1Woe to you who are complacent in Zion,
and to you who feel secure on Mount Samaria,
you notable men of the foremost nation,
to whom the people of Israel come!
2Go to Calneh and look at it;
go from there to great Hamath,
and then go down to Gath in Philistia.
Are they better than your two kingdoms?
Is their land larger than yours?
3You put off the evil day
and bring near a reign of terror.
4You lie on beds inlaid with ivory
and lounge on your couches.
You dine on choice lambs
and fattened calves.
5You strum away on your harps like David
and improvise on musical instruments.
6You drink wine by the bowlful
and use the finest lotions,
but you do not grieve over the ruin of Joseph.
7Therefore you will be among the first to go into exile;
your feasting and lounging will end.
8The Sovereign LORD has sworn by himself—the LORD God Almighty declares:
“I abhor the pride of Jacob
and detest his fortresses;
I will deliver up the city
and everything in it.”
9If ten men are left in one house, they too will die. 10And if a relative who is to burn the bodies comes to carry them out of the house and asks anyone still hiding there, “Is anyone with you?” and he says, “No,” then he will say, “Hush! We must not mention the name of the LORD.”
11For the LORD has given the command,
and he will smash the great house into pieces
and the small house into bits.
12Do horses run on the rocky crags?
Does one plow there with oxen?
But you have turned justice into poison
and the fruit of righteousness into bitterness—
13you who rejoice in the conquest of Lo Debar
and say, “Did we not take Karnaim by our own strength?”
14For the LORD God Almighty declares,
“I will stir up a nation against you, O house of Israel,
that will oppress you all the way
from Lebo Hamath to the valley of the Arabah.”
Original Meaning
THIS WOE ORACLE is closely connected to the lament in 5:1–17 and the woe oracle in 5:18–27. All of these refer to injustice (5:7, 24; 6:12), end with an announcement of punishment, and are set in a weeping or lamenting setting. Perhaps Amos dresses in sackcloth and sits in ashes as he gives these woeful dirges. By lamenting the bad things that come on his audience, Amos is identifying with the pain his listeners experience. He knows that the people in Israel will more likely listen to what he has to say if he sympathizes with the nation’s difficult plight in the future.
Amos 6:1–14 is divided into two paragraphs: 6:1–7 laments for the people because their complacency and affluence will bring destruction, while in 6:8–14 Amos repeats God’s oath to exile Israel because of its pride. Complacency, affluence, strong cities, huge military fortresses, and military victories in the past have created a spirit of invincibility and false security that God hates. The upper-class leaders think that they do not need God for anything, for they have everything anyone could ever want. Amos’s woe oracle bursts this bubble of deceptive security; things are not what they appear. Israel will soon suffer a death blow.
The setting of this sad woe oracle is a funeral banquet (mirzaḥ). These upper-class banquets are mentioned in Jeremiah 16:5–9 (Jeremiah is not to go to these banquets) as well as in Ugaritic, Phoenician, Nabatean, rabbinic, and later texts.1 Since many of these texts come from non-Israelite cultures or from periods long after the time of Amos, it is difficult to reconstruct what such a banquet is actually like in Amos’s day.2 At a minimum, it is known that there is a large banquet where mourning and feasting take place after someone has died. Amos finds that the wealthy people at these funeral banquets in Samaria are not doing much grieving; instead, they are carefree and happy, putting all their efforts into enjoying their sumptuous feasts.
Consequently, Amos offers his own lamenting woe oracle about the coming death and exile of these Israelites, who should be mourning the death of others in their nation. These opulent funeral feasts will cease, and the nation of Israel will be exiled.
Lament, for Complacency and Affluence Will Bring Destruction (6:1–7)
THE FIRST PART of this woe oracle laments the nation’s false sense of security (6:1–3). It is unified by the repeated use of participles and the key word “head, first” (roʾš) in 6:1, 6, and 7. Amos sorrowfully remembers that the people in Zion,3 the capital of Judah, as well as the people in Samaria, the capital of Israel, have a deceptive feeling of well-being and security (6:1). At this time in the reign of Jeroboam II, Israel was one of the most powerful nations in the ancient Near Eastern world.4 They were not worried about military threats or the state of the economy. The days of the wealthy and distinguished leaders were carefree. Amos, however, sees this worldview as an illusory perception that ignores the true state of the nation. These leaders feel important because people come to them for advice and help, but their significance is greatly exaggerated.
The people in Samaria are no better than those in surrounding cities (6:2). A person can go north of Israel to Calneh, the capital city of Hattin (cf. Isa. 10:9), or to great city of Hamath on the northern border of Israel (Amos 6:14), or to the Philistine city of Gath and find the same thing. Some commentators think Amos is referring to the defeat of these places when Tiglath-Pileser III conquered much of this territory in 738 B.C.; but Amos is writing long before these events (between 765 and 760), so he cannot be warning people that the same kind of thing may easily happen to Israel.5 Perhaps Amos wants people to see the effects of earlier conquests at 800 B.C. (though most of these ruins were rebuilt by 765), or he is quoting the proud opinions of the leaders of Israel.6 It seems best, however, to conclude that he is just contrasting the lack of complacency and illegitimate optimism in these cities with the excessive complacency in Samaria. These cities understand that they are vulnerable to attack and must be prepared to defend themselves at all times. They are not the biggest or the best, so there is no illusion about their security.
Because of Israel’s misperception of its political situation, there is a real possibility that they may be defeated (6:3). The interpretation of verse 3 is complicated by the fact that there are two paradoxical phrases about both the “bringing near” and the “putting off” of evil terror in the near future. Since one cannot both put off and bring near the same thing, some interpreters conclude that the people imagine they are putting off the evil day but are actually bringing it near.7 Another suggestion is to continue the comparison from 6:2 into 6:3 so that the first line describes “these nations”8 (6:2) as “putting off the evil day” because they feel overly secure. They are contrasted (similar to the contrast in v. 2) with “you . . . bring near” this terror; that is, the secure Israelites bring it near. This reading enhances the prophet’s rhetorical arguments against those who are foolishly resting secure.
The second half of the woe (vv. 4–7) laments the people’s careless ease and security derived from their wealth. These rich people have everything anyone can imagine, so they eat and drink the best that money can buy at their opulent funeral banquets. They lounge (lit., sprawl out; seruḥim) on expensive couches that have ivory inlays on the wood frame of the furniture (6:4).9 The existence of these ivories was confirmed when archaeologists found over sixty pieces of ivory in the excavation of the city of Samaria.10
These rich people eat grade A tender beef from prime fattened calves and choice lambs (not old or mature sheep). Although most people can rarely afford to eat any kind of meat, these people waste precious animals on their fleshly desires. This is a shocking display of inexcusable waste and hedonism in the eyes of a humble shepherd.
The people also enjoy the finest music at these banquets; they even “esteem themselves to be like David [not ‘improvise,’ as in NIV] on musical instruments” (6:5).11 How arrogant they are to openly compare themselves to the godly man David, who sang his songs to glorify God (1 Sam. 16:16, 23). The final physical aspect of these sumptuous banquets that catches Amos’s eye is the huge bowls of wine in front of each plate (they prefer to drink from punch bowls rather than tiny goblets) and the expensive imported body oils, lotions, and perfumes that people rub into their skin (see Deut. 28:40; Song 1:3; 4:10).
All these excesses are contradictory and extraneous to the real purpose of lamenting the death of a friend at a funeral banquet, but the rich relish their money and what it can buy. These people are so busy enjoying themselves that they do not notice their nation is falling apart; they “do not grieve over the ruin of Joseph” (i.e., the nation of Israel, Amos 6:6). They are not upset that people are being oppressed, that the moral and economic fiber of the nation is crumbling, or that its military power is about to be decimated. With their money and power they have everything they want. They are happy, so they ignore and deny the true status of their sick and dying nation.
Amos is in grief over the blindness of the revelers at this funeral banquet, so he ends his sorrowful lament with a dire warning of exile for the upper class. He ironically announces that these people—the “first” citizens of the “first” nation in the Near East (6:1)—will be the “first” to go into captivity (6:7). All luxurious eating, fine dining, and sprawling feasts will end. The party is over; the end has come! What a lamentable ending for God’s chosen people.
God’s Oath of Destruction for Pride (6:8–14)
THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS two parts: 6:8–11 is God’s oath and a description of the effects this oath will have on the nation, while 6:12–14 describes the absurdity of Israel’s military pride. These verses have prose sections that include dialogues and a series of questions—grammatical characteristics not found in 6:1–7. The conclusion to both of these subsections (6:11, 14) begins with ky-hnh (“For behold, truly” or “So it will be”; NIV “For”).
In verse 8 the prophet utters a powerful sworn oath. “The oath is of particular importance because it conveys to the listener the finality of the judgment and the authority of the word of God. It express the assurance that God is speaking the truth.”12 In the ancient Near East, oaths were taken seriously. A person was required to carry out an oath no matter how painful it might be. Oaths were used to finalize covenants to demonstrate that the covenant could not be broken (Gen. 26:28–31). When God swears an oath, it will happen. He cannot go back on his word because it will be contradictory to the character of deity and his commitment to accomplish his irrevocable decisions. By communicating these words of judgment in an oath form, Amos leaves no doubt about what God will do, for his very existence as God is behind this statement. This is his final, solemn, unalterable decree.
The oath expresses God’s deep feelings of abhorrence for Israel’s trust in her strong, fortified cities (Amos 6:8, 11). The powerful palace-fortresses are the status symbols of the rich and famous. The Israelites take great pride in these monuments of security. In one sense these buildings of rock replace God. The people do not need to trust him for protection because the people are already protected. They do not need to depend on God to deliver them from warring enemies or to humble themselves and pray for help since their mighty fortresses are their gods. They already have everything they need to be successful and safe. Because of such arrogance, God detests these fortresses and has decided to destroy them. He will smash these great houses to bits (6:11).
In 6:9–10 Amos illustrates what will happen to the people who live in these fortresses. There may be a house where a small remnant of ten men will be left, but they too will die. The graphic death scene in this house is described in verse 10. Some relatives (maybe from a different village) or someone assigned to burn the decaying bodies13 will come to see what has happened. One of the first things the person will do is to search the house for any survivors. The question, “Is anyone with you?” is a circumlocution for “Is anyone alive?” This question is answered with the disappointing “No” and an exhortation to “not mention the name of the LORD.”
This prohibition is puzzling. Wolff sees undertones of a magical fear that pronouncing the name of Yahweh may cause the curse of death to return,14 but Stuart suggests that “since the speaker already uses Yahweh’s name, the issue cannot be prohibition of mere oral formulation, but must concern calling on Yahweh . . . in prayers of lamentation or the like. . . . Survivors will want him to stay away, not come back”15 A slightly different but preferable approach interprets this prohibition as a modal use of the verb; thus, silence is suggested by the relatives because “it is no longer possible to call on the name of the LORD.”16 Since they are all dead, it will not do any good to call on God to save someone. In a similar context David ceased praying for his son once he knew the boy was dead (2 Sam. 12:16–23).
The final subsection (Amos 6:12–14) abruptly begins with a series of absurd questions. Would anyone do anything as absurd as to run a horse on a rocky cliff? It would be crazy to do so, because it would be almost impossible for the horse to run without tripping or breaking a leg. Would anyone try to plow a rocky cliff with a pair of oxen?17 How could any plow ever manage to actually go through these rocks, and how could any plants actually grow there?
By using these ridiculous rhetorical questions, Amos gets his listeners to agree with him. This makes it easier for them to see the absurdity of their own action of turning righteousness into something vile, bitter, or poisonous. This type of injustice is as absurd as riding a horse over a rocky field; it makes no sense. In this verse “righteousness” is not defined by a specific context (social relationships, religious, or a worship context), but it is frequently used in relationship to social justice in other contexts in Amos (5:10–15, 21–24). At the least, it indicates that people are not living according to the standards of God’s law or demonstrating just behavior or pure heart attitudes in their relationships with God and other people.
A final absurdity is the proud claim that Israel has won great military battles at the Transjordan cities of Lo Debar (a pun on the name of this city, which means “no-thing”) and Karnaim (a pun on “horns, strength”), which they took with “our own strength.” In God’s eye there is no reason to rejoice over “nothing.” They are bragging about this great victory, but it amounts to nothing significant; it is mostly just military propaganda with little substance. Equally ridiculous is the audacity to boast about the strength that won the battle at Karnaim. Who do they think they are? God is the One who gives enemies into the hands of an opposing army. Amos’s sarcasm transforms these military victories into absurd boasts because the people claim the power to do what only God can do. No wonder God hates their pride and absurd arrogance.
This paragraph ends with two predictions: God himself will raise up an unnamed nation against Israel, and this nation will oppress Israel from the northern tip (Hamath) to the southern tip (the valley of the Arabah). No glory is given to the nation that will defeat Israel, for they will be given power by God. No place will be safe or unaffected when the divine warrior goes to battle against his people. Although the nation is unknown, the reference to “beyond Damascus” in 5:27 hints at the Assyrians.
Bridging Contexts
SECURITY. This lament deals with the problem of false security (6:1). Everyone naturally wants security from robbers, hunger, financial ruin, medical malpractice, and misrepresentation of products. Security results in the removal of feelings of anxiety, doubt, and fear. When one is secure, there is no danger, apprehensive feelings, or threat that will ruin the pleasant life one now enjoys. Security relates to being sure of your situation and certain about the future.
But security can lead to feelings of overconfidence and carelessness. When situations change, people can sometimes maintain their old attitudes of security and have a false perception of reality. The broad question Amos asks the Israelites is: Why do you feel so secure? This is a question that individuals in the church need to address because it is easy to rest blindly in inappropriate sources of security. A person can easily take on the modern cultural definitions of security and ignore God’s role in providing freedom from anxiety and fear.
Amos addresses the issue of security by analyzing the basis of Israel’s security. After a person can verbalize the reasons why he or she feels secure, then it is possible to ask if it is wise to trust in these factors. Have situations changed that require a new appraisal of one’s confidence, or was a certain factor never a secure basis for hope? People can also compare their own confidence with that of others to see if there is some inconsistency between their attitudes and behaviors. Another avenue one can pursue is to discover what sacred traditions have to say about placing security in various objects or people. Should people, armies, and finances be the basis of a believer’s confidence and security? Although no one can totally ignore these human factors of security, people need to think about the role God plays in providing security.
When Isaac went to Gerar, he was insecure about his safety, so he lied about his wife and claimed she was his sister. He did this because he thought “the men of this place might kill me on account of Rebekah, because she is beautiful” (Gen. 26:7). By contrast, the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1:17, 21 feared God and were not persuaded to follow the Egyptian pharaoh’s command to kill all the male children at birth. Their personal security was threatened by their disobedience, but they did not allow this danger to prevent them from doing what was right and honoring to God.18
King Saul responded quite differently when God commanded him to destroy utterly the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15). Because he feared the people (15:24), he allowed the troops to take the best of the spoil. This was a sign of a weak king with poor leadership abilities, who felt he was in an insecure political position.
When King Hezekiah was attacked by the Assyrian king Sennacherib, there was great fear and little security in Judah (2 Kings 18–19; Isa. 36–37; 2 Chron. 32). Some officials wanted to trust in the Egyptian army for help and security (Isa. 30:1–3; 31:1–5), but Isaiah condemned those who relied on horses and chariots. The Assyrians tried to convince Hezekiah to surrender without a fight and reminded him of his insecurity by questioning his confidence (2 Kings 18:19), his dependence on God (18:22), and the ability of God to deliver him (18:29–30, 35). In the midst of all this Hezekiah encouraged his troops: “Do not be afraid or discouraged because of the king of Assyria and the vast army with him, for there is a greater power with us than with him. With him is only the arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God to help us and to fight our battles” (2 Chron. 32:7–8). As a result, “the people gained confidence from what Hezekiah the king of Judah said” (32:8).
In each of these examples there was a situation that lacked security because of threats of danger. The people were pushed to decide what they would depend on. In some cases they chose to depend on God; in others they relied on the human might or their own wisdom. Those who chose sinful rebellion against God found they did not have a solid foundation for trust in the Lord. For Amos’s audience, the sources of trust are based on a deceptive comparison of their size with other nations (Amos 6:2), their wealth and ability to enjoy all the good things of life (6:4–6), their pride in huge and strong palace fortresses (6:8), and their military victories (6:13). These are false sources for confidence.
People in any culture are tempted to rest their confidence in things they can see and to depend on financial and military plans that make sense in that setting. This is a materialistic approach, which places the highest value on material well-being and material progress rather than on spiritual things. Western materialism, just like Israelite materialism, tends to place higher regard and trust in material things than in God.19 We cannot, of course, totally remove ourselves from the physical aspects of living in this world; thus, there is both a good and controlled use of material things and an overemphasis on having things to gain fulfillment.
Amos connects a false sense of security to riches, pride, and military achievements. These dangers were included in the warning to kings in Deuteronomy 17:14–17. The king must not be a foreigner, must not acquire great numbers of horses that he might trust in, must not take many wives by making astute political alliances, and must not accumulate large quantities of silver and gold. Instead, he is to make his own personal copy of God’s revelation in the Torah and read it daily so that he will revere God and follow his instructions.20 The king is to avoid pride and not think of himself as better than his brothers (17:18–20).
King Solomon failed to follow many of these instructions (1 Kings 11), and Isaiah condemned Judah during the prosperous days of Uzziah because the land was full of horses and chariots as well as gold and silver (Isa. 2:7). Anyone who has riches and a position of power is susceptible to the dangers of pride. The people who believe that these things give security have deceived themselves. One can only lament that so many people over the centuries have foolishly bought into this illusionary vision that has no substance.
Contemporary Significance
HOW CAN BELIEVERS today live and work in a materialistic world that places a high value on possessions, political power, and pride in a person’s accomplishments and yet avoid the trap of depending on these things for security? Should Christians try to avoid the problems of having a false sense of security by turning down salary increases, refusing to run for high political office, or deciding not to own a home or any fine furniture? If pride and a deceptive security tend to develop inevitably from things like these, then it might be good to avoid anything that could lead a person astray.
By using an exaggerated example that called for dismemberment of parts of a person’s body, Jesus encouraged people to do everything in their power to avoid falling into sin (Matt. 5:30). Nevertheless, many people can handle salary increases without becoming proud or dependent on money for their security. Some politicians are not out to make a name for themselves and run the world but view a political appointment as an opportunity to serve others and employ biblical principles in the governing of society. Some people can live in a nice home with quality furniture and not derive their sense of importance from these possessions. Stereotypical judgments of others should be avoided; instead, each person should honestly analyze his or her own sources of pride and security. The four sources of false security that Amos mentions are still common to many people today.
Making comparisons. Amos refers to the tendency to compare oneself or one’s country with others for the purpose of building up a sense of security and self-confidence. Almost everyone can find someone or some other nearby country that is smaller or not as powerful. Once that weaker one is identified, it is easy to develop a rational basis for suggesting I am better. Russia can look down its nose at the small country of Lithuania, China can easily see that it is far more advanced than Burma, Mexico is far bigger than El Salvador, and the United States has more people than Canada.
At work or in a person’s neighborhood, there are people who have less expensive homes or cars or lower paying jobs and who do not have as much education or social status as others. Comparisons can lead to pride if one is bigger or better, or to discouragement and resentment if one does not have the things others have. Pride can lead to a carefree lifestyle that is driven by the pursuit of pleasure and a complacent life that ignores the plight of others less fortunate.
This problem does not exist just for the super rich or only among those with great power. There is probably not a country, culture, or neighborhood where the attitude that I am bigger or better is not a problem. It is evident already in the behavior of small children who brag about how much better their bicycle is, high school students who claim superiority in some sport, or adults who put others down because they do not measure up to some imagined standard. As C. S. Lewis claimed, pride means that I am more clever, richer, or more good-looking than you.21
Competition is not all bad, but it can engender a comparative pride that gives a false sense of reality. Such attitudes can cause nations to think that they are better off than they really are, companies to lose their motivation to maintain excellence, or individuals to become stuck up and unconcerned about the problems others have. When people think they have it made, they must watch out, because their demise is not far away.
The story is told about how the famous missionary doctor Albert Schweitzer, who held several doctorates, one day asked an African bystander to help him move some planks in French West Africa. The person declined and said, “I don’t do manual work. I’m an intellectual.” Schweitzer, who willingly helped with manual labor, humbly responded: “I too tried to be an intellectual, but I didn’t make it.”22 Pride is not based on who we are, but on what we think about ourselves.
Paul calls believers to have sober judgment about themselves rather than a prideful attitude (Rom. 12:3) and to be humble like Christ (Phil. 2:1–11). B. Mitchell concludes that the sin of pride is fundamentally “to take credit to oneself for one’s accomplishments and to forget the grace of God.”23 This can result in “a truly satanic pride, in which individuals or groups are no longer answerable to the laws of God or to the demands of truth.”24 Such pride can come from a person’s conclusion about his or her own superior intellect, racial characteristics, economic power, social status, or theological superiority. A true picture of God, as well as of human depravity, is essential if one is to combat this pervasive human tendency.
Riches and wealth. Amos saw how riches and wealth cause the upper-class people to spend their time in selfish indulgences, to find fulfillment in opulent, wasteful feasting, and to base their security in having the best money could buy. This wealth assures that they will be invited to the most exclusive parties and will have the most expensive clothes. They are the important people, like the movers and the shakers of our day who can afford to have the best furniture, the finest wine, the most popular live bands at their parties, and a French chef in their kitchens. These people get security from their money, which can buy things to impress people.
Does this mean that believers today must buy old pine furniture instead of new oak pieces, or that a wedding party for your daughter should serve only crackers and cheese plus a wedding cake? Is it wrong to have a Christian Businessmen’s luncheon at an expensive hotel, or is it an immoral demonstration of dependence on wealth to buy your wife a larger diamond ring for your fiftieth wedding anniversary? There is no single answer to questions on wealth because so much depends on the attitude people have toward the way they use their money.25
I know a wealthy family in the trucking business in Winnipeg, Canada, who live in a nice home but do not flaunt their wealth in any way. They generously give many thousands of dollars to missions, Christian schools, and their local church. They never talk about money and purposely give God the glory for what he has entrusted to them. Christendom needs rich Christians like this to extend the work of the kingdom of God. Churches would not get built and some missionaries might give up trying to raise their support if Christians did not have excess funds to give to God’s work. The problem is not that God entrusts some people with a lot of money; it is with wanting more or misusing what one has.
It seems that many people with only moderate incomes are not able to handle the temptation to display their wealth. Although they may not admit it, many middle-class people are subtly addicted to getting rich. Their life centers around both spouses working, and for some it even involves going to the casino in order to hit the big one or getting a lucky pick at the horse track. No matter what a person’s economic level, the love of money can lead to great evil (1 Tim. 6:10). No one would want to suggest that it is wrong to have money, or that money always corrupts, or that people do not need money. Money is not the problem; we are.
Security in things. God particularly despises and loathes the security that the great palace-fortresses provide for the wealthy (Amos 6:8–11). Deuteronomy 28:52 warns of putting your security in big walls. The opposition is not to home ownership or to having a security system on your house, for it is the responsibility of parents to provide shelter and protection from harsh weather and evil people that might harm family members. The application must focus on what meaning people give to their homes and how they value or use them, and not just their size.
It may be true that people with larger homes will have more temptations to define their worth based on their possessions, but this can also be a problem for a teenage boy who gets his first car or the grade school student who gets a new pair of tennis shoes autographed by a sports hero. Whatever the material object is, if people use it to support their pride and allow it to insulate themselves from the problems of others around them, God will be against it.
We could raise the question whether there is any justification for a Christian to buy a half-million-dollar home. Is this not a waste of God’s money that he has entrusted to his servants to use for his glory? These questions are not directly answered by our passage, but an expensive home may be the only kind of home available in Tokyo or Los Angeles. The price is not the main point; it is the pride and security people can derive from having a large home. Pride comes when people in Israel in Amos’s day, and people around the world today, who can afford to live in what amounts to “a king’s palace” do not need God to protect them or provide for their security. They are in control of their fate, not God. A. C. Lane concludes with Augustine that pride is a “false estimation of our capacity, the conception that we do not need to rest in God’s grace because we think that we can find rest and contentment in temporal things.”26
Military pride. Finally, Amos pinpoints the security from military pride (Amos 6:12–13). It is only natural for generals as well as the people who live in countries that have strong armies to feel a sense of pride when a battle is won. But the Bible has story after story where an inferior power wins over a larger army because God decides who will win each war. Israel escaped from the powerful armies of Egypt at the Reed Sea at the time of the Exodus without even lifting up a sword (Ex. 14–15), and Gideon defeated the larger Midianite forces with only three hundred men (Judg. 7). David defeated Goliath with one small stone (1 Sam. 17), and the angel of God killed 185,000 Assyrians surrounding Jerusalem at the time of Hezekiah (Isa. 36–37).
Jeremiah warns that people should not boast in their wealth, wisdom, or might but should boast in their knowledge of the Lord (Jer. 9:23–24). God judged Babylon for its arrogance (Isa. 13:11; 14:4–21), Moab for its pride (16:6), and Assyria for its haughtiness (10:5–16). The Edomites were condemned for pride (Obad. 3). Pride can come from many things, but military forces are a major source of government spending even in poor Third World countries. There will always be armies, and some will be large, but size and pride do not win wars. God raises up kings and removes them (Dan. 2:21); he determines who will win each war.
The application of this section is not limited to warnings about pride. It also includes a warning not to let pride, riches, and power blind one to the suffering of others (Amos 6:7). When everything is going fine for me, it is easy to ignore the plight of others. My preoccupation with my house, my social calendar, and my successes can lead to a lack of understanding of another person’s problems and an unsympathetic and intolerant attitude. Individualism is not just a modern disease; there has always been a temptation to give charity at home first. An attitude of no compassion, this behavior of doing nothing to help others, is an abomination to God.
Each believer must walk the streets of his or her neighborhood with an eye open and a heart ready to give God’s love and a cup of cold water. A warm smile, a compliment, a helping hand, or a few dollars are the least we can do to support other human beings in need. James claims that true religion that God accepts includes looking after the orphan and widow in their distress (James 1:26–27). As R. Sider laments, “So often the Christian Right has rightly championed the family and the sanctity of life but neglected to work for equal opportunity for the poor . . . and neglected the struggle against racism.”27 God’s will is that we love one another by sharing and caring for the spiritual and physical needs of others.