3:9Proclaim to the fortresses of Ashdod
and to the fortresses of Egypt:
“Assemble yourselves on the mountains of Samaria;
see the great unrest within her
and the oppression among her people.”
10“They do not know how to do right,” declares the LORD,
“who hoard plunder and loot in their fortresses.”
11Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
“An enemy will overrun the land;
he will pull down your strongholds
and plunder your fortresses.”
12This is what the LORD says:
“As a shepherd saves from the lion’s mouth
only two leg bones or a piece of an ear,
so will the Israelites be saved,
those who sit in Samaria
on the edge of their beds
and in Damascus on their couches.”
13“Hear this and testify against the house of Jacob,” declares the Lord, the LORD God Almighty.
14“On the day I punish Israel for her sins,
I will destroy the altars of Bethel;
the horns of the altar will be cut off
and fall to the ground.
15I will tear down the winter house
along with the summer house;
the houses adorned with ivory will be destroyed
and the mansions will be demolished,”
declares the LORD.
4:1Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,
you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy
and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”
2The Sovereign LORD has sworn by his holiness:
“The time will surely come
when you will be taken away with hooks,
the last of you with fishhooks.
3You will each go straight out
through breaks in the wall,
and you will be cast out toward Harmon,”
declares the LORD.
Original Meaning
IN THIS SECOND part of the section 3:1–6:14, Amos attempts to convince his listeners of the reality of his threats by expanding the basis of his earlier statements. The evidence supports his claim that they have sinned by oppressing others. As a result, an enemy will come and destroy their objects of security. Their richly decorated and strong palace fortresses, as well as the altar in their temple at the city of Bethel, will protect them no longer.
The setting of these oracles is the city of Samaria (3:9, 12; 4:1), but the exact occasion is unknown.1 The audience appears to include some wealthy people who have opulent summer and winter homes (3:15). These upper-class citizens have everything anyone could ever want, but the moral values of this elite group are most despicable. There is so much oppression and violence in their homes that it looks as if they do not know right from wrong (3:10).
These verses are grouped into three short paragraphs (3:9–12; 3:13–15; 4:1–3), each of which begins with an imperative form of the same verb (šmʿ, to hear) and includes accusations and punishments, typical characteristics of a prophetic judgment speech. Some find evidence of a covenant lawsuit here, but most of the structure of a lawsuit is not present.2
An Enemy Will Destroy the Places of Violence (3:9–12)
AMOS BEGINS THE first paragraph with a call for the wealthy people (they live in fortresses) in two foreign nations to serve as witnesses to the violence in Samaria.3 This will verify his earlier claims of oppressive acts in 2:6–8 and legitimate the need for Israel’s judgment. It is ironic that Amos calls two oppressive pagan nations to serve as impartial expert witnesses. This summons is probably intended to have a dramatic effect on his audience because the Israelites would abhor the thought of people from Egypt and Ashdod4 watching what they are doing inside the city walls of Samaria and then condemning them for improper behavior.
This summons is probably a rhetorical device to make a point since there is never any report of what these people see.5 Amos’s own experience in Samaria has informed him what these witnesses would see inside the fortresses in Israel. The Israelites are full of “unrest” and “oppression” (Amos 3:9), which characterize the lifestyle of the rich and famous. The two Hebrew words used here point to confusion, violence, and panic. The nobles and royal families have produced a disorientation to what a secure way of life should be. The exploitation and intimidation of the poor and powerless have allowed the upper class to live in luxury. Their lust for power and status have led to violence and a disrespect for human values. These two activities are the opposite of God’s peace (2 Chron. 15:5) and the state of joy he can give (Ezek. 7:7).6
Amos concludes that those who live in these palace fortresses have developed a culture of accepting this kind of violence as a normal pattern of behavior. Consequently, they seem not to know the difference between right and wrong (Amos 3:10). They do not value the ideals of justice, honesty, and proper interpersonal relationships that are foundational to the covenant and part of every person’s conscience. Common sense and fair play, humanitarianism and mutual respect are foreign to their thinking. Presumably the Israelites have adopted the moral standards of the secular culture around them and are behaving like Canaanites, though Amos never makes that explicit connection. The Israelites have the sin problem, which cannot be sidestepped by blaming others or by rationalizing their actions with the excuse that everyone else is doing it.
The upper class is consumed with amassing more possessions. The NIV’s “who hoard plunder and loot” is an interpretation of the literal metaphor of “who hoard violence and destruction.” The first term usually describes bloodshed and the assaulting of other people, while the second Hebrew root relates to the way one treats property. In this case the Israelites’ violence against the others allows them to hoard their furniture and personal belongings. This probably includes both the taking of belongings as a result of wars the Israelites have won and the semilegal robbery of poor people in Israel.7 It enables the rich to furnish their homes with great splendor; in fact, they are even stockpiling some of these treasures. In God’s eyes the results of these cruel acts are living proof of guilt.8 It seems surprising that these people have the audacity to proudly display such things openly, feeling no shame for what they have done (cf. 2:8).
Since Amos wants to convince his audience that God will actually judge them, he must not only remind them of their sins and failures but also warn them that the acts listed in 3:9–10 will produce disastrous consequences for the nation (see 3:11–12).9 God will bring an unnamed enemy nation to oppress the royal and noble inhabitants of Samaria, and they will receive the same treatment they have given to others.
This will be a three-step process (3:11). First, an army will surround the land of Israel so that there will be no escape, then the walls of the secure fortified cities will be pulled down, and finally the enemy will help themselves to the lavish assortment of plunder from the homes of the upper class.10 Note that Amos does not talk in general third-person terms about some unnamed people who will experience these things, but he uses the second person to emphasize that these things will happen to “you who are now listening to me” (cf. “your strongholds . . . your fortresses”).
The extent of the destruction in Samaria is illustrated by a common analogy known from the experience of shepherds who care for sheep belonging to someone else. Everyone knew it was impossible to protect every sheep and lamb from every wild animal that roamed the hills around Samaria. If a sheep was killed, Israelite law required the shepherd to “recover” (not “save,” as in the NIV) whatever remained and bring those few scraps to the owner to prove he did not steal the animal (Ex. 22:10–13). Although God miraculously enabled David to rescue sheep from both a lion and bear (see 1 Sam. 17:34–37), most shepherds had to wait until the sheep was eaten and then pick up the remains (e.g., “two leg bones or a piece of an ear”), to demonstrate how the animal was killed (Amos 3:12).
Amos saw a parallel between this imagined scene and what will happen when Samaria is destroyed, but the interpretation of some words in the second half of 3:12 is difficult. Amos does not say who is like the lion (probably God, based on 3:8), but the destroyed sheep are compared to the people of Samaria. The two small parts left of the dead sheep are like the two small pieces of wood left after the destruction of Samaria. The word ubdmšq is unclear, and it has been interpreted to refer to (1) people in the city of “Damascus” (as in the NIV), (2) “damask” silk that might be put on a bed, or (3) “a part of a leg” of a bed. This last suggestion is preferable and is based on the idea that ubdmšq was originally two words that somehow mistakenly became joined by a scribe as one word.11 A final problem relates to whether yšb refers to those who “sit” on their couches (as in NIV) or is describing those who “dwell” in Samaria.12
In spite of the technical problems with interpreting this verse, all agree Amos is using a powerful metaphor to communicate the total destruction of Samaria by an enemy army.
God Will Destroy Their Places of Security (3:13–15)
THIS BRIEF PARAGRAPH begins with two imperatives that call for someone to “hear . . . and testify against” or solemnly warn (cf. 3:9) this Israelite audience of coming judgments. This oracle has no formal accusation section like a usual judgment speech, but the reference to God’s plan to “punish Israel for her sins” connects this speech with the prophet’s earlier accusations in 2:6 and 3:2. There is no mention of an enemy army here as in 3:11; God himself is the real power that will bring destruction on Israel’s “day” of divine visitation. This day is undefined, but it probably refers to the “day of the LORD,” the day of God’s terrible visitation of wrath on Israel (mentioned more explicitly in 5:18–20).
To drive home God’s main point, Amos describes the removal of two of Israel’s sources of security: the altars where they worship and their strongly fortified mansions. The altars of Bethel include those in the king’s state temple (7:13), where the golden calf was located (see 1 Kings 12:28–32). The mention of the horns of the altar points to the removal of two important functions. (1) The people will no longer be able to put some of the blood from their sacrifices on the horns of the altar (Lev. 4:7; 16:18), so that the possibility of making atonement for their sins is being removed. (2) Nor will they be able to grasp the horns of the altar to gain protection from punishment (Ex. 21:12–14; 1 Kings 1:50; 2:28). These images forewarn the impending end of Israel’s religious security. They will have no cultic way of protecting themselves from God’s wrath when he visits the nation on that fateful day. Their last security blanket will be removed.
God will also remove the royal court and the wealthy’s social status, financial security, and physical protection (Amos 3:15) when he tears down their homes (see also 6:8, 11). These palace fortresses were elaborately furnished with expensive furniture with rare carved ivory inlays imported from both Assyria and Africa.13 These fine pieces in elegant style filled their winter homes (at warmer lower elevations) and summer homes (at cooler high elevations).14 The demolition of these luxurious villas will remove all the economic advantages of the rich and vaporize any sense of physical security.
God Will Exile the Oppressors (4:1–3)
LIKE THE EARLIER two oracles, this final one also begins with the imperative “hear this word.” Amos now addresses a specific group of people in Samaria—its wealthiest citizens. A few have understood the “cows of Bashan” as a symbol of the leaders of Samaria or a reference to the Baal fertility cult, but most conclude that this imagery is a cutting reference to the rich women in Samaria.15 The feminine gender of cows and the fact that these “cows” ask their husbands to wait on them (4:1) imply that Amos is addressing women.
“Cows of Bashan” is a fitting symbol for these wealthy women, because the area north of the Yarmuk river in Transjordan was known for its fertile fields and its well-fed cattle (Deut. 32:14; Ps. 22:12; Ezek. 39:18). These pampered, self-indulgent, and bossy ladies maintain their lifestyle by exploiting the poor, crushing the needy, and speaking demandingly to those around them. The exact method of doing this is not explicitly described, but the result is the subjugation and impoverishment of many poor people to produce greater wealth for those who are already rich. There is no concern, compassion, or care for the weak, only further crushing demands and more injustice. These women also treat their husbands (lit., “lords”) the same way, demanding that they wait on them hand and foot so they can indulge themselves in satisfying their pleasures.
Verses 2–3 are God’s irrevocable oath of judgment against these women. He swears on the basis of his own “holiness” to emphasize the irrefutability of his decision. When God says something, it will happen; but when God swears an oath, it is impossible to imagine anything less that 100 percent accuracy. When God’s holy character is invoked in an oath, he is putting his divine character at stake. Through this terminology Amos communicates in the most powerful way possible the unalterable will of God.
The oath itself warns of “coming days” (hidden by the NIV’s “the time”) that will signal the beginning of a new era for Israel. It may be an eschatological day (9:13) or just a new period in the near future (Jer. 7:32; 16:14). The general picture in Amos 4:2–3 is that the walls of the city will be destroyed and the people of Samaria will go into exile.
Although this much is clear, the meaning of several words is difficult to understand. The word ṣinnot means “shields” elsewhere in the Old Testament (1 Kings 10:16; Ezek. 23:24), but that does not fit here. It is better to follow either the common suggestion that this refers to the idea that people will be taken from Samaria with “hooks” or “fishhooks” (NIV, NASB, RSV)16 or, using another fishing analogy, like “baskets” or “pots.”17 This may suggest a situation similar to that pictured in Assyrian reliefs, which show captives marching off into exile with each prisoner being connected to a rope through a hook in his or her nose or lip.18 Those who have treated other people like animals will reap what they have sown. These symbols of defeat and humiliation will put an end to the luxurious living and oppressive behavior of the “cows of Bashan.”
This will happen when an enemy nation, or possibly an earthquake, creates several breaches in the strong walls of Samaria (Amos 4:3) so that the population can be removed from the city at many places. The people’s opulent homes, wealth, and power over others will not save them. They will be unceremoniously thrown out of this secure environment and left in “Harmon” (NIV), a possible geographic reference to the area of Mount Hermon. This is generally parallel to the later announcement that the people will be exiled “beyond Damascus”(5:27). The tragic end of Israel will include both the disgraceful treatment of its finest citizens and their deportation to an unknown life of captivity and abuse by others.
With this kind of abrasive vocabulary and straightforward confrontation, Amos is not so much trying to persuade people to believe what God has said he will do; rather, he is simply telling them that this severe destruction will happen. Sometimes honest confrontation will harden the heart of the listener, but at other times an offensive means of communicating a message actually helps to get the seriousness of the point across.
Bridging Contexts
THE MESSAGE AMOS communicates to the people in Samaria is a specific message from God that applies to the people living at that time. Although the destructive punishment in each of the paragraphs is primarily related to the ancient audience Amos encounters, each oracle in this sermon does address fundamental issues not limited to his time. Several enduring theological principles help us relate these ideas to modern situations today.
God cannot bless those who use violence to gain possessions and power. All three oracles are addressed to people who put a high value on possessions, wealth, pleasure, and their own personal security. These are the upper income earners of society, who have many of the material things that common people yearn to have. Although wealth, pleasure, and possessions are not forbidden and security from danger is a good feeling, Amos’s audience obtains these worldly advantages in an immoral way and gives them inordinate status far beyond their true value. Thus, the real problem is not that wealthy people exist in Israel; rather, it is the way they live and how they have gotten their wealth—they are unjust.19
In 3:9–10 and 4:1 God condemns a lifestyle of violence, oppression, anarchy, selfishness, and injustice toward others. Violence and oppression characterize the aggressive actions of the powerful toward those who are weak and poor (4:1, possibly poor peasants who work the land of these rich Israelites), and this attitude is a major behavioral characteristic even within their grand homes (3:9–10, possibly in relationships to servants). God has rejected violence as an acceptable behavior pattern as far back as the Flood (Gen. 6:11–13). He judged the Egyptians for their oppression of the Hebrews (Ex. 3:7–9; 5:14–16) and determined to destroy the Assyrian empire and its capital of Nineveh because of its excessive military savagery (Jonah 3:4–10).
The legal traditions in the covenant stipulations present a strong case for the just treatment of others and specifically forbid the oppression of the poor (Lev. 25:35–43; Deut. 15:7–18; 24:15). God warns against hardening one’s heart against the needy and encourages people to give generously to them, just as he had generously provided for his people in their time of affliction. To behave oppressively is a sign that one does not fear God (Lev. 25:43). People who act this way have either thoroughly rejected God’s instructions about justice in earlier tradition or are so perverted by their selfishness and rationalization of improper behavior that they no longer fully comprehend the distinction between right and wrong (Amos 3:10). In such a state, selfish goals and desires are given the highest value.
This sometimes evidences itself in the hoarding of unneeded expensive possessions (furniture with ivory inlays in 3:15) or multiple homes (3:15), which have no utilitarian purpose or necessary function. These patterns of greed and power may be based on the perverted values of the secular culture, but often these acts run contrary to the religious ideals of society as well as the consciences of most moral people. God sees how people treat one another and will hold each generation accountable for their acts of violence and their attitudes toward wealth.
Possessions and even religious institutions provide only a deceptive security. Once people begin to amass expensive homes, power over other people, and a big income, it is easy for them to find their identity and value in these things. If a person’s reputation and hope for the future is invested in these material values, there is a natural tendency to place one’s security in them. When possessions take on this kind of importance, people will go to great extremes to protect their power. Moreover, when anything seriously threatens their status, they will sometimes act in illegal or immoral ways to maintain their affluent lifestyle. Amos views these as false sources of security that God will remove.
A more legitimate source of security is the people’s worship of God at the temple. If appropriate sacrifices are presented at the altar, God promises to forgive people of their sins, and they will be protected from his wrath (Lev. 4–5). The altar also provided temporary security if a crime was accidentally committed (cf. Lev. 4:22–26). But Amos envisions a time when all religious symbols of security will be removed (Amos 3:14). If the people coming to the altar are guilty of deliberate crimes of violence and oppression, neither the horns of the altar nor any other religious ritual can save them. If there is no genuine confession of sin and commitment to change their behavior, any sense of security gained from being at the temple is false.
This oracle thus provides a warning for everyone to avoid false assumptions based on the existence of temple buildings or the observance of required rituals. God wants people in every culture and time to depend on him alone. We cannot substitute some cheap religious counterfeit that produces a false source of security. When religious institutions get in the way of our relationship with God, they have lost all value and need to be eliminated.
On God’s day of judgment, he will remove all sources of false security. The “day of the LORD,” his great day of judgment, is introduced as the ominous time when God will take sovereign control of his people’s history and bring it to a temporary end. He will direct nations to attack his own people to remove their possessions, wealth, expensive furniture, and secure homes. Nothing will stand—not the thick walls that protect their cities, nor even their temples and the altars where God is worshiped. God’s day will destroy the worldview of the wealthy Israelites by eliminating the props that support it. The wealthy will no longer have grand, luxurious homes, power to boss others around, or altars where they can seek God’s mercy. The nation of Israel will be in ruins, and the upper class will be led into captivity.
Power, wealth, and religious symbols do not provide eternal security. God’s intervention to remove these false sources of security is sometimes the only way he can teach people that these factors have limited value. When human sources of security become stumbling blocks to a trusting relationship with God, they may need to be removed. Such events will force people to reevaluate their thinking about God and their possessions: Why has God allowed this judgment on me? Did I do something wrong? How can I change so as to remove God’s curse and be assured of his blessing in the future?
Contemporary Significance
HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS today deal with possessions and wealth? Are possessions and wealth evils that God hates, or can people have possessions if they do not let them become a source of security? Are large homes and expensive furniture forbidden, or is God mainly concerned with how people value these objects? What can believers say to the materialistic society of today concerning the gaining and maintaining of wealth? While Amos mainly focuses on implications related to the last part of this question, he assumes some basic conclusions related to a theology of possessions.
It is not hard to find passages outside the Old Testament prophets that condemn people who are wealthy. In John’s message to the church at Laodicea, he says: “You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (Rev. 3:17). Similarly the apostle Paul encourages Timothy: “Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment” (1 Tim. 6:17). Paul also warns that “people who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction” (6:9).
In these cases wealth can became a stumbling block to a person’s trust in God, a source of temptation to sin, and may lead to a false perception of reality. James 5:3–6 also confirms that God will judge those who have
hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. . . . You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.20
In light of these dire warnings, it may seem somewhat surprising to learn that God is the One who gives people the possessions they have and also the ability to gain wealth (Deut. 8:17–18). God’s original intention was that people be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:26–28), and he promised the patriarchs fruitfulness and blessings (12:1–3). God gave the Israelites possession of the land of Canaan with homes, wells, vineyards, and fields full of grain for them to inherit (Deut. 8:6–9). In these and other cases it is clear that possessions and wealth are not inherently inappropriate for believers. Yet these passages tend to conflict with Jesus’ demand to the rich young ruler to sell everything (Luke 18:22) and the early church’s practice of renouncing personal property and holding everything in common (Acts 2:44–45). Jesus also taught his disciples to go out and spread the good news of the kingdom without a purse, extra sandals, staff, or money (Luke 9:1–5).
If there is one thing we learn from this variety of viewpoints, it is to be careful about making blanket applications about possessions based on one verse. Each of these teachings makes sense in its context, but not all people are in these same contexts. In each case the interpreter must deal with the attitude a person has toward wealth and material things. As L. Johnson says, “The way we use, own, acquire, and disperse material things symbolizes and expresses our attitudes and responses to ourselves, the world around us, other people, and, most of all, God.”21
One can read one text and come to the conclusion that God hates the rich and loves the poor (e.g., Luke 16:14–31), but we must go beyond this surface impression to ask why God relates to these different groups in such different ways. “Is wealth determined by the quantity of material things I have or the degree of my attachment to them?”22 If this second point is true, then the love of money, greed, and focus on gaining more possessions may be as much of a problem for the poor as the moderately well-to-do. The broader principles of Scripture condemn anyone (rich and poor) who centers attention on gaining possessions, finds ultimate value and self-esteem in wealth, is preoccupied and motivated only by expanding material security, and places hope and satisfaction in money. But if the heart is centered on God and possessions are seen as gifts from God, then contentment can be found in enjoying whatever God has given.
In God’s wisdom he has not given the same amount of material possessions to everyone. Those without abundance must be content, and those with abundance must be content and generous with what they have (Phil. 4:12; 1 Tim. 6:17–18). If people take what God has given to another or obtain goods stolen through the slave labor of another, God will correct the injustice by removing the unjust gains. God’s opposition to inappropriate means of accumulating wealth through oppression of weaker people is a central emphasis in Amos’s message. This is a prophetic message that the church must live by and proclaim to the world today. According to Bonhoeffer, “Our being Christian today will be limited to two things: prayer and doing justice among men.”23 Such statements should not be taken lightly, for a people’s devotion to prayer and justice reveals the essentials of their relationship to God and others.
Where does true security come from? A biblical attitude toward possessions is directly related to the issue of security. But earthly possessions are not the only source of deceptive security. One way of developing false hopes is by turning religious institutions, ceremonies, or symbols into something more than what they really are. The altar, sacrifices, ark, and temple were important parts of Israel’s worship environment designed by God. Each had a positive meaning that helped people understand how they could be forgiven of their sins and renew fellowship with him. But each was also open to many misunderstandings and deceptive perceptions.
The ark, for example, was the holy furnishing associated with God’s presence in the Most Holy Place (Ex. 25:22), but it was not a magical wand or security blanket that would protect the Israelites at all times. When they brashly “brought back the ark of the covenant of the LORD Almighty” into battle to gain power over their enemies (1 Sam. 4:3–4), God did not give them victory over the Philistines. Instead, Israel was defeated, and the ark was taken into the temple of Dagon (4:10–5:12). Later in Jeremiah’s day, the prophet accused the people of falsely trusting in God’s presence in the temple in Jerusalem (Jer. 7:4). He claimed that the temple would not protect them when God destroyed Jerusalem. If one trusts in a building, even a special religious structure dedicated to God, there will be disappointment. The key to our security is to be found in stopping forbidden behaviors that displease God and in amending our ways (7:3–9).
Likewise, Luther preached against the false teaching of the Roman church of his day because it led people astray into false securities not based on grace. He claimed:
Every teacher of works-righteousness is a trouble-maker . . . the pope, cardinals, bishops, monks, and that whole synagogue of Satan are trouble-makers . . . they are worse than false apostles. The false apostles [in Galatia] taught that in addition to faith in Christ the works of the Law of God were necessary unto salvation. But the papist omit faith altogether and teach self-devised traditions and works that are not commanded of God.24
After seeing the light of God’s grace from Paul’s letter to the Galatians, Luther knew he had to give up the false security of his old ways. He confessed, “I was much in fasting, watching, praying, saying of masses, and the like. Yet under the cloak of my outward respectability I continually mistrusted, doubted, feared, hated, and blasphemed God. My righteousness was a filthy puddle. Satan loves such saints.”25
Are there people in our churches today who need to come to the same realization about their spiritual condition? What kind of religious or theological securities do we depend on? What beliefs or practices assure us that everything is right between us and God? Naturally, the answers will vary on the religious traditions practiced and the spiritual maturity of the person. I have spoken to people who believe they will be treated kindly by God because they have kept the Golden Rule of “treating others as they want to be treated.” Others feel their baptism as a child or their partaking of Communion recently will please God. Others depend on a ritual prayer or the repetition of some formula. There seems to be a widespread feeling that if I do certain things, God will repay me with his favor. This is based on a general belief in the justice of God and biblical passages that connect God’s covenantal blessings to human obedience (Deut. 27–28).
Three problems surface with these kinds of expectations. (1) Human experience demonstrates that good people sometimes suffer unexpected tragedies. This has happened in my own family and in the families of two of our friends. It is a deceptive security to depend on your good behavior to automatically bring material blessings. This is much like the case of God’s righteous servant Job, who suddenly had God’s blessings removed and his health destroyed (Job 1–3). When these things happen, it is not unusual for people to question God (much as Job did) because they live with the false security that bad things will not happen to good people.
Such incidents do not mean that God does not exist or that he is unjust; rather, they point to the fact that there is not always a one-to-one relationship between a person’s actions and God’s response in this world. People may try to limit what God can and should do, but such positive formulations only make the reality of life more bitter when God does not follow these plans.
(2) The Bible describes the harsh treatment of his servants the prophets (Jer. 15:10–21; 20:1–6; 28; 37–38), Paul’s many persecutions (2 Cor. 12:10), and Peter’s advice that his audience should not be surprised if they suffer rejection (1 Peter 4:12–19). Yet most people today have a false security that they will not suffer persecution. But note that many Christians today are being persecuted because they are believers. Their lives are anything but peace and prosperity, in spite of the fact that they are living in a way pleasing to God.
(3) It is all too apparent that many false securities are not based on a fundamental belief that every good thing a person has received is an act of God’s grace (they somehow think they have earned it). It is a perversion to conclude that we get what we deserve. If that were true, there would be no basis for any security, for everyone falls short of holiness and deserves God’s judgment.
The common element these examples have with Amos’s message is that people create false expectations and develop an empty security based on inappropriate religious grounds. At this point in Amos’s sermons (3:9–4:3), the prophet does not attempt to create a positive set of criteria for authentic security. His purpose is to remove those factors that have caused the people to develop a false sense of security. On God’s day of judgment he will allow Israel’s enemies to destroy their temples and sacred altars. There is no reason to believe God will be any less severe in removing modern securities that parade in religious or material dress. We must also warn people about imaginary securities that have no basis in Scripture and twisted biblical teachings that create false impressions of an easy way to earn God’s approval. We must confess that it is all by God’s grace.