a wealthy social class of believers? Can one take the specific promise given to Joshua and directly apply it to our modern situation? Was not Joshua’s prospering more related to successfully conquering the Canaanites rather than becoming a rich man? Are believers today still under the covenant stipulations and the blessings that applied to Abraham or Moses? Are we not under the new covenant through Christ? And is not the statement in 3 John 2 the author’s own specific wish for Gaius, the recipient of John’s letter, not God’s promise to all Christians?
Gordon Fee says that “to extend John’s wish for Gaius to refer to financial and material prosperity for all Christians of all times is totally foreign to the text”17 (emphasis his), for this was just a common greeting. How does this health and wealth teaching coincide with Paul’s warning to Timothy (1 Tim. 6:9–19) about the evil of loving money? Why were not Jesus, the disciples, and the early church wealthy if this is really God’s will for all believers? Even people within this movement have criticized the excesses and abuses this movement has generated.18
Overemphasis on these theological beliefs can also lead to materialism, “the idolatrous elevation of money and material possessions it will buy as the goal of life.”19 Hebrews 13:5 warns believers: “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have.” Jesus himself warned a wealthy man to “be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist of the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15). In a parable Jesus saw a strong negative side to wealth because “the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful” (Mark 4:19). First John 2:15 also warns: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” Among the many proverbs about the dangers of wealth is: “Better a little with the fear of the LORD than great wealth with turmoil” (Prov. 15:16).
These verses suggest that the health and wealth gospel has selectively emphasized a few key verses but ignored the broader teachings of Scripture on wealth. They have deceptively interpreted verses that do not directly apply to anyone today and engendered a spirit of materialism and greed, rather than the wise stewardship of whatever amount of money God allows each person to use to bring glory to his name.20 Jesus encouraged his disciples to seek first the kingdom of God, and all the other things we need will follow later (Matt. 6:33).
Cause and effect. Each spring when my father let the cattle on our farm out to start eating the new fresh grass, some cows had to relearn the cause-and-effect principle related to electric fences. Some just sniffed at the wire and remembered the painful effect of the electric jolt they received the previous year when they touched it with their wet noses. Others approached the flimsy fence for the first time and received the shock of their life, but somehow they did not fully realize what was causing this terrible pain. Since they did not perceive the relationship between the single strand of barbed wire and this strong electrical jolt, they foolishly ignored their earlier warning and attempted to eat grass on the other side of the fence. Usually it only took a couple tries and all the animals feared (the effect) the thin wire (the cause) and stayed far away from it.
Sometimes people learn by trial and error too, but we have the advantage of having friends and family who can tell us what causes bad results. Parents naturally make the connection between cause and effect to teach their children about the dangers of fire (it will burn you), the nearby river (you may drown), and playing in the street (a car may hit you). Drivers realize that speeding may result in an expensive ticket, and airplane pilots know that gravity will cause a disaster if the airplane does not maintain sufficient speed.
Many times it is not hard to see the connection between cause and effect, but at other times this relationship is mysterious. Many sick patients wonder what is the real cause of their discomfort. Sometimes medical doctors agonize over unclear or confusing symptoms. Is the medical problem in the nervous system caused by a virus, a psychological problem, a cancerous bone disorder, or a little known chemical in the environment producing strange changes in neural responses?
When people deal with the spiritual realm, a similar situation exists. Spiritually sensitive people know some of the moral laws of God and see them as clearly as the effect of gravity in nature. Other causes and results are as mysterious as Job’s trials—beyond human comprehension. Though believers in Christ must freely admit that they will never understand every cause and effect, God has not left people totally in the dark. There are things we can understand. Amos 3:1–8 suggests some questions that people can ask themselves: What are God’s plans and the spiritual principles that govern life (3:6)? Has God sent a message to warn about his impending plans (3:7)? What is the best way of responding to God’s admonitions (3:8)?
It is not hard to see that nations who are strong and wealthy and who have deceived themselves into thinking that disaster will never strike them (9:10) are in the great danger of not understanding the planned relationship God has made between their sins (the cause) and their punishment (the effect). Individuals who are proud and do not want to be involved with God (the cause) often find out the hard way (the effect) that God wants to have a relationship with them. Surprisingly, people who are usually oriented in the natural world can be blind when it comes to God’s participation with national events as well as each person’s individual pilgrimage. The modern culture’s overemphasis on individual freedom and self-determination has idealized the value of free choice and reacted against the thought that anyone, even God, will sovereignly bring about an effect (his plan) for their lives.
This dilemma addresses the essence of faith and the Christian life, for those who willingly submit their will to the plan of God and entrust themselves to his care recognize that he directs the results and believe that his plan is best (Eccl. 3:12–14). This process still involves a choice, but it purposely limits other choices to those proposed by God. The effect of becoming mature in Christ, of using spiritual gifts, and of fulfilling God’s calling cannot be achieved without repeatedly choosing to accept God’s plan.
Thus, as Amos suggests, believers must continuously inquire about God’s plan (since we know he has one), listen for warnings from divine messengers that raise questions about the plan that the believer is following (since we know he sends people to warn us), respond to that warning with fear, and change (we know God accepts this response). To ignore the relationship between cause and effect is as silly as saying that a trap was sprung, but nothing caused it (Amos 3:5).