INTRODUCTION
1. Background
In many ways the eighth century B.C. was unique in the history of Judah and Israel. It witnessed the toppling of the northern kingdom from the glory of economic prosperity and international influence to virtual subjugation by a foreign power. It also witnessed the near collapse of Judah, averted only by the steadying hand of King Hezekiah, who could do no more than slow Judah’s progress toward certain ruin.
At the same time, however, the eighth century witnessed the rise of one of the most potent moral forces the world has ever known—the writing prophets. These men shared an overwhelming conviction that God had called them. They denounced the sins of their contemporaries and also looked far into the future as they spoke of deliverance for both Jew and Gentile.
The dawn of the eighth century brought new hope to Israel and Judah. Israel’s subjugation to Damascus ended abruptly when the Assyrians under Adad-nirari III crushed Damascus in 802 B.C. The internal difficulties that had plagued Judah also ended with Uzziah’s accession to the throne (792–740 B.C.). He built up a powerful army and increased Judah’s mercantile activities. In the northern kingdom, Jeroboam II (793–753 B.C.) came to the throne at roughly the same time as Uzziah. This king of Israel restored much of the territory that had fallen to Damascus (2Ki 14:28).
The conquest of Damascus and the attendant quiescence of Assyria, coupled with the brilliant leadership of Uzziah and Jeroboam, brought Judah and Israel to heights of prominence second only to Solomon’s golden age. The kingdoms prospered and expanded their borders. But as their economic well-being and national strength continued to foster their security, an internal decay was at work. It was primarily moral because it involved a basic violation of the covenant established by God at Sinai.
The covenantal stipulations required loyalty to God and love toward one’s fellow human beings. Yet the idolatrous worship of their pagan neighbors had infiltrated the two kingdoms, producing a strange syncretistic worship. While pagan high places dotted the countryside and people disobeyed God by worshiping idols that stood within the cities, they continued to trust in such concepts as the “day of the LORD” (5:18) and aspects of Levitical worship (4:4–5). Furthermore, they violated the social legislation of the covenant. Amos was particularly vehement in denouncing lack of social concern.
The erosion of Israel’s social structure showed itself primarily in a cleavage between the rich and the poor. The improved economic situation in Israel led to an increase of the wealthy, who not only neglected the poor, but used them to increase their own wealth. God’s will, as it applied to the nation of Israel, was ignored, and this spurred the eighth-century prophets to action. Their protest largely contributed to the establishment of a believing remnant. The prophets preserved faith by assuring the people that God had not forsaken his promise.
2. Authorship and Date
Almost all agree that the prophecy of Amos is an authentic production of the man whose name it bears. The consonance of his message with the eighth-century milieu and his forthright style make it difficult to think otherwise. Little is known of him apart from the sketchy references in the superscription and the body of the prophecy. Amos lived and worked in Tekoa (1:1), a town ten miles south of Jerusalem. He was a shepherd and also tended sycamore trees (7:14). God then called him to be a prophet. His character, molded in the harsh terrain of the wilderness of Tekoa, enabled him to stand before the priest and the people, proclaiming the word God had given him.
We may best place the prophetic activity of Amos in the latter half of the reign of Jeroboam II (793–753 B.C.; cf. 7:10). It would certainly have taken some time for the affluence during Jeroboam’s reign to lead to the social decay that was so widespread when Amos carried out his mission to the northern kingdom. But it is difficult to find a more exact time in which Amos’s mission would fit. Jotham, Uzziah’s son, acceded to the regency of Judah when Uzziah was stricken with leprosy (c. 750 B.C.). That 1:1 mentions only Uzziah and not Jotham may point to a time before Jotham’s accession. The phrase “two years before the earthquake” (1:1) limits the date of the prophecy to a narrow period. This earthquake may have occurred around 760 B.C., according to excavations at Hazor. Thus it seems best to place the prophetic ministry of Amos shortly before 760 B.C.
3. Theological Values
Central in Amos’s preaching is his belief in divine sovereignty. The Lord is the God of history. He effects the migrations of peoples (9:7) and controls the orderly progression of natural phenomena (4:3; 5:8). Yet within that sovereign domain, humankind has the freedom to bow in submission to the Lord or to reject him.
Amos affirmed the historical election of Israel (3:2). But he preached strongly against the perverted concept of election which held that God was unconditionally committed to the nation. Their election alone did not guarantee national blessing, for the sovereign God promised that the people of Israel would be his “treasured possession” (Ex 19:5) only if they obeyed him and kept his covenant.
A unique concept in Amos is his teaching about the Day of the Lord. Rather than being a day of national deliverance, it would be a time when the Lord would judge all sin, even in his own people. The gloomy portrayal of that day in this book reflects the fact that Amos’s hearers were guilty of many transgressions. But Amos also predicted another coming Day, when hope will shine forth with glorious promise (9:13–15). This Davidic promise will be realized when David’s kingdom is restored and Jews and Gentiles are united in the kingdom of David’s Greater Son.
EXPOSITION
I. Superscription (1:1)
1 The prophecy is introduced by the formula “the words of Amos.” Frequently this expression is used for collections of sayings or oracles (cf. 1:1; Pr 30:1; 31:1; Ecc 1:1).
The word translated “shepherd” (GK 5924) is not the usual word for shepherd; it implies that he was a breeder and supplier of sheep (2Ki 3:4). In Am 7:14 another word is used for shepherd to describe Amos’s occupation (GK 1012); this word suggests that Amos kept cattle as well as sheep. Thus likely Amos was a breeder of various types of animals.
Amos’s character and ideals were shaped by the desert. Being “neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son” (7:14), he was not part of the prophetic movement in Judah. Undoubtedly his simple life in the desert led him to see more clearly the evils of city life.
The prophetic word of Amos concerned Israel, no doubt the northern kingdom. The numerous references to localities in the north as well as the encounter with Amaziah support this.
Uzziah (or Azariah), king of Judah, was an energetic king whose policies contributed to the resurgence of Judah in the eighth century. He rebuilt the city of Elath and strengthened the defenses of Jerusalem. Jeroboam II, king of Israel, was a vigorous leader. His greatest accomplishment was the expansion of Israelite territorial holdings into the Transjordan (2Ki 14:23–29).
II. Introduction to the Prophecy (1:2)
2 Verse 2 forms an appropriate introduction to the entire prophecy. The name “LORD” (“Yahweh”; GK 3378), which introduces the prophecy, connotes God’s redemptive and covenantal concerns. The Exodus gave the name its greatest revelational content. Moses’ first impression of God’s character was the Lord’s inviolable holiness (Ex 3:5). The awesome phenomena accompanying his appearance on Sinai (Ex 19:16–25) and the restrictions he placed on the people (Ex 19:10–15) enforced the concept of his holiness.
The prophet introduces a shocking note in depicting the Lord as roaring from Zion (cf. Joel 3:16). Linked with the roar of the Lord in Joel and here in Amos is the crashing of thunder (cf. Job 37:4). “Thunders” appears in a number of passages depicting God’s intervention in history (Pss 18:13; cf. v.6; 46:6–11; Jer 10:13; 51:16; Joel 2:11). In some of these passages God’s power is expressed in natural phenomena, most frequently in a violent thunderstorm.
The roar of the Lord is accompanied by cosmic changes. But instead of a storm, God’s wrath causes a withering drought to destroy the green hills of Mount Carmel—a landmark of the northern kingdom.
III. The Prophetic Oracles (1:3–6:14)
A. Oracles of Judgment Against the Surrounding Nations (1:3–2:5)
A striking pattern runs through these oracles. The prophet begins with the distant city of Damascus and moves in ever-tightening circles till at last he pounces on Israel. One can imagine Amos’s hearers approving the denunciation of these heathen nations and even applauding God’s denunciation of Judah. But Amos plays no favorites; he swoops down on the unsuspecting Israelites as well.
1. The oracle against Syria (1:3–5)
3 Damascus represented the entire nation of Syria (Aram). From the time of Ahab till the dawn of the eighth century, there were hostilities between Israel and Damascus. Particularly embarrassing had been the incursion of Syria into Israelite territory during the reign of Jehu (2Ki 10:32–33).
The numerical motif—“for three sins . . . even for four”—is common in Semitic literature (e.g., Job 5:19; 33:29; Pr 6:16; 30:15–31; Ecc 11:2; Mic 5:5–6) and is not always to be taken literally. Sometimes it denotes an indefinite number, as here. Amos cites only one crime of Damascus in this oracle.
The lack of immediate reference to a specific punishment following the statement “for three sins of” creates a feeling of dread uncertainty. The attention of the hearers would have been riveted on the prophet’s words as they waited for the explicit judgment that comes in the last section of each oracle. The crime that provoked the judgment against Damascus was that the people had threshed Gilead with iron threshing sledges. Gilead, an extensive region east of the Jordan River, was known for its rich forests (Jer 22:6–7) and balm (Jer 8:22). Its richness, coupled with its being a frontier region, made it the object of numerous attacks by Ammon and Syria.
The incident Amos refers to here is probably the one recorded in 2Ki 13:1–9, where an incursion of the Syrians into Israel is described as making the army of Jehoahaz “like the dust at threshing time” (v.7). The threshing sledge was made of parallel boards fitted with sharp points. The metaphor implies extreme decimation and cruel or inhuman treatment.
4 The judgment the Lord decrees for Syria is “fire upon the house of Hazael.” Hazael ruled Syria about 841 to 806 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 8:13). The Lord had revealed that Hazael would commit monstrous crimes against the Israelites (2Ki 8:12). When he came to the throne, he fought against Joram and Ahaziah at Ramoth Gilead, seriously wounding Joram (2Ki 8:28–29).
Ben-Hadad (“son of Hadad,” an ancient storm god) is the name of two or possibly three kings of Syria. It may be a dynastic name. Ben-Hadad I, a contemporary of Baasha of Israel (909–886 B.C.) and Asa of Judah (911–870 B.C.), took large holdings from Baasha (1Ki 15:20). Each “Ben-Hadad” carried on continual hostilities against Israel. Likely the Ben-Hadad Amos had in mind was the son of Hazael (2Ki 13:3).
The “fire” is not a description of an isolated occurrence relating only to Damascus but appears in all the oracles except the one against Israel (2:6–16). It is perhaps a metaphorical representation of God’s judgment (cf. 7:4).
5 The destruction of Damascus involved breaking the “gate of Damascus.” Ancient gates were equipped with massive bars, sometimes of iron or bronze (1Ki 4:13). The breaking of the bar implies that the enemies had gained entrance to the city.
The identity of the places mentioned in this verse is difficult. The “Valley of Aven” was likely the plain between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges. Beth Eden was probably an important city located on the Euphrates River. Kir is understood by Amos as the place of the national origin of the Syrians (9:7) and the place to which they would return. His prophecy was fulfilled when Tiglath-pileser took the people of Damascus captive and transported them to Kir (2Ki 16:9).
2. The oracle against the Philistines (1:6–8)
6–8 The prophet next turns to the Philistines, the perennial enemies of the Israelites who may have had their national origin in the Aegean area, probably Crete. They occupied the coastal plain in southwest Palestine and conducted numerous raids on the Israelites until their power was broken by King David.
Amos mentions four of the cities of the Philistine pentapolis in this oracle, excluding only Gath. Perhaps Gath never fully recovered from Uzziah’s successful military campaign described in 2Ch 26:6, an event that occurred sometime between Amaziah’s death (767 B.C.) and Amos’s ministry (760 B.C.). Gath is excluded from all the lists of the Philistine cities cited after Amos (Jer 25:20; Zep 2:4; Zec 9:5–6).
The Philistines are denounced for the crime of enslavement—again a social crime. The event referred to was probably a series of border raids in which slaves were secured and sold to the Edomites. “Whole communities” were taken, thus underscoring the enormity of the crime. Likely the crime was committed against Israelites. The punishment to be inflicted on the Philistines was their absolute destruction.
3. The oracle against Tyre (1:9–10)
9–10 Amos has moved from Damascus in the northeast to the Philistine territory in the southwest. He moves next to Tyre, to the north of Israel and southwest of Damascus and thus closer to Israel than Damascus and the Philistine cities. Tyre was the most important city of Phoenicia at that time.
The crime of Tyre also involved enslavement of “whole communities,” but to this Amos adds a reference to its “disregarding a treaty of brotherhood.” This may refer to the pact made between Hiram, king of Tyre, and Solomon (1Ki 5:12; cf. “brother” in 1Ki 9:13). This relationship was strengthened by the marriage of Jezebel, daughter of Eth-baal, king of the Sidonians, to King Ahab (1Ki 16:31). While Jehu’s purge of the family of Ahab (2Ki 10) interrupted the good relationship between the two states, Amos may have been referring to the generally amicable relations that characterized these nations over their long histories.
Tyre’s security, however, was only temporary. It came under Assyrian hegemony during the long period of that empire’s dominance but emerged from Assyrian control to enter a period of power and affluence. Later, Tyre was besieged by the forces of Nebuchadnezzar and never fully recovered. The massive efforts required for its defense greatly weakened the city.
4. The oracle against Edom (1:11–12)
11 The extensive, mountainous region of Edom lay southeast of the southern tip of the Dead Sea, east of the Arabah. It was one of the three Transjordanian kingdoms that included Ammon and Moab. Edom’s crime was that “he pursued his brother with a sword” and “his anger raged continually”—a reference to the long-standing animosity of Edom toward the Israelites.
Edom was another name for Esau, the twin brother of Jacob. The Edomites and Israelites thus had close ethnic ties (cf. “brother” in Nu 20:14; Dt 23:7; Ob 12). The bitter relations between Jacob and Esau were perpetuated in the affairs of the two countries. In their desert journey the Israelites sought access to the king’s highway that ran through Edom, but the Edomites refused passage and even sent a military force to block them (Nu 20:14–21). Later, the Edomites were enemies of Saul (1Sa 14:47), David (2Sa 8:14), and Jehoram (2Ki 8:20–22). Their greatest act of hostility against Israel occurred during the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C. At that time the Edomites gloated over the destruction of their enemies and hindered the fugitives’ escape, delivering many over to their captors (Ob 10–14).
The crime of Edom was in many ways similar to that of the other nations Amos speaks against—violence against one’s fellow human beings. Amos emphasizes that the Edomites stifled “all compassion” (cf. Jas 4:11; 1jn 2:9).
12 For these crimes the cities of Teman and Bozrah were to be destroyed. Teman, one of the largest cities of Edom, and Bozrah, a strong fortress city in the north of Edom, represent the whole country (cf. Isa 34:8; 63:1; Jer 49:13, 20; Eze 25:13; Ob 9). Edom became tributary to Tiglath-pileser III in 732 B.C. and was later overrun by the Nabataeans.
5. The oracle against Ammon (1:13–15)
13 Ammon lay northeast of the Dead Sea and north of Moab. The area was dominated by a vast expanse of desert, though the valley of the upper Jabbok in the north Ammon was fertile. The origin of the Ammonites (and the Moabites) was an incestual relationship between Lot and his two daughters (see Ge 19:30–38). The Ammonites frequently sought to enlarge their territory, sometimes with the help of Moab and Syria (cf. Jdg 10:6–9). A serious threat to Israel by the Ammonites was quelled by the strong, personal leadership of Saul (1Sa 11:1–11). They were finally subdued in David’s time (2Sa 12:26–31).
The crime Amos accuses the Ammonites of was like that of the other nations. They “ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead.” Gilead was a mountainous region east of the Jordan, in the tribal territories of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh. This crime evidently took place in one of their attempts to expand their territorial holdings at Israel’s expense (cf. 2Ki 8:12)—a crime that went far beyond necessary acts of war and is attributed to the Ammonites’ insatiable desire for Israelite territory. Apparently it was a notorious event, and its mention would stir feelings of revulsion in Amos’s hearers.
14–15 Rabbah was the capital of ancient Ammon. Ammon was to be destroyed by fire, to the accompaniment of the shouts of battle and “violent winds.” The word translated “war cries” refers to the shout of the enemy “on the day of battle,” a sound that would terrify the people as the enemy rushed to take the city. The word “winds” describes the great force with which the enemy would sweep over the city. The king of Ammon was to go into exile along with his officials. Ezekiel berated them for rejoicing at the fall of Jerusalem (Eze 25:1–7). Yet their rejoicing was to last only a little while, for they were caught up in the same turmoil that affected Israel. Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city of Rabbah and took large numbers of its citizens captive. Thereupon the Ammonites passed from history for good.
6. The oracle against Moab (2:1–3)
1 Moab (for their origin, see comment on 1:13) lay to the east of the Dead Sea, between Ammon and Edom. Antipathy between the Israelites and Moabites developed early when the king of Moab would not grant them permission to use the king’s highway (Jdg 11:17). As a result the Moabites were excluded from the assembly of Israel (cf. Dt 23:3–4).
The Israelites camped in the plains of Moab before entering Canaan (Nu 22:1). The king of Moab engaged Balaam, the enigmatic seer, to curse them (Nu 22:4–6). There the Moabite women seduced the Israelites to join in their idolatrous worship (Nu 25:1–3). During a period of Israelite weakness, a coalition of Moabites, Ammonites, and Amalekites invaded Israel and subjugated them for eighteen years (Jdg 3:13–14).
Saul defeated the Moabites (1Sa 14:47), as did David (2Sa 8:2). During Solomon’s reign Moab seems to have remained under Israelite dominion, for Solomon included Moabite women among his many wives (1Ki 11:1). But Mesha, king of Moab, rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab (2Ki 1:1). Joram of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah, along with the king of Edom, made an abortive attempt to subdue them (2Ki 3). Later Hazael, an Aramean king, wrested from Jehu the disputed Moabite territory north of the Arnon (2Ki 10:32–33).
The crime Amos charges the Moabites with was their burning of the bones of the king of Edom. This may have taken place during the attempt of the coalition of the kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom to suppress the Moabite rebellion (2Ki 3). The expression “burn the bones” usually refers to the burning of the skeletal remains of a corpse (2Ki 23:20; cf. v.16; cf. also 1Ki 13:2; Eze 24:10) or the burning of the corpse itself (Am 6:9–10). Thus the crime of Moab involved the desecration of the body of an Edomite king.
2–3 The punishment of Moab was to be a fire that would consume Kerioth—a major city in Moab (cf. Jer 48:24). Amos uses vivid language to describe the conflict that would overthrow Moab. One can almost hear the “war cries” and “the blast of the trumpet.”
Moab became subject to Tiglath-pileser III in 734 B.C. Later it was involved in a rebellion against Assyrian domination that was quelled by Sennacherib. During the period of Babylonian supremacy, Moab was forced to pay tribute to Babylon. The Moabites rebelled against Babylon shortly after 598 B.C. and were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. Like Ammon, the nation of Moab disappeared from history.
It is significant that Amos here pronounces the punishment of the Lord on a social crime involving a non-Israelite. In his other oracles the crimes were, for the most part, against the covenant people. But Amos understands that an aspect of God’s law transcends Israel. He affirms a moral law that extends to noncovenant nations, a law that would surely bring punishment if violated. The Moabites were held liable for the law of social responsibility—respect for human dignity and for the rights of all people.
7. The oracle against Judah (2:4–5)
4–5 Having pronounced judgment on various pagan nations, Amos next turns to Judah. Judah is condemned for rejecting the “law of the LORD.” This is the first time this expression occurs in these oracles, and its significance is obvious. Those who stood in relationship to the covenant were judged on the basis of the light they possessed in God’s law, not on the basis of a common moral consciousness.
"Led astray” connotes “to wander around” (GK 9494). It is used of straying animals and intoxicated persons. Judah had been led astray by “false gods.” The expression “walked after them” frequently relates to following false gods. This sin of idolatry caused Judah to violate the law of the Lord. Like their fathers of old, they continued to bow down to the false gods of the pagans and to spurn the Creator.
Judah’s punishment was to be similar to that of the other nations—destruction by the fire of war. It was inflicted when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 612 B.C.
B. Oracles of Judgment Against Israel (2:6–6:14)
1. A lesson from history (2:6–16)
6 The Israelites were accused of selling “the righteous for silver” and “the needy for a pair of sandals.” The word “righteous” parallels “needy,” establishing a connection between them. The word “righteous” (GK 7404) connotes “righteousness,” not in the sense of blamelessness, but rather in the basic sense of “rightness” or “justice.” The needy are seen as being in the right, or as having a just cause (cf. Ex 23:7; Dt 25:1). This shows us something of the social conditions of that time when the poor had to fight for their just rights.
“They” applies to the oppressing classes, especially the judges and creditors who “sell the righteous.” These people of power and influence were guilty of accepting bribes. They regarded the oppressed classes so lightly that they accepted such paltry bribes as a pair of sandals.
7 Amos further describes the oppression of the poor as trampling “on the heads of the poor.” The word translated “trample” (GK 8635) may also have the sense of “pant,” suggesting the rendering, “who pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor.” This means either that the oppressing classes longed to see the poor brought to extreme anguish or that they were so avaricious that they craved even the dust that the poor had cast on their heads as a sign of sorrow (e.g., 2Sa 1:2; Job 2:12).
Israel’s decadence was marked by sexual promiscuity. The word for “girl” is general and has no specific connotations. Most likely the sin depicted here relates to the ancient laws against incest (Lev 18:6–18; 20:17–21), as indicated by “profane my holy name” (cf. Lev 22:32, which culminates a lengthy section on personal and social purity). The use of one girl by both a father and a son was tantamount to incest in that the son uncovered the nakedness of his father and vice versa. Furthermore, the marital purity and faithfulness expected in a godly father were lacking, as both father and son engaged in deliberate acts of disobedience to God.
8 Amos pictures members of his society as sleeping by the altars on “garments taken in pledge.” Clothing was valid collateral for securing debts. Hebrew law, however, required that such garments be restored to the owner each evening (Ex 22:26–27) as a covering during sleep. Many obviously disregarded this law. The placing of this practice “beside every altar” emphasizes the great disparity between religion and practice in Israel. This is further illustrated by the people’s drinking in the “house of their god” the wine paid as fines.
9 Amos next recounts God’s gracious acts during Israel’s past. “Amorite” is sometimes used for the preconquest population of Canaan (Ge 15:16). The prophet reminds the people of God’s destruction of the powerful Canaanites in the Conquest. The great height and strength of the Canaanites reflect a tradition begun at the return of the spies from their reconnaissance of Canaan (Nu 13:22–33). It points to their apparent invincibility and contrasts it with the might of the Lord. Amos’s vivid metaphor of the fruit and the roots portrays the destruction of the Canaanites when the Israelites took the Promised Land.
10 Amos sees the Exodus and the forty years of wandering in the desert as expressions of the gracious power of the Lord. Thus there was no need for him to mention Israel’s disobedience during that time. He simply points out that the Lord gave them “the land of the Amorites.”
11–12 The raising up of prophets and Nazirites was another of God’s gracious acts. These two groups ministered God’s word to Israel and showed the Lord’s care for their spiritual welfare. The word “Nazirite” (GK 5687) conveys the idea of “separate” and denotes the consecration practiced by this group. The Nazirites took special vows of separation (cf. Nu 6:1–12), abstaining from partaking of any product of the vine and vowing neither to cut their hair nor to touch a dead body. They were an influence for good in Israel. But now Israel was forcing them to drink wine and to violate their vows, and they were muzzling the prophets. This was tantamount to rejecting the word of the Lord.
13–16 Amos’s rehearsal of Israel’s rejection of the God who acted on their behalf—from Egypt to the present—leads to his statement of doom. The coming judgment is vividly expressed in a series of images rapidly moving from one familiar realm to another. First, Amos pictures the nation as being crushed under the wheels of a heavily laden cart. This reflects Amos’s familiarity with the agricultural world. The other images include a swift runner, a strong man, and a warrior—all depicting Israel’s inability to escape the impending destruction. The archer cannot stand. The brave warriors will flee with nothing left, their weapons and armor scattered behind as on a battlefield. In other words, the sword of the Lord that had fought for them would be turned against them. The oracle closes with an awesome note of finality—“declares the LORD.”
2. A lesson based on cause and effect (3:1–12)
1 A summons to hear the “word of the LORD” introduces this oracle. It is directed against “the whole family I brought up out of Egypt” and thus seems to include Judah as well as Israel. Amos did not have high hopes for Judah (2:5), and he would never have exempted them from divine wrath because of their disobedience. The pronouncement of judgment, addressed primarily to the northern kingdom, warned Judah and Israel against thinking that their election by the Lord was sufficient ground for their national security; for God demanded personal obedience as well.
2 The statement “you only have I chosen of all the families of the earth” establishes Israel’s elective privilege. The word “chosen” is literally “known” (GK 3359) and bears a special sense of intimacy. It includes the idea of God’s sovereign activity whereby the object of that knowledge is set apart or chosen for a divine purpose (cf. Jer 1:5). Israel’s privilege, however, incurred her punishment. Elective privilege entails responsibility. Because Israel failed to live up to her holy calling, she would be punished (cf. vv.11–12).
3–5 The words of judgment are preceded by a series of questions that culminate in an affirmation of Amos’s prophetic authority. The first questions all anticipate a negative answer. Amos asks, Is it customary for two to walk together without agreeing to do so? Certainly not for an extended period of time. Does a lion roar when it is stalking its prey? Hardly. Is a bird ensnared without someone setting a trap or is a snare sprung unless something triggers it? Not likely.
6 To this point each question has begun with the effect followed by the cause. But now the order is reversed. Here the cause is the blast of the trumpet and the effect is the fear it brings to the city dwellers. The sound of the trumpet from a city wall warned of invaders, or the trumpet in the square heralded bad news. Ultimately the cause of the “disaster” coming to a city is “the LORD.” The figures in these questions are not necessarily representations of Israel or her enemies but simply vivid analogies from life intended to illustrate the forthcoming conclusion (v.8).
7 “Plan” (GK 6051) has as its basic meaning the thought of “intimacy.” It may connote a close relationship (Ge 49:6; Job 29:4; Ps 111:1; Jer 6:11) or the scheming of those united against others (Pss 64:2; 83:3). It may refer to something as intimate as a secret (Pr 11:13; 25:9) or close fellowship with a friend (Ps 55:14). When used of God, it refers to his secret council (Job 15:8) or the intimate relationship the righteous have with God in which he “makes his covenant known to them” (Ps 25:14) and takes them “into his confidence” (Pr 3:32).
8 “The lion has roared” sounds an alarm. There is indeed cause for fear—not from any lion or blast of a trumpet, but from the Lord’s voice through his prophet. The Lord has spoken, and no one can contravene his word. So Amos is about to pronounce judgment on the people.
9 Amos summons the Egyptians and the Philistines of Ashdod to witness the oppression going on within Samaria. Amos may have chosen these nations because of their past oppression of Israel. It is as though Amos was asking these nations to view the violence being done by the rich and powerful against their poor neighbors in Samaria, a kind of oppression that even the pagan nations had never seen.
10 The Israelites were different from other aggressors because they plundered and looted in their own fortresses rather than in enemy territory. By oppressing the poorer classes, they had been plundering their own people; and Ashdod and Egypt were called to witness this evil. “They do not know how to do right,” Amos declared of the Israelites. Their moral sense had become so warped that right and wrong were blurred.
11 “Therefore” logically connects the judgment segment of the oracle with the accusation stated in v.10. The following section of doom is a warning for those who flagrantly violated the covenant by treating a holy God lightly. Though the enemy who would overrun the land is not identified by Amos, historically we know it was Assyria.
12 Amos concludes the oracle with the analogy of a shepherd who retrieves the remains of an animal from the mouth of a lion. This reflects the Mosaic law, for a shepherd was required to produce the remains of an animal killed while in his care as proof that he did not steal it (Ex 22:13).
Amos goes on to describe how the Israelites, “those who sit in Samaria on the edge of their beds and in Damascus on their couches,” would be “saved.” As the remaining parts of the slaughtered animal attest to its destruction, so the broken remains of the wealth of Israel would be a pathetic witness to the complete destruction of that kingdom.
3. An oracle against the house of Jacob (3:13–15)
13 The command to hear is not addressed to Israel, for it goes on to say, “and testify against the house of Jacob.” But this is best understood as a rhetorical statement, similar to 3:9 (“proclaim”), where Amos addresses imaginary witnesses either for dramatic effect or to establish a legal atmosphere with the Lord and Israel as adversaries (Isa 1:2; cf. Dt 32:1).
“House of Jacob” recalls Israel’s heritage, especially the promise to the patriarchs that established the grounds on which the Lord would deal with his people. The covenant became the external structure of the eternal promise (Ge 15:12–20), providing the vehicle for obedience. Israel had betrayed the covenant and so had forfeited every right to its promised blessing.
14–15 As a result of Israel’s disobedience, the “altars of Bethel” would be destroyed as well as the expensive homes of the people. Amos focuses on the two major aspects of Israel’s disobedience: false religion and misuse of wealth and power. According to Israelite law, a fugitive could find refuge at the altar by grasping its horns (1Ki 1:50), but even this last refuge would be lost. The winter house and the summer house most likely refer to separate houses. The winter house would be destroyed along with the summer house.
4. The pampered women of Samaria (4:1–3)
1 The region of Bashan was known for its excellent cattle (Ps 22:12; Eze 39:18), to which Amos sarcastically likens the women of Samaria. He accuses these rich women of oppressing the poor, just as he had accused the male leaders of his society. They may not have been directly involved in mistreating the poor, but their incessant demands for luxuries drove their husbands to greater injustices. Their demand, “Bring us some drinks,” creates a vivid picture of their indolence.
2–3 An oath in which the Lord “has sworn [GK 8678] by his holiness” introduces the judgment section of this oracle. The element in the oath formula by which one swears forms an external guarantee of the thing being affirmed (cf. Heb 6:16). When God takes an oath, that element usually relates to the nature of the thing sworn. For example, in Jer 44:26 the Lord swore by his great name, which signifies his reputation achieved by his mighty deeds, demonstrating his power and authority. Here the “holiness” of God is his absolute separation from anything secular or profane. God guarantees that the judgment will become a reality, because the holy God does not lie, nor can his holiness allow sin to go unpunished.
The Hebrew words used to describe Israel’s judgment are obscure. Both “hooks” and “fishhooks” basically relate to some kind of thorn or hook. One form of the word underlying “hooks” is attested in Hebrew as “shields.” Thus it may picture these indolent women, who lay on beds of luxury, being carried away on the enemies’ shields. A more common meaning of the word “fishhooks” is “pot” or “receptacle.” Its association with “fish” may mean a receptacle for carrying fish or a cauldron for boiling fish. At any rate, these women would be led in humiliating fashion through the breached wall of Jerusalem.
5. Sinful worship (4:4–5)
4 Amos addresses all the people in this shocking command: “Go to Bethel and sin.” Bethel was the chief religious sanctuary of the northern kingdom. It once housed the ark and was one of the locations in Samuel’s circuit (1Sa 7:16). Shortly after the division of the kingdom, Bethel was established as a sanctuary by Jeroboam I to provide an alternative center to Jerusalem (1Ki 12:26–29). In the time of Amos, Bethel was known as “the king’s sanctuary” (7:13). It thus may have been the scene of royal as well as religious pomp.
The cultic worship practiced at Bethel combined concepts common to Canaanite religion, resulting in a syncretistic Israelite religion devoid of real allegiance to the covenant. Certainly, elements of Israel’s religion were observed there (4:4–5; 5:21–23). But the idolatrous influences had left their mark. The heart—indeed, the very life of Israel’s religion—had been destroyed; and the covenantal obligation of a heart response to God and a caring love for one’s fellow humans were forgotten.
Gilgal was another Israelite sanctuary in Amos’s time (5:5; cf. Hos 4:15; 9:15 12:11). Lest the people think that Bethel should be the only sanctuary that bore an onus, the prophet includes Gilgal.
The word “sin” connotes the basic concept of “rebellion.” Little did these worshipers know that as they participated in the religious rites in order to maintain their relationship to the Lord, they were actually in rebellion against him. The morning sacrifices are probably not the continual burnt offering presented each morning and evening (Ex 29:38–41; Lev 6:8–13; Nu 28:3–4); rather, the context of Am 4:4–5 deals with the individual sacrifices of pilgrims to the cultic centers. The other aspects of worship mentioned (v.5)—the tithe, the thank offering, the freewill offering—are also individual obligations.
5 Possibly Amos represents the cultic practices prescribed for the pilgrimage to the cult centers that were current in his time, but it is also possible that he was using hyperbole to show the futility of offering many sacrifices and tithes. This seems to reflect the intent of the passage, because Amos said, “This is what you love to do.” It is as though he was telling them that even if they sacrificed every morning and tithed regularly so that they had something to boast about, in the end they were only engaging in acts of rebellion against God.
6. A look to the past (4:6–13)
This section expresses the immanence of God in history. Amos relates a series of events from Israel’s past that he interprets as God’s intervention on her behalf. Terrible as these catastrophes were, they were designed by a loving God to alert Israel to her sin and to the certainty of judgment; yet the nation did not return to him (v.11). This section vividly illustrates God’s permissive will that brings suffering so that his own may be brought closer to him (Heb 12:6).
6 This verse is literally, “I gave you cleanness of teeth” (see NIV note), an expression describing complete lack of food. The catastrophes mentioned are difficult to identify historically, though they reflect God’s continuing activity in history on Israel’s behalf.
7–8 The “withheld rain” is the latter rain, so important to the full development of the crops. That rain fell on some towns and not on others might show that God’s hand was in the catastrophe. Nevertheless, the suffering that resulted did not lead to repentance.
9–10 Even the blighted gardens and dying trees did not remind the people of their spiritual responsibility; neither did God’s judgment on individuals. The reference to plague and sword recalls the curse of Lev 26:25, which was to come on the nation if the people walked contrary to God. The “sword” refers to war and was a reminder of the long period of warfare with Syria (2Ki 13:3).
11 Amos compares the overthrow of certain Israelite cities to the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah, which are used as analogies of destruction in a number of passages (Isa 1:9; 13:19; Jer 50:40; Zep 2:9). Hence the picture is of the violence suffered by certain Israelite cities during the Syrian incursions. The analogy of the stick snatched from the fire probably describes the conquered towns that might have been lost forever but were “snatched” from the fire of conflict and restored to their inhabitants because of the intervention of some “deliverer” (see 2Ki 13:1–9).
Divine chastisement is that aspect of his dealing with his children in which he uses punishment to bring them back to him (cf. Job 33:19–33; Pr 3:11; cf. Heb 12:5–11). Of course, suffering does not always have this purpose. The point of vv.6–11 is that the Israelites had become spiritually hardened. Because Amos does not want his hearers to forget this, he stated five times, “Yet you have not returned to me” (vv.6, 8, 9, 10, 11).
The preceding verses contain a number of connections with Dt 28–29, where Moses set forth the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience. Thus Amos shows Israel that the catastrophes mentioned are evidence that God has chastised Israel in the past for her sins. The curses of Deuteronomy have been realized. Soon the ultimate curse will follow: “Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations from one end of the earth to the other” (Dt 28:64).
12 Judgment is impending, but Amos does not state what the judgment will be (“this” does not likely refer to the catastrophes of vv.6–11 because those are broader in scope than the captivity Amos elsewhere envisions as the impending judgment). The haunting uncertainty in Amos’s words makes the threat of judgment even more ominous. Israel is to meet her God, not in a face-to-face sense, but as he intervenes in history to effect her destruction. The imperative “Prepare to meet your God, 0 Israel” has an aura of finality. When Israel meets her God, she will finally learn the nature of the coming judgment.
The command “Prepare” should not be understood as a plea for the people to repent. The die was cast. They had not turned to God when he chastised them (vv.6–11), and now Amos holds out no hope for their full-scale repentance. The people were to get ready for the national calamity about to befall them.
13 A hymnic element, portraying some aspects of the nature of the God the Israelites are to face in judgment, closes this section. The word “forms” refers to God’s activity in Creation and is paralleled by the word “creates.” Not only does God form the mountains and create the wind, but he reveals to human beings “his thoughts.” The word for “thoughts” (GK 8465) is never used of God, and it is unlikely that Amos believes that God revealed his thoughts to all people (cf. 3:7). It is best to speak of God’s activity in searching the hearts of all humankind and revealing their secret thoughts and motives.
“High places” could refer to pagan religious sanctuaries (Jer 7:31), but more likely refers to mountains and hills. In ancient times possession of the heights of enemy territory meant that the enemy was virtually brought into subjection (Dt 33:29; Eze 36:2). The majestic metaphor of God striding over the hills and mountains shows his sovereignty over the earth (cf. Mic 1:37; 3:9–12). The awe this picture brings is heightened by the last line: “the LORD God Almighty” (lit., “LORD God of Hosts”). The “hosts” (GK 7372) are generally taken to be the heavenly bodies or the armies of heaven.
7. A lament for fallen Israel (5:1–3)
1–2 Amos next takes up a lament, mourning the fall of Israel. Amos was so certain that what he said would happen that he treated it as an accomplished fact. He saw Israel as a virgin whose life had been ended in the bloom of youth. He describes her hopelessness as “never to rise again” and her desolation as “deserted in her own land with no one to lift her up.”
Israel’s predicted fate stands in stark contrast to the promise God gave Abraham of numerous offspring (cf. Ge 12:15; 15:15). But Amos says that Israel was cut off as a virgin who had never borne children, and the enemy was soon to carry her off to his own land. This passage illustrates that the blessings of God’s promise—which was irrevocable and eternal (Ge 13:15; 17:19; cf. Heb 6:13, 17–18)—were conditioned on the obedience of its recipients. Its eternality was guaranteed by God’s sovereign activity in history and by the existence of a believing remnant in Israel whose obedience to the covenant stipulations marked them as the vehicle through whom God would keep his promises.
3 This verse depicts the finality of Israel’s demise. As the cities sent out their defending armies to face the invader, they would be cut down. Only a handful of ragged, war-weary men will be left of Israel’s proud army.
8. Seeking true values (5:4–17)
4 The word “seek” (GK 2011), when referring to the Lord, means to turn to him in trust and confidence (Pss 34:4; 77:2; Jer 10:21). Amos uses “live” (GK 2649) in a context of national collapse. Since he has spoken of Israel as a fallen nation, the meaning of national life or restoration seems appropriate for this word (cf. v.14). Thus it is hardly right to say that Amos confronts the people only with doom. He holds out a gracious invitation but looks only for calamity because he knows so many will not repent. His invitation may have been instrumental in leading some to seek the Lord, thus contributing to the establishment of the remnant.
5 The people are warned not to keep relying for help on the centers of cultic worship. When the invader came, these centers would fall just like all the cities of Israel.
Bethel was where Jacob had met the Lord (Ge 28:10–15) and where God had reiterated the promise to him (Ge 35). In Amos’s day, however, Bethel stood for mere external religion (see comment on Am 4:4). The idolatry practiced there could only lead to continued separation from God and the ultimate destruction of the nation. The reference to Beersheba shows that Israelites continued to cross the border into the southern kingdom to worship at the sanctuary in Judah.
6 The name “house of Joseph” stands for the northern kingdom and reflects the descent of its largest tribe, Ephraim, from Joseph. The fire Amos speaks of is reminiscent of the judgment in the oracles of 1:3–2:11 and symbolizes the coming captivity. A clear alternative is offered to the people in the word “or.” The choice is to “seek the LORD,” with all the blessings and favor this will bring, or to experience ultimate doom.
7 “Justice” (GK 5477) connotes the fair and impartial administration of the requirements of the Mosaic law, which required concern for others (Ex 23:4–5; Dt 24:17–22). These concepts were being violated in Amos’s day, for justice was being turned into “bitterness” (lit., “wormwood”; cf. Jer 9:15; La 3:15, 19; cf. Am 2:6–7).
8–9 In sublime words Amos depicts the Lord’s creative power in making the constellations, establishing the succession of day and night, and summoning the vast oceans to cover so much of the land. But then he turns from the sovereignty of God in creation to his sovereignty in human history, as seen by his overthrowing military strongholds.
10 The accusation continues with Amos’s description of his contemporaries’ hating the one who reproves in the “court” (lit.,"gate”; GK 9133); the city gate was where the legal proceedings were carried on (cf. vv.12, 15; see comment on Ru 4:1). The “reprovers” protested the injustices of the courts. They were hated, as were those who spoke the truth during the proceedings.
11 Amos next speaks vividly of the oppressive measures that exploited the poor and made the rich richer. These symbols of Israel’s wealth and greed were to become the objects of God’s wrath. A terrible calamity was to befall the nation (the reversal of Dt 6:10–11). As yet it has not been fully described; but each of Amos’s allusions to it builds on the other until in ch. 9 it attains its fullest statement.
12–13 All these judgments result from the people’s many sins—sins that entailed rebellion and failure to live up to God’s standards. In the light of the corruption of the times, the prudent man said nothing, because anything he might have said would have been unavailing. Protest would only have made the situation worse and brought greater woe.
14 Amos exhorts the people to seek good and not evil as the way to life. To concern themselves with what is good was the only way the nation could be restored to “life.” As a result “the LORD God Almighty” [see comment on 4:13] will be with you.” This expression connotes the Lord’s presence, not only to dispense national and individual blessing, but to defend and fight for his people (cf. Dt 31:8; Jdg 6:12).
15 The people were not only to stop seeking evil (v.14), they were to hate evil and love good. This alone would bring life, for the Lord might possibly have mercy on the “remnant of Joseph” (cf. v.6). “Remnant” (GK 8642) connotes a portion of something. Since Amos’s exhortation in v.14 holds open the possibility of the nation’s restoration based on their repentance, this similar appeal in v.15 must not be seen as fulfilled in some far-off future but refers to the possibility of the northern kingdom escaping from God’s judgment—or at least a portion of the people escaping.
If these appeals for repentance do not seem to be in accord with Amos’s pronouncements of inevitable doom elsewhere, it may be that while he saw no hope for the nation as a whole, he continued to hold out the gracious offer of deliverance, even though only a few would respond.
16–17 “Therefore” relates back to the accusation in vv.7–12 and introduces the judgment of the Lord. Amos pictures the people weeping as the Lord passed through their midst, judging the sin that he had so severely condemned.
9. The Day of the Lord (5:18–20)
18 This verse affords an insight into the popular theology in Amos’s time. “The day of the Lord” is an important concept that runs through the prophetic writings. It refers to the complex of events surrounding the coming of the Lord in judgment to conquer his foes and to establish his sovereign rule over the world. The people were looking forward to that day. Apparently they understood it as the time when the Lord would act on their behalf to conquer their foes and establish Israel as his people forever. They regarded their election as the guarantee of the Lord’s favor. But they failed to see the Day of the Lord as the time when God would judge all sin, even theirs. They named the name of the Lord but did not obey his precepts. For these people, Amos said, that coming day would be one of darkness.
19–20 Amos uses two metaphors to show the error of the popular concept of the Day of the Lord. A man flees from a lion only to meet a bear. Another enters his home, his place of security, but is bitten by a snake. The meaning is both clear and powerful. The Israelites saw the Day of the Lord as a comforting concept. But the faithless Israelites would find it to be a time of judgment for them. There would be no hope for them in that day, for it would bring not one ray of light.
10. Unacceptable worship (5:21–27)
21 The shock felt by the people when Amos attacked their comforting eschatology was followed by another shock. He turns to their worship and proclaims the Lord’s hatred of their religious observances because they lacked the love, concern, and humble obedience to God that marks sincere profession of faith. Every aspect of their ritual was an act of disobedience because it ignored the heart of the law—love for God and concern for others.
22–23 The people may, Amos says, continue to bring sacrifices, but the Lord would not accept them. The “burnt offering” (GK 6592) is the offering that was entirely consumed. The “grain offering” (GK 4966) was any offering given as a gift to the Lord. The “fellowship offering” (GK 8968) was offered in part to the Lord and the rest was shared with the offerer, his family, and his friends. Even their songs were a source of revulsion to the Lord. God says they were to be put away from him.
24 The element that will transform the people’s sterile worship into acceptable worship is “justice” (GK 5477) and “righteousness” (GK 7407), concepts that relate to the social order. Only when the personal concern of the law is incorporated into their social structure and “rightness” characterizes their dealings with others will their worship be acceptable. Justice and righteousness must “roll on like a river . . . like a never-failing stream.” A momentary flow of these two qualities will not do.
25–27 The question in v.25 calls for a negative answer: no, the Israelites did not sacrifice then. Evidently the forty-year period (beginning with the defection of the Israelites at Kadesh; cf. Nu 14:33–34) was a time when obedience to the Levitical institutions had declined (Jos 5:5–6; see also Eze 20:10–26; Hos 9:10; 13:5–6).
Verse 26 is best understood as adversative: “But you have lifted.” Israel disobeyed God and by her neglect of sacrifice turned to idolatry. Amos lists the implements of idolatrous worship of an unknown astral deity, an event far back in their history. In other words, v.24 calls for obedience, while the judgment section affirms their disobedience (vv.25–26) and bases the predicted judgment (v.27) on their long history of unfaithfulness to God.
11. A warning to the complacent (6:1–7)
1–2 With masterly irony, Amos addresses the self-satisfied rich, secure in their affluence. The cities he mentions have not necessarily met their doom. Rather, the question has a sarcastic note: “Go to [these cities] and look. . . . Are they better off than your two kingdoms [Judah and Israel]?” It is as though he were echoing what the people of Israel were saying—“Look at the other countries: there is none greater than we.” This is supported by the words “notable men of the foremost nation,” which also has a note of sarcasm. Presumably the people of Amos’s day were boasting of their national security and power. The prophet proclaims woe to those who felt secure in the strength of their nation. His parroting of their affirmations of self-assurance and national pride underscores their complacency and places their false pride in stark contrast to the doom he predicts in the subsequent context.
3 The people were unwilling to hear of the “evil day,” the day of their demise predicted by Amos. Yet they were all too willing to make the poor miserable.
4–7 These verses describe the opulence of Israelite society. To Amos their luxuries were symbols of the oppression by which they aggrandized themselves. So those who amassed all this wealth would be the first to go into exile (v.7).
12. Pride before a fall (6:8–11)
8 The Lord swears by himself in the preface to this oracle of doom (see comment on 4:2–3). The parallelism of the oracle indicates that the “pride of Jacob” has to do with Israel’s vaunted “fortresses” (likely a reference to the great houses of the people, the symbols of their misguided affluence; cf. 3:10, 15). The “city,” evidently Samaria, and all its wealth would be delivered up to a conqueror.
9–11 The judgment (v.8) is vividly illustrated in vv.9–10. If ten men are in a house or fortress, they will die. When a relative of one of the dead comes to burn the corpses, should he find one person still alive, that person will not permit his mentioning the name of the Lord for fear that the Lord will turn his wrath on him. These verses reflect the responsibility of an individual for the burial of members of his family. Since cremation was not acceptable in ancient Israel, the reference is probably to the burning of corpses during a plague. Verse 11 is a powerful picture of the destruction that would surely come on oppressing Israel.
13. A grim paradox (6:12–14)
12–13 By two patently absurd questions, Amos introduces the scathing rebuke that follows. One expected the courts to dispense justice, but the rich and powerful dispensed poison instead and made bitter the fruit of righteousness. Those who did this are described as rejoicing in “Lo Debar” and “Karnaim,” evidently the sites of recent victories in Jeroboam’s incursion into Aramean territory. But Amos spells “Lo Debar” in Hebrew so that it means “no thing.” Through this biting sarcasm he proclaims the utter futility of their burgeoning national influence. Karnaim means “horns” and, by extension, “strength.” The people’s pride and self-confidence were reflected in their boast that they took Karnaim by their own strength.
14 This verse specifies the judgment that would overtake the Israelites; a nation, not identified here by Amos, would oppress them from their northern border, “from the entrance to [cf. NIV note] Hamath” (cf. 2Ki 14:25), all the way to their southern border at the Wadi Arabah. This nation turned out to be Assyria.
IV. The Prophetic Visions (7:1–9:15)
A. The Vision of the Locusts, Fire, and the Plumb Line (7:1–9)
1 The first of the series of visions that occupy most of the rest of the book consists of three dramatic elements. The first is the threat of a locust invasion “as the second crop was coming” (i.e., just before the dry season). If the threat materialized, the people would be left without food till the next harvest. Apparently the king had the privilege of claiming the first mowing. The needs of the government were great, and the large military establishment had to be supported.
2–3 When Amos saw in his vision what devastation the locusts had brought, he prays that it will not happen, because Israel would not be able to survive it. “Jacob,” he says, “is so small!” This appeal seems strange in view of Israel’s extensive territory and economic prosperity. But Amos had seen an awesome display of the Lord’s might in this vision; and, in comparison to that, the nation seemed small and helpless. Amos’s prayer was answered. The Lord relented and the threat was revoked.
4–6 The second aspect of the vision involved the threat of fire—an all-consuming fire, lapping up the sea and land. Again Amos’s prayer was answered, and the Lord relented, as he had done in the first part of the vision.
7–9 The third aspect of the vision is climactic and contains the didactic element of the vision. The Lord was seen standing by a plumb wall with a plumb line in his hand. The word “standing” connotes a posture of firmness and determination, thus providing a contrast to the change of heart attributed to the Lord in the first two parts of the vision.
A plumb line is a standard by which a wall’s vertical trueness is tested. So the Lord was testing the people by a standard. In the first two visions, no standard was given. Therefore, the threatened judgment could be withdrawn. But after the plumb line vision, the Lord could not be accused of arbitrariness if he carried out the threats. The people had failed to live up to their privilege as the Lord’s people. They had been called to be holy (Ex 19:6), but their repressive society violated the very standards of holiness itself. They gave lip service to the covenant of the Lord but ignored the social concerns woven into its fabric. When the test came, they were found wanting. The plumb line showed that the Lord was not an arbitrary judge.
The coming judgment would fall on the pagan sanctuaries of Israel and on the dynasty of Jeroboam. Thus the two major influences in Israelite life would perish.
B. Historical Interlude (7:10–17)
Amos’s visions are momentarily interrupted by a passage that gives us important information about Amos himself. It may have been placed here because it actually followed Amos’s public report of the preceding vision.
10–13 Amaziah, the priest of the sanctuary at Bethel, accuses Amos of conspiracy. The words reported by Amaziah are based on the threat recorded in v.9. Though Jeroboam’s reaction is not given, it is presumably reflected in Amaziah’s order to Amos. The word “seer” (GK 2602; a word associated with “prophet” in 2Ki 17:13) is legitimately used here, since Amos has just received a vision.
14–15 Amos’s reply to Amaziah’s order is not without its interpretive problems. Did Amos say, “I am not a prophet,” or, “I was not a prophet”? The latter option seems best. Amos certainly denies any connection with professional prophetism and affirms that he is a prophet only by divine calling. Before that, he was merely a shepherd and a caretaker of sycamore-fig trees.
16–17 Amos’s encounter with Amaziah ends with a prediction of dire judgment, despite the latter’s insistence that Amos desist in his preaching against Israel. The judgment against Amaziah and his family was personal in nature. Amaziah’s wife would be violated, perhaps by the invading soldiers, and his children killed. He would lose all he had and would die in a “pagan” (“unclean”) country. So the priest, whose task it was to maintain the purity of the cult, would die in a Gentile land.
C. The Vision of the Summer Fruit (8:1–14)
1–2 While it is possible that Amos saw an actual basket of fruit and that the Lord used it as a means of revelation, its inclusion in this section of the book makes it more likely that it was another vision. The word for “ripe fruit” is similar to another word that Amos uses in the response of the Lord: “The time is ripe for my people.” The basket of summer fruit, ordinarily associated with the joys and provisions of the harvest, becomes a mockery. The pleasant memories of past harvest festivals are shattered by the decisive words that the end time is near.
3 Just as the apparent promise of the ripe fruit was turned into the assurance of Israel’s destruction, so the joyous temple hymns (cf. 6:5) would give way to the wailing of the populace of Israel when the wrath of the Lord fell on them. The last clause of v.3 is typical of the vivid staccato style of Amos: “Many, many bodies—flung everywhere! Silence!” This final word calls for the reverence this appalling scene warrants.
4–6 This scene is followed by a recital of the social crimes of those whose disobedience to the Lord was responsible for the carnage. The merchants could not wait for the end of the holy days so that they could increase their wealth by giving short measure and raising prices. They even sold the sweepings to increase the weight! Yet these exploiters were careful to observe the Sabbath. Though the marketplace was deserted on the holy days, in the bustle of commerce their god—Mammon—was quite in evidence, and their true religious credo was Gain at Any Cost.
7–8 In the oath formula, the “Pride of Jacob” is best understood as an appellation for God (see comments on 4:2; 6:8). It is the Lord as the pride of Jacob who guarantees this oath. The judgment to follow will surely come because God does not allow his glorious name to be sullied. Verse 8 describes the convulsions the land would suffer. The striking metaphor of an earthquake represents the calamity Amos has referred to throughout the book.
9 “In that day” refers to the day of calamity and need not be understood as eschatological. It introduces a section that continues to describe the impending judgment. The setting of the sun at noon describes an interruption of the natural order that would cause terror and panic among earth’s inhabitants. The upheaval predicted by Amos would be a disruption of the national life on such a scale that the fear and dread in the hearts of the people would be similar to the terror that a celestial cataclysm would cause.
10–13 The destruction to come on Samaria would cause bitter mourning. Amos describes the event in terms of a funeral for “an only son.” He depicts a coming famine as no ordinary famine but one of the words of the Lord. He pictures people searching for God’s word as starving people seek food or water. But they would not receive any word from the Lord. Since they had rejected the word and not realized its great value, they had lost it forever (cf. Lk 17:22; Jn 7:34).
14 The word “shame” has the primary meaning of “guilt” (cf. 2Ch 24:18; 33:23). Dan was the site of the worship of the golden calf under Jeroboam, and the “way to Beersheba” (NIV, “god of Beersheba”) apparently refers to the pilgrimage to that site. The various shrines Amos refers to may indicate that a geographical split in the concept of the Lord was taking place. A similar split related to the Canaanite god Baal. Thus the worship of the Lord became idolatrous. Those whose confidence was in their distorted, pagan view of the Lord would fall.
D. The Vision of the Lord standing by the Altar (9:1–15)
1. The destruction of the temple (9:1–6)
1–4 Amos sees the Lord standing by the temple altar. He commands the temple to crumble, and it collapses on the people, destroying the whole nation. The temple was not a literal temple, for the collapse of such a building would affect only a few. Rather it represents the religion of the northern kingdom, which, in the end, brought about the destruction of its adherents. The decay of the social structure that resulted from their cold externalism could lead only to national ruin. The gross sin of idolatry could lead only to judgment. The god of “greed” is no respecter of persons and often turns his voraciousness on those who are his own. Amos allowed no escape for the nation.
5–6 The hymnic element is appropriate to the context because it sets forth the power of the Lord to carry out his threat. This hymn contains several elements common to other prophetic hymns, such as the reference to the heavens and the calling forth of the waters (5:8).
2. Israel and the other nations (9:7)
7 Cush was a territory roughly corresponding to Ethiopia and Nubia. Infrequently mentioned in the OT, this country seems to have been chosen because of its great distance from Israel. It lay at the outer extremities of the important nations of the ancient Near East. At the time of Amos, it was probably considered an insignificant region. Thus it would be shocking to the Israelites, who boasted of their election, to learn that in the eyes of the Lord they were no better than those obscure Cushites.
Furthermore, Israel was no different from the Philistines or Arameans, because the Lord governed the migrations of these people just as he had led the Israelites from Egypt. Because of the Exodus, the Israelites assumed that the Lord was unalterably committed to them as a nation and that no other nation counted. But Amos destroys that false assumption by affirming the sovereignty of the Lord over all the nations.
3. The restoration of the Davidic kingdom (9:8–12)
8–10 The nation was to be destroyed, but not totally. Thus an element of hope is introduced at this point. The eighth-century prophets placed their hope of the future in a kingdom portrayed with obvious Davidic motifs (Isa 9:7; Mic 5:2). It is true that Amos held no hope for the nation of Israel. But that is not to say that he held out no hope for a preserved remnant. One important element of Amps’s message was that the nation was not to be equated with the remnant; it was precisely that false hope that he attacked. A true remnant from Israel would remain (cf. Jer 30:11).
Verse 9 explains v.8 by the use of a metaphor. The concept of separation is inherent in the figure of sifting with a sieve. Amos had decreed that the nation was doomed to exile (7:17). The consonance of this with the “shaking” is apparent; a separation would be made between the destroyed kingdom and the remnant that remained.
11 “In that day” refers to the time when the sifting activity will be initiated, i.e., the period of the Exile (vv.9–10). This period was seen by the prophets as continuing until the coming of Messiah and so includes the Christian Era.
The word “tent” (GK 6109) refers to a rude shelter (a “hut”) and pictures the “house” (cf. 2Sa 7:11) of David that was becoming a dilapidated shack; in Amos’s time the Davidic dynasty had fallen so low that it could no longer be called a house. The continuation of that dynasty is envisioned in prophecy as continuing in the Messiah, who is often referred to in Davidic motifs (Isa 9:6–7; Jer 33:15, 17; Mic 5:2). Amos thus affirms the perpetuity of the Davidic house. The national upheaval that ultimately led to the fall of Judah and Israel and the overthrow of Judah’s monarchy could not vitiate God’s promise. The royal offspring would yet come. David’s dynasty would be perpetuated in David’s Greater Son.
The promise to David in 2 Samuel also carried with it the promise of an eternal kingdom (2Sa 7:12–13). While the Davidic dynasty is most prominent in Amos’s prophecy, it is difficult to separate that concept from that of regnal authority or kingdom. Both are probably in view. The dynasty had not yet collapsed in Amos’s time, but the seeds of its dissolution were present.
The Lord declared that he would restore that “tent.” He would restore the “broken places” of the divided kingdom (the word “its” is plural). He would restore “his”—i.e., David’s—“ruins” and “build it,” referring to “the tent.” The Davidic dynasty, represented by the tent, was, according to Amos, to be restored.
12 The NT, in Ac 15:17, follows the LXX here, reading “that the remnant of men may seek the Lord” instead of “possess the remnant of Edom.” The subject of Ac 15:12–21, where this passage is quoted, is Gentile inclusion in the early church; James used this passage to support the rightness of Gentile inclusion. The phrase “that bear my name” always connotes that which is God’s peculiar possession (Dt 28:10; 2Ch 7:14; Jer 14:9; 15:16). This is precisely James’s argument.
Since the inclusion of Gentiles takes place, according to Amos, in the kingdom of the descendant of David, one may assume that that kingdom has been established in some way. It is invisible now but will appear in glorious power when Christ, David’s Greater Son, returns. If this passage in Amos predicted only a future inclusion of Gentiles in the millennial kingdom, it is difficult to understand why James would have appealed to it for support of Gentile admission to the first-century church. It seems to be clearly relevant to the issues facing the early church. Then James obviously understood the restored Davidic monarchy to be represented, at least in its invisible sense, in the church in his time.
4. The blessings of the restored kingdom (9:13–15)
13 The reaper being overtaken by the plowman implies a great abundance of the produce of the field. Scarcely can the grapevines be planted than the grapes are ready for pressing. The great amount of wine in this time is pictured in the metaphor of new wine flowing from the hills. In other words, Amos sees a radical reversal of Israel’s fortunes. He depicts a time when God’s blessing will be poured out in unimaginable abundance.
14–15 The period of this abundance will witness the restoration of Israel to her land. Ruined cities will be rebuilt, and Israel will again flourish as a nation. Amos sees this restoration as being permanent. He maintains that Israel will be planted in her own land “never again to be uprooted.” It is difficult to understand his words as finding fulfillment in the postexilic period. Not only were the economic conditions of that time not consonant with Amos’s prediction, but its impermanence makes the identification doubly difficult.
It is also difficult to apply the concept of universal peace to the invisible kingdom, the church, unless the meaning of the prophet’s language is severely restricted. If one understands the kingdom to have a present aspect as well as a future aspect, the problem becomes less difficult. The NT does teach a present, invisible aspect of the kingdom, which is the church. But the millennial kingdom is that aspect of the kingdom in which God’s reign will be realized within the sphere of human history and natural order. It is in this aspect of the kingdom that Amos’s prediction of the blessings of the kingdom may be placed.
The hope of Amos is not an isolated one that finds expression only in his book. Nor is it a purely prophetic tradition without relation to other OT traditions. It is an expression of one of the most important themes of OT theology: the promise. This promise, given to Abraham, reiterated to the patriarchs, reaffirmed to David, and expressed throughout the OT, affirms that God will mediate his redemptive blessings to Jews and Gentiles in a promised offspring or “seed.” In the prophets, this offspring is clearly the Davidic Messiah, who in the NT is Christ. Amos affirms that God’s promise has not ceased. In spite of the internal turmoil in the kingdom of his day, God would establish the Davidic monarchy; and through that monarchy God’s blessing would come to “all peoples on earth” (Ge 12:3).
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| Am 5:25–27 | Ac 7:42–43 | Sin and judgment |
| Am 9:11–12 | Ac 15:16–17 | Restoration for everyone |