Annotations for Amos

1:1–2 Preface. This sets the historical context for the prophet’s message, identifies Amos’s hometown, and establishes the tone of judgment that characterizes the book.

1:1 shepherds. Not the typical Hebrew word for shepherd (cf. 3:12). The Hebrew word occurs elsewhere only in 2 Kgs 3:4, referring to King Mesha of Moab and his huge flocks. The implication is that Amos was not poor, which 7:14 reinforces. He was not a professional prophet but rather a layperson called to deliver God’s word (7:14–15). Tekoa. Modern Khirbet Tequ‘a, a town in Judah about ten miles (16 kilometers) south of Jerusalem and five miles (8 kilometers) southeast of Bethlehem. For other background material, see Introduction: Author; Date and Background.

1:2 roars. Suggests the prey has been caught by the divine lion (3:4, 8, 12; cf. Isa 31:4; Hos 5:14–15; 13:7–8). That God “thunders” also is ominous. From the beginning, the word of the Lord is powerful. This verse sets a threatening tone for the rest of the book. Zion . . . Jerusalem. The site of the temple and the capital of Judah, which communicates that the Lord does not identify with the northern kingdom of Israel. dry up. The Hebrew term is often translated “mourn.” Inanimate objects grieve in the OT (e.g., Isa 3:26; Lam 2:8; Hos 4:3). This verb recurs in contexts of death (5:16; 8:8, 10; 9:5). It alerts the reader that this prophetic message is about loss.

1:3—2:16 Judgment on the Nations. This section is a series of judgments on Israel and seven other peoples. These messages demonstrate consistent patterns in structure and content. Amos prefaces each word to a nation with the phrase “This is what the LORD says” (1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6) and closes several with the formula “says the LORD” (1:5, 8 [with the addition of “Sovereign”],15; 2:3, 16 [has “declares the LORD”]). The reasons for God’s displeasure at the northern kingdom will be made clear in the judgment on Israel (2:6–16), the climax of this series. The inclusion of Israel conveys that it was no better than nations that did not have the Lord as their God and that it too would be punished for its sins. This indictment surely was a shock to those in the northern kingdom, who believed that they enjoyed God’s favor.

1:3—2:3 Judgment on Israel’s Neighbors. God condemns seven nations surrounding the northern kingdom of Israel, including Judah. If we leave Judah aside, the transgression is violence against Israel and other peoples. These atrocities probably occurred toward the end of the reign of Jeroboam II, who early on enjoyed success (2 Kgs 14:25–27). Judgment corresponds to these violations: these nations will be overcome in war. Defeat involves sending fire (1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5), demolishing strongholds and capital cities (1:4–5, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5), and removing rulers (1:5, 8, 15; 2:3). These inspired utterances teach that God will punish those who mistreat his people and others. He does not tolerate brutality. Humans are made in the image of God. To mistreat so horrifically another person is a strike against the Lord and is worthy of punishment. As throughout the Prophets, leaders are singled out as particularly responsible for the sins of their people and the judgment that ensues.

1:3 For three sins . . . even for four. See also vv. 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6. This three-four pattern is also found in Proverbs (30:15–16, 18–19, 21–23, 29–31). Unlike the Proverbs passages, however, these messages do not list four items. Some suppose that the purpose is to highlight the worst sins or those that finally triggered God’s wrath. Others argue that the numbers three and four should be added together to produce the number seven, suggesting that these nations have reached the fullness of sin. Damascus. Capital of Aram (Syria), Israel’s northern neighbor. I will not relent. A wooden translation of the Hebrew yields: “I will not cause it to turn back” (see also vv. 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6), where “it” could refer to God’s word of judgment or the judgment itself. Either way, the meaning is that these punishments are irrevocable. threshed. Could refer to the physical torture of dragging a sledge with iron teeth over victims or be a metaphor for ruthlessness (Isa 41:15; Mic 4:13; Hab 3:12). This same language is used to depict Aram’s attacks on Israel years before (2 Kgs 13:7). Gilead. Territory of the tribes of Reuben and Gad in Transjordan between the Arnon and Yarmuk Rivers (cf. v. 13). Israel and Aram had long contested this area.

1:4 send fire. Most likely refers to devastation in war, with defeated cities being burned. “Fire” and the destruction of the “fortresses” are a constant theme in these judgments (see vv. 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5). Hazael . . . Ben-Hadad. Rulers of Aram in the ninth and eighth centuries BC.

1:5 king. Hebrew yôšēb (“one [sitting or] dwelling”); some translate this “inhabitants” (see NIV text note). The parallelism with “holds the scepter” suggests that this person is sitting on a throne and thus is a royal figure (cf. v. 8). Valley of Aven. Could be a geographic name or a derogatory reference (see NIV text note). go into exile. The judgment on Aram, a punishment later decreed for Israel (5:5, 27; 6:7; 7:11, 17; cf. 4:2). Kir. The place of the origin of the Arameans (9:7). Aram’s judgment will reverse its history.

1:6–8 This message mentions four of the five cities commonly associated with the Philistines. The fifth, Gath, appears in 6:2. Unlike the other nations, Philistia did not have a set capital city. The strongest ruler of the moment was the leader over the region.

1:6 God denounces trafficking in slaves (“took captive whole communities and sold them”), who would have been taken in war—a war most likely with Israel, Philistia’s eastern neighbor. These captives were sold to Edom. The repetition of this indictment in v. 9 could suggest that Tyre participated in this crime. Humans are valuable in God’s sight, not a commodity to be bought and sold.

1:8 king. See note on v. 5.

1:9 Tyre. A Phoenician kingdom northwest of Israel. The language of this indictment echoes the judgment against the Philistines. disregarding a treaty of brotherhood. Most likely refers to violating an agreement with Israel. treaty. A covenant. It is difficult to identify this treaty. David established ties with Hiram of Tyre (2 Sam 5:11), who supplied materials to Solomon for the building of the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 5; 9:10–14). Years later Ahab of Israel married Jezebel, a princess of Sidon, another Phoenician city (1 Kgs 16:31); she was killed in Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:30–37). Possibly the relationship with Phoenicia had been restored in Jeroboam’s time but now had been broken in this act of violence.

1:11 Edom. Located south of the Dead Sea; a historic enemy of Israel. In the eighth century BC, King Amaziah of Judah subdued it for a time (2 Kgs 14:7), but this alludes to armed conflict with a debilitated Israel. brother. The nation of Israel. Edom is Israel’s “brother” because the relationship between the two peoples went back to the patriarchal period: the tensions between Jacob, the ancestor of the Israelites, and Esau, the older twin brother of Jacob and the ancestor of the Edomites (Gen 25:21–34; 27; 32–33; 36). slaughtered the women of the land. This possible rendering of a difficult Hebrew phrase is based on the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT). The term translated “women” can also be rendered “compassion.” The phrase could be read “cast off his compassion.” Either option emphasizes Edom’s unrestrained cruelty, another instance of violence not acceptable to God.

1:12 Teman. Synonym for Edom (Jer 49:7, 20). Bozrah. A principal city of Edom (cf. Isa 34:6; Jer 49:13–22). Excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas demonstrate the viability of this kingdom at an earlier date than many scholars thought possible.

1:13 Ammon. Located east of Israel, across the Jordan. Gilead. A zone disputed by Israel and Ammon (cf. v. 3). That Ammon “ripped open the pregnant women” to extend its territory speaks of unspeakable barbarity in war.

1:14 Rabbah. The capital city of Ammon, modern Amman in Jordan.

2:1 Moab. In Transjordan, south of Ammon and Israelite territory. burned to ashes the bones of Edom’s king. Another instance of a lack of restraint in war. burned to ashes. This was done to desecrate the dead, the leftover substance perhaps to be used as plaster (cf. Deut 27:2, 4). The judgment of God is not limited to those who commit violence against his people. Respect of persons is a universal divine demand.

2:4–5 Judgment on Judah. The southern kingdom, like the northern kingdom of Israel, is numbered among the condemned nations, although Judah’s transgression is not atrocity in warfare. Though Amos is from Judah, he is not reticent about denouncing his own people. He is not a narrow nationalist. The northern kingdom may have cheered this indictment of Judah, but theirs quickly follows.

2:4 rejected the law of the LORD. Refused to bring every area of national life under God’s guidelines as expressed in the law (cf. Isa 5:24). This is not limited to religious practices. It is common to render the Hebrew as “false gods.” The term also could be translated “lies” (see NIV text note). In that case, the reference most likely is to the teachings of false prophets or corrupt national leaders (cf. Isa 28:15, 17; Hos 7:13; Mic 2:11). This sin was habitual and longstanding; Judah’s ancestors followed these errant messages as well.

2:6–16 Judgment on Israel. The transgressions of the northern kingdom of Israel center primarily on social injustice and rebellion against the Lord, not atrocities committed in war. Nevertheless, the judgment is the same as that of all the other nations. As the final and longest message, this is the climax to the entire series.

2:6–8 This inspired utterance begins with the same formula as all the others (see note on 1:3). The northern kingdom of Israel is included with all the other nations deserving of punishment. It is possible to count seven sins in these verses; if understood this way, it is the only judgment that provides a complete listing of transgressions and implies that Israel exhibits the fullness of sin.

2:6 The meaning of these transgressions is disputed. sell the innocent. This could mean that the judges are bought off with bribes so that the poor cannot get a fair hearing (5:12; cf. Exod 23:6–8; Isa 5:23; Mic 3:9–11). A better option is that the destitute are sold into debt slavery for owing a creditor “silver” (see 8:4–6; cf. Exod 21:1–11; Lev 25:39–40; Neh 5:1–8) or even for something as paltry as “a pair of sandals.”

2:7 This verse lists three additional sins. trample on the heads of the poor as on the dust of the ground. A powerful metaphor for the callous disregard of the needy. deny justice to the oppressed. Another reference to irregularities in the legal process directed against the powerless, or a more general description of making their life miserable. Father and son use the same girl. Or “go to.” It is difficult to specify what is meant by this. The reference may be to some form of incest (Lev 18:6–18) or to taking advantage of a servant girl who is working in the household, perhaps due to debt slavery (v. 6; cf. Neh 5:5). However, the Hebrew verb used here is not the one usually employed for sexual activity. Whatever the correct interpretation, the result is that God’s name is put in disrepute. Unacceptable actions of God’s people project a distorted image of his person and damage their mission to be an example to the nations.

2:8 The final two transgressions could refer to worshiping either the Lord or other deities (cf. 5:26; 8:14). every altar. Possibly household or local shrines (7:9; 8:14). garments taken in pledge. Items either (1) taken as security for a loan (Exod 22:26–27) or (2) confiscated when a loan was defaulted (cf. 2 Kgs 4:1). house of their god [or gods]. Perhaps refers to religious sites or the temple at Bethel (7:13). fines. Could be unjust taxes (cf. 5:11), thereby expanding the web of injustice beyond unscrupulous creditors to include corrupt government officials.

2:9–12 In contrast to the sinful behavior of Israel, the Lord continually demonstrates grace. He brought them out from slavery in Egypt, led them in the wilderness for 40 years, and defeated their powerful foes. God also “raised up prophets” from among them to be his spokespersons and “Nazirites” as models of commitment (v. 11). Israel tried to compromise the Nazirite vow not to drink wine (Num 6:1–4) and silenced the prophetic voice (7:10–13). At the center of vv. 11–12 is an indictment in the form of a rhetorical question: “Is this not true, people of Israel?”

2:13–16 This judgment closes with a list of seven kinds of soldiers who will suffer defeat in the invasion that will be God’s judgment. There will be no escape (3:11; 5:2, 19; 6:14; 9:1–4).

2:13 cart . . . loaded with grain. The overloaded cart symbolizes the weight of sin.

2:16 that day. This possibly is the earliest mention of the day of the Lord in the Prophets (see also 5:18, 20). It is a key theme in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and in the Minor Prophets, especially Joel, Obadiah, and Zephaniah. This day can refer to a severe judgment on particular nations (Isa 23:15; Jer 46:10; 47:4; Ezek 30:2–3; Obad 8) or on the people of God (vv. 1–2; Jer 4:9; Lam 1:21; Obad 11–14; Hab 3:16; Zeph 1:15–16). While these devastating judgments could happen in the near future, the prophets also announce a final day of the Lord when all the nations of the earth will be judged (Joel 3:14; Obad 15; Zeph 3:8; Zech 14:1–4; Mal 4:5). This climactic event is followed by a global restoration of peace and plenty (Isa 2:2–5; 4:2–6; Zech 14:8–21). The book of Amos speaks of both an imminent day of punishment (here; 3:14; 5:18–20; 6:3; 8:3, 9–11, 13) and an end-time renewal (9:11–15).

3:1—6:14 More Details About Israel’s Sin and Fate. This section provides additional details concerning the transgressions of Israel. It can be divided into two large parts of two chapters each. The first part (chs. 3–4) broadens the indictment of Israel and its judgment (2:6–16) by exposing more transgressions. The second part (chs. 5–6) is characterized by lament over the coming judgment.

3:1—4:13 Divine Exposure of Israel’s Guilt. This first part of the condemnation of chs. 3–6 presents the sin and judgment of Israel with powerful images drawn from different spheres of national life.

3:1–15 Witnesses Summoned Against Israel. This passage begins by calling the entire nation to account (vv. 1–8), moves on to concentrate its attention on the capital city (vv. 9–12), and narrows its accusation further to the sanctuary at Bethel and the royal house (vv. 13–15).

3:1–2 As also at 4:1 and 5:1, the nation is commanded to “hear this word.” The unique election of Israel as the people of God brought singular responsibility. This exceptional choice and charge are emphasized by the repetition of “whole” and “all” (the same word in Hebrew). Their special status made judgment that more certain.

3:3–6 This sequence of questions can be broken down into a series of five (“Do . . . Does . . . Does . . . Does . . . Does” [vv. 3–5]) and two (“When . . . When” [v. 6]), which add up to seven. This is another example of the lists of five and seven that characterize the book (see Introduction: Structure and Literary Features). This passage teaches that actions bring inevitable consequences. It also demonstrates an ominous progression from the vague statement of a meeting in v. 3 to a variety of encounters with death that culminate with the Lord’s action against a city.

3:7–8 A prophet’s participation in the divine council of angelic beings in the heavenly court (or temple) confirmed that the Lord truly had called that person to be a prophet (1 Kgs 22:19–21; Isa 6:1–3; Jer 23:16–22; cf. Job 1–2; Ps 82:1).

3:8 The lion has roared. Connects with the roar of 1:2 and signals that the lion has taken its prey (v. 4; cf. v. 12). In judgment the Lord is a devouring lion (e.g., Isa 31:4; Jer 4:7; 25:38; Hos 5:14; 13:7–8).

3:9–11 This is a rhetorical call for Ashdod (1:8) and Egypt (2:10) to witness the transgressions of Samaria, the capital of Israel, whose fortresses have been filled with the plunder gained through oppression. The sin of God’s people will surprise even their enemies. An enemy will “overrun [the] land” in judgment (v. 11) and expose the nation’s misplaced confidence in its fortifications (4:3; 6:13–14; 7:7–8).

3:12 A shepherd was required to present some remains of the sheep to its owner as evidence that he had not stolen or lost the animal (Exod 22:10–13; cf. Gen 31:39). The point here is either that only a few in Israel will survive the invasion or that the northern kingdom will be left with little by the enemy. bed . . . couch. Both reoccur in 6:4. a piece of fabric from a couch. This is difficult to translate. The rendering “fabric” is based on a different spelling of the Hebrew text, as is the alternative “Damascus” (see NIV text note; cf. 1:3; 5:27). It is possible that the term rendered “a piece of fabric” refers to a piece of furniture, in parallel with the preceding phrase, yielding “a part of a couch.”

3:13–15 One of the targets of judgment is Bethel, where the northern kingdom’s most important sanctuary was located. It was associated with Jacob’s vision (Gen 28:10–22) and was one of the two religious sites (along with Dan) established by Jeroboam I when the northern kingdom separated from Judah (1 Kgs 12:25—13:34). A golden calf was placed in each sanctuary, a sin that became the standard of condemnation of the kings of the northern kingdom (1 Kgs 15:34; 16:2, 19, 26; 2 Kgs 17:21; 23:15). Bethel is a focus of judgment because the religious system defended the regime’s actions and the society’s unjust structures. Those who came to the sanctuaries believed that the Lord had authorized this oppressive kingdom (Amos 7:9–17; cf. 4:4–5; 5:4–6, 21–27). God will not tolerate being portrayed as supportive of such injustice. The prophet Hosea mocked Bethel (which means “house of God”) by calling it Beth Aven (“house of iniquity”) in Hos 4:15; 5:8; 10:5.

3:14 horns of the altar. A place of mercy and protection (1 Kgs 1:50; 2:28), but for Israel there would be no escape from divine wrath (v. 11; 2:14–16; 5:2; 6:14; 9:1–4).

3:15 houses . . . mansions. Amos’s other targets are the luxurious dwellings of the royal family or powerful individuals who enjoyed the fruits of their exploitation of the defenseless (v. 9; cf. 4:1; 6:3–6). ivory. A precious commodity in the ancient world. Its presence starkly contrasts with the poverty of many in Israel (6:4).

4:1–13 Israel Has Not Returned To God. The central concern of this prophetic book is a proper understanding of God, which should have been made evident in just social relationships and acceptable worship. Neither was the case in Israel. This section begins with a judgment on the self-indulgent elite (vv. 1–3) and then points out how the nation’s religion ignored the losses the people had endured (vv. 4–11). A dreadful meeting with the Lord lay ahead (vv. 12–13). The opening verse begins with “Hear this word,” but unlike those at 3:1 and 5:1, this command is not followed by an explanatory phrase (cf. 3:13). This lack could indicate that it is not a heading for a new set of verses; i.e., vv. 1–3 may continue the diatribe against Israel’s elite, with vv. 4–13 beginning the next indictment.

4:1 cows of Bashan. A sarcastic reference to the overindulgent wives of the leaders denounced in 3:15, who drink to excess (6:6). Bashan was located in Transjordan and was famous for its pastures and cattle (Deut 32:14; Ps 22:12; Jer 50:19; Ezek 39:18).

4:2–3 The seriousness of the announcement of judgment is emphasized by the oath sworn by the Sovereign Lord. The punishment on these women is portrayed graphically. They will be led out to exile like fish on “hooks” or “fishhooks” (or in a basket; see NIV text note) through the holes in the wall caused by the attack on Samaria (3:11; 5:26–27; 6:7; 7:17).

4:3 Harmon. Does not match any known place-name. See NIV text note for an alternative reading.

4:4–5 The language of these verses is surprising and ironic. Israel is encouraged to go to the historic religious centers of Bethel and Gilgal, but their worship was sin. The significance of Bethel extended back to the experiences of Abraham and Jacob (Gen 12:8; 28:10–22; 35:1–15). Jeroboam I, the founder of the northern kingdom, set up a golden calf there and instituted a religious system alternative to that at the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12:28—13:6).

4:4 Gilgal. Associated with Joshua’s conquest (Josh 4–5; 10) and Saul’s anointing (1 Sam 11:14–15). The ceremonies cited here (cf. Lev 3; 7:11–21; 27:30–33), of which the Israelites were proud, express gratitude to God but do not include sacrifices for sin. This religion of celebration fulfilled their spiritual impulses, but it was rejected by God. What they “love to do” (v. 5) the Lord hates (5:21).

4:6–13 This passage explains in part the grounds of God’s dissatisfaction with the religion of Israel (cf. 5:4–6, 21–26). This religion of celebration was disconnected from the harsh realities that Israel was enduring. The nation brought the Lord offerings of thanksgiving, but he had given them “empty stomachs” (v. 6), drought (vv. 7–8), ruined crops (v. 9), and death in battle (v. 10). Israel had suffered a fate almost akin to “Sodom and Gomorrah” (v. 11). These disasters were designed to bring the nation to true repentance. The fivefold refrain “ ‘yet you have not returned to me,’ declares the LORD” makes it abundantly clear that Israel had not responded. The nation preferred a religion formulated according to its own tastes.

4:12–13 Israel believed that arriving at the sanctuaries with offerings guaranteed a genuine encounter with God. Verse 12 forcefully announces that such was not the case. Now the people would surely meet him, but it would be a terrible confrontation with the all-powerful Creator. Continuing the use of lists of five in the book (see Introduction: Structure and Literary Features), v. 13 gives a fivefold description of God. The third portrait is that the Lord “reveals his thoughts to mankind.” Some contend that this refers to God’s knowledge of human thoughts (e.g., Ps 139:2; Dan 2:27–28), but it also can mean that God communicates his word to his people so that they are without excuse. The climax of vv. 4–13 is the announcement that “the LORD God Almighty is his name.” He is omnipotent and will not tolerate a self-absorbed religion that will not grapple with reality or address his demands. This closing formula is found in the other two doxologies (5:8–9; 9:5–6; cf. 5:27).

5:1—6:14 Lament for the Death of Israel. This long section is composed of three long chiasms, or inverted structures with corresponding passages (5:1–17; 5:18–27; 6:1–14), the centers of which are their climax. Though there is a call to seek God and his ways (5:4–6, 14–15), there is no avoiding imminent punishment at God’s hand.

5:1–17 A Lament and Call to Repentance. This is the best-known chiasm of the book. The focal point, “the LORD is his name,” is imbedded in the doxology of vv. 8–9.

5:1–3 Lament for Israel

5:4–6 Seek the Lord and live

5:7 Accusation against Israel

5:8a The power of the Lord to create

5:8b “The LORD is his name”

5:9 The power of the Lord to destroy

5:10–13 Accusation against the powerful

5:14–15 Seek the Lord and live

5:16–17 Lament for Israel

5:1 Hear this word, Israel. Signals the beginning of another section (cf. 3:1; 4:1). The tone is tragic (cf. vv. 16–17). Following on the challenge of 4:12–13, this dirge anticipates that the meeting with the Lord would be disastrous. The past tense communicates that this tragic future is as good as accomplished. It would come via a devastating military defeat (2:14–16; 3:11; 6:14) that decimated the troops sent out by a city (cf. 6:9–10; 8:3; 9:8).

5:2 Virgin. This epithet is used elsewhere of Zion and Judah (e.g., Isa 37:22; Lam 1:15; 2:13). Israel, like an unfortunate young woman, is pictured as already having been slain. This image of her discarded body would evoke sadness and dismay.

5:4–6 As at 4:4, the Lord turns Israel’s attention away from the sanctuaries. The mention of Beersheba (v. 5), another historic site in southern Judah (Gen 21:14, 31; 26:23, 33), may indicate that some from Israel were crossing into the southern kingdom to observe their popular religion. All the holy places will be judged (3:14; 7:9; 8:3, 14; 9:1). Seek . . . Seek. While this Hebrew verb can be used of going to holy places (Deut 12:5; 2 Chr 1:5) or of consulting God through a prophet (1 Sam 9:9; Jer 37:7), it can also refer to pleasing God through obedience (Isa 55:6; Hos 10:12; cf. Isa 9:13). That is the best option here. Its meaning is explained in the mirror passage (vv. 14–15).

5:4, 6 live. Can mean a quality of life for those who obey God (Deut 30:6; Prov 9:6; 21:21), but here it probably refers to the possibility of surviving the coming invasion (2 Kgs 7:4, 12), the fire of divine judgment (cf. 1:4–5) that none will be able to “quench.” Repentance is no guarantee of avoiding exile or death at the hands of the enemy, as the parallel passage emphasizes (v. 15), but the demand on Israel to follow the Lord stands.

5:6 Joseph. Refers to the northern kingdom (v. 15; 6:6; cf. Ps 80:1–2; Ezek 37:16, 19; Zech 10:6). He was the father of Ephraim, from whom arose the strongest of the northern tribes.

5:7 justice . . . righteousness. This combination occurs again in v. 24; 6:12. It is not easy to distinguish the two terms (Gen 18:19; Prov 1:3). Justice can be appreciated as the “fruit of righteousness” (6:12) made concrete in every dimension of a community’s life—in dealings between individuals, equitable laws, a properly functioning judicial process, as well as fair and charitable legal decisions. Ultimately, justice and righteousness are grounded in the character of God (Ps 97:2; Isa 30:18; Zeph 3:5). The Lord expects his moral standards to be followed by societies and their rulers, especially by his chosen people (Ps 72:1–2; Isa 1:21; Jer 22:15–16; cf. Matt 25:31–46; Jas 2; 5). bitterness. A term based on the word for the wormwood plant, which has an unpleasant odor and taste.

5:8–9 This second doxology (cf. 4:13; 9:5–6) extols the Lord as the Creator of the constellations, the one who controls the rhythms of the day and of the rain, and the omnipotent deity who “destroys the stronghold” and brings to ruin “the fortified city.” The divine judge’s power is incomparable. The focus of the chiasm of vv. 1–17 (see note there) is “the LORD is his name.”

5:10–13 As does the matching passage for v. 7, these verses supply details of the injustice in Israel. The setting is the “court” (see v. 10 and note). Local leaders, merchants, and government officials loathed those who spoke up for justice and the truth, intimidating the prudent to silence. Their many “offenses” (v. 12) included imposing an unfair tax on the vulnerable and using bribes to secure gain. The powerful benefited greatly from these fraudulent dealings, enjoying “stone mansions” and “lush vineyards” (v. 11), but these would be taken away.

5:10 court. The gate of the city, the place for the administration of justice by elders or other officials (Deut 21:19; 25:7; 2 Sam 15:1–4), for business dealings (Gen 23:10–11; Ruth 4:1–12), and for community gatherings (Neh 8:1; Jer 17:19).

5:14–15 These verses develop the meaning of “seek the LORD” in vv. 4–6. Seek good, not evil . . . Hate evil, love good. The good is defined tangibly as establishing “justice in the courts” (see note on v. 10) in Israel’s social, legal, economic, and familial spheres (see note on vv. 10–13). Only by truly following God’s demand for justice could the nation expect the presence of the Lord to be with them. God had not been present at the ceremonies held at the sanctuaries (4:4–5, 12), no matter their desires or claims. All they could hope was that God would show mercy on them.

5:15 remnant. Those who would survive the judgment (vv. 1–3; 4:2–3; 6:9–10; 8:3; 9:8). Joseph. See v. 6 and note; 6:6.

5:16–17 Vividly portrays the pain of the losses in vv. 1–3. The repetitive vocabulary emphasizes the comprehensive impact of the coming war. There will be “wailing . . . cries of anguish . . . wailing,” and many will be called “to weep” and “to wail.” The laments would be heard everywhere: in “all the streets . . . in every public square . . . in all the vineyards.” The encounter with the Lord would have frightening consequences (v. 15; 3:6; 4:12). God would “pass through” them in judgment as he had done with the Egyptians (Exod 12:12).

5:18–27 The Day of the Lord. Verses 18–27 form a chiasm, or concentric pattern, that exposes the foundationless self-assurance of Israel’s religion, which is betrayed by a lack of ethical concern. The erroneous perception of the day of the Lord as a time of victory (vv. 18–20) is matched by an announcement of future exile (vv. 26–27). God’s rejection of Israel’s worship in the present (vv. 21–23) has its parallel in their past worship in the wilderness (v. 25). The center of the structure is v. 24.

5:18 Woe. The first of two woe passages (cf. 6:1). Woes arise in contexts of mourning (the Hebrew is translated “alas,” rather than “woe,” in 1 Kgs 13:30; Jer 22:18), which is appropriate after vv. 1–17. On occasion woes can introduce an ironic announcement of doom on those who violate God’s laws (e.g., Isa 5:8, 11, 18, 21, 22). There may be an element of this nuance here and in 6:1. What follows continues the litany of terrible errors of Israel, here in relationship to “the day of the LORD.” day of the LORD. This passage reveals that Israel had a false understanding of that day. They believed it would bring “light” (i.e., victory over their enemies). Instead, that day would be “darkness” and “pitch-dark” (v. 20), an inescapable disaster sent by God (2:16; 3:14; 6:3; 8:3, 9–11, 13). Israel already had begun to experience defeat (4:10), but nothing on this scale. History tells us that this disaster came at the hands of the Assyrians in 722 BC. Israel would be like someone who had fled deadly animals without success (v. 19), so to “long for” that day was foolish. The prediction of exile (vv. 26–27) confirms how wrong the northern kingdom was in its sense of security. The NT develops the concept of this day: believers must live a life of faithfulness and obedience in the light of Christ’s second coming and the final judgment (e.g., Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 1:8; Phil 1:10; 2 Thess 1:10; 2 Pet 3:10; Jude 6).

5:21–23 The verbs that open this passage communicate the Lord’s deep reaction against Israel’s worship. God spurns the northern kingdom’s hypocritical worship (v. 5; 4:4). The imagery of divine distaste is made vivid by the reference to the Lord’s senses: smell (“stench,” v. 21), sight (“regard,” v. 22), sound (“listen,” v. 23). The seven religious practices listed here reflect God’s comprehensive rebuff of the nation’s worship. Ceremonies and sacrifices to atone for sin and establish communion with God were now unacceptable. The corresponding verse, v. 25, relates Israel’s worship to its history. The Lord also refuses to accept worship in other prophetic books (e.g., Isa 1:11–20; 58:1–14; Jer 7; Ezek 8; Mic 6:1–8; Zech 7; Mal 1–3). In all of these passages, the rejection is connected to the disregard of social justice, a theme v. 24 underscores.

5:24 This is the center and climax of vv. 18–27. In a land where water can be scarce, the image of abundant water is powerful. That region has many wadis, or riverbeds, that are dry except during seasons of rain or immediately after a downpour. God’s desire is that justice and righteousness always characterize his people (v. 7) like a “never-failing stream” continually fills ravines.

5:25 This verse corresponds to vv. 21–23 but is difficult to interpret. If the answer to the rhetorical question about Israel’s history is “yes,” then the lesson is that offering sacrifices in “the wilderness” did not protect that rebellious generation from judgment and would not save Israel now. A response of “no” would appear to contradict the biblical account (Exod 24:4–8; Num 7). Perhaps the assumption is that the conditions for those “forty years” did not allow for sacrifices (due to lack of appropriate animals), yet their limited resources yielded a relationship with God in contrast to the extravagant hypocritical rituals of the northern kingdom. An alternative is that Israel did not have to offer sacrifices then because sacrifices are not necessary to worship God. A religion without rituals, however, would have made no sense in the ancient world. Others focus on “me” for the negative answer: Israel brought sacrifices not to the Lord but to other gods; i.e., illegitimate worship had characterized their history from the beginning (cf. Acts 7:42–43). Another option is to argue that a qualifier is presupposed: Did you bring me only sacrifices in the desert? The idea would be that the rituals “in the wilderness” had been accompanied by righteous devotion, unlike the northern kingdom’s religious practices. This may be an idealized view of the wilderness period (see Exod 32; Num 25; cf. Hos 2:14–15), but it would serve as a call to follow the model of Israel’s ancestors (cf. 2:10).

5:26–27 These verses match vv. 18–20 in the chiasm of vv. 18–27 (see note there) and announce the consequences of the northern kingdom’s misplaced religious confidence. This is one of the most challenging passages in the book. The first issue is the tense of the opening verb: “You have lifted up.” It puts the action in the past, possibly in connection with v. 25, or describes what Israel was now doing. Another option is to interpret the verb as a future tense, linking v. 26 to v. 27 and Israel’s trek into exile. The second issue is the translation of several terms: (1) The word “shrine” reflects the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT), and “pedestal” is an uncommon translation choice. Most versions identify these words with Mesopotamian astral (“star”) deities and render the terms “Sikkut” (or Sakkuth) and “Kiyyun” (or Kiyun or Kaiwan), respectively (see NIV text note on v. 26). Verse 26 establishes a level of syncretism in Israel due to foreign religious influences (cf. 2:8; 7:9; 8:14). Those gods, which Israel had “made,” will be carried into an exile decreed by the Lord, the Creator of the stars (v. 8), who is the incomparable “God Almighty.” This threat was fulfilled when Assyria took many Israelites into exile (see Introduction: Date and Background; cf. v. 5; 4:3; 6:7; 7:11, 17; 9:9).

6:1–7 Woe to the Complacent. This is the second woe (cf. 5:18). This mourning cry again heralds doom. The prophet concentrates on the elite of the northern kingdom. They indulge themselves in total disregard of the needs of the people. Therefore, they will lead the way into judgment. These verses and the next passage (vv. 8–14) form the third chiastic structure within 5:1—6:14 (see note there). Misplaced pride (vv. 1–3) finds its echo in a false confidence in Israel’s military (vv. 13–14); the callous behavior of the elite (vv. 4–7) is mirrored by v. 12; and the decree of v. 8 is matched by the command of v. 11. The destruction in vv. 9–10 is the center of the concentric pattern.

6:1–3 The prophetic denunciation shifts its target from the nation’s worship (5:18–27) to those in power. The prophet includes Zion (i.e., Jerusalem, Judah’s capital) in his criticism (2:4–5). The leaders in both Judah and Israel were “complacent” (v. 1). They were self-deceived, not appreciating that other important cities (e.g., Kalneh, capital of the neo-Hittite state of Pattin, to the north; Hamath also to the north, on the Orontes River; and Gath of the Philistines to the west) had suffered defeat in the previous century. This flawed self-assurance would be contradicted by an invasion (vv. 13–14).

6:4–7 The arrogance of the powerful was accompanied by licentious living. They indulged in choice meat (v. 4), “wine by the bowlful” (v. 6), and the “finest lotions” (v. 6). Their repose on “beds adorned with ivory” (v. 4; cf. 3:15) and on “couches” (v. 4) reveals an inexcusable callousness about the “ruin of Joseph” (v. 6; see note on 5:6)—the scarcity endured by the general population (4:6–9), the misery suffered by the poor, and the military defeats. Elements in these verses suggest that they describe a marzeah feast, a sumptuous banquet of the wealthy in the ancient world that was apparently related to mourning. It is debated whether pagan rituals were involved. If they were, then this scene is witness to a syncretism of the affluent. This callous debauchery “will end” (v. 7), for this group will be the first to go into exile (5:27; cf. 4:3). The corresponding passage of v. 12 condemns the injustice of the leaders.

6:6 Joseph. See 5:6 and note.

6:8–14 The Lord Abhors the Pride of Israel. The confidence of the northern kingdom rests on its defenses and strength. These verses expose how deeply God despises this presumption. Israel’s illogical confidence will not be able to deter the sweeping invasion of divine judgment.

6:8 The divine oath and the various ways of referring to God accentuate the seriousness of the declaration of judgment (4:2; 8:7; cf. Gen 22:16; Isa 45:23; Jer 22:5; Heb 6:13). Once again (cf. 5:21) the Lord repudiates the northern kingdom. The parallelism in the verse discloses the source of Israel’s pride: their “fortresses” (in context, probably of the city of Samaria [v. 1; cf. 3:9; 4:1]). A national ideology of military might masked the transgressions that filled the centers of power (3:9–10) and blinded Israel to the coming destruction of their defenses (vv. 13–14; 3:11; 4:3; 7:7–8). Such arrogance is unacceptable to God (v. 1; cf. 5:18–20; 9:10). This announcement to “deliver up” the city is matched by the declaration of judgment in v. 11.

6:9–10 This is the center of the chiasm of vv. 1–14 (see note on vv. 1–7). The scene is difficult to understand. The ruins may be due to an earthquake (1:1; 8:8; cf. 9:1) or to the devastation caused by an enemy invasion. Apparently, relatives are searching through the rubble for the dead in order to burn the corpses either to avoid an epidemic or as an expression of mourning (see NIV text note on v. 10; cf. 5:16–17).

6:10 We must not mention the name of the LORD. This line may have been motivated by a superstitious fear that the Lord might return with more disaster. Or it may express deep frustration that the God of their nationalistic theology had failed them by allowing this catastrophe to happen.

6:11 As in v. 8, the Lord decrees destruction on the entire city.

6:12 justice . . . righteousness. The combination occurs for a second time (see 5:7). The self-destructive absurdity of reversing the moral order is made manifest by the rhetorical questions. This ethical irrationality corresponds to the insensitivity of those who use wrongdoing to support a luxurious lifestyle (vv. 4–7).

6:13 Lo Debar . . . Karnaim. Both located in Transjordan. Lo Debar was north of the Jabbok River in Gilead (2 Sam 9:4–5; 17:27); Karnaim was located in Bashan (4:1). Lo Debar allows for sarcasm: the supposedly mighty armies of Israel had taken a town whose name means “nothing” (see NIV text note). On the other hand, Karnaim (whose name means “horns” [see NIV text note]) may have fed the nation’s military pride as horns symbolized power or authority. These were hollow victories.

6:14 “The LORD God Almighty” (also in 5:16; cf. 5:27) was sending an unstoppable foe who would “oppress” the nation from the northern border (“Lebo Hamath”; see Num 13:21) to the southern border (“the valley of the Arabah”; see Deut 3:17). This parody of 2 Kgs 14:25 reveals that the judgment would be comprehensive (vv. 8, 11): the breadth of Jeroboam II’s success was to be the extent of Israel’s defeat.

7:1—9:15 Five Visions of Israel’s Future. This final section of the book is comprised of five visions. The number of visions is another example of lists of five or seven items (see Introduction: Structure and Literary Features). In three places commentary follows a vision (7:10–17; 8:4–14; 9:11–15). The five visions describe the coming inescapable judgment.

7:1–9 Three Visions of Disaster. Amos intercedes for Israel after the first and second visions (vv. 1–3, 4–6), but the third lacks any petition (vv. 7–9).

7:1 The first vision concerns a locust plague. Locusts were one of the plagues of Egypt (Exod 10:1–20) and are listed as one of the covenant curses for disobedience (Deut 28:38–42). swarms of locusts. Devastating in an ancient agrarian economy like Israel’s (cf. Joel 1). God had sent locusts before as a warning (4:9), but this would be larger in scope. the king’s share. The royal prerogative of claiming a portion of the harvest (cf. 1 Sam 8:15; 1 Kgs 4:7–28). the late crops. Vegetables sown after the rains of March and April. The timing was catastrophic. The locusts would leave nothing for the general populace to eat. After the king had taken his share, these insects would destroy the earlier planting of grain that was maturing and the vegetable crop that was beginning to sprout.

7:2–3 The intercessory prayer is a plea for forgiveness. The prophet has a realistic grasp of Israel’s condition. Though it might boast of its prosperity and victories, the northern kingdom was vulnerable. Israel would be weak not only because of the hunger brought on by the locusts but also because of its delusions of military strength (vv. 7–9; 6:13; cf. 2:14–16; 3:11; 4:3, 11). The Lord responds to the prophet’s entreaty and changes his mind about the judgment (cf. Jer 18:5–10; Joel 2:13–14; Jonah 3:9–10). God’s willingness to not implement punishment is based on his patient compassion (Exod 34:6–7; Joel 2:12–14). The God of judgment also is the God of mercy.

7:4–6 The second vision concerns an all-consuming fire that devours the subterranean waters (cf. Gen 7:11; Isa 51:10), or perhaps the sea (cf. Jonah 2:5), and the tillable land. Instead of asking for forgiveness, as in the previous vision, Amos asks God to restrain his hand of judgment. Once again the Lord relents, and disaster is averted.

7:7–9 The third vision is different than the previous two. The prophet no longer intercedes for Israel. The primary interpretive problem concerns the Hebrew term ʾ ănâk. This is the only passage in the OT where the term occurs, so its meaning is debated (see NIV text notes on v. 7). It is usually translated “plumb line.” Like a builder who uses a plumb line to check to see if a wall is properly vertical, so God will assess whether the nation matches the standards of the law, his “plumb line.” This Hebrew word, however, may be a cognate of an Akkadian term for “tin.” The scene then would portray God standing on a wall of tin, i.e., one that from a distance might deceivingly look like it is made of strong metal. He rips out a piece of this flimsy wall with his hand and throws it into the midst of the people, mocking the military arrogance of Israel. Its armies cannot protect the holy places or the monarchy (cf. 6:13).

7:9 high places . . . sanctuaries. Could refer to the historic sanctuaries of Bethel and Gilgal, where the northern kingdom gathered to worship the Lord, or could be another indication of syncretism among the people (2:8; 5:26; 8:14).

7:10–17 Expansion: Amos and Amaziah. This is the first of three amplifications that develop a theme in the preceding vision. This scene at Bethel, Israel’s most important national sanctuary, follows naturally after the announcement of the destruction of Israel’s holy places (v. 9). Amaziah, the chief priest at Bethel, challenges Amos. To predict doom for Israel’s king and its religious centers was to undermine the national theology, which claimed that the Lord would guard and bless Israel (cf. 5:18–20). This belief was celebrated especially at Bethel.

7:10–13 Amaziah considers Amos’s questioning of the legitimacy of the Israelite crown (cf. 1:2 and note; 9:11) and of the popular belief in God’s unwavering protection of the nation a seditious “conspiracy” (v. 10). Is Bethel not “the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom” (v. 13)? Surely, the Lord is on their side! Perhaps Amaziah is worried that Amos might trigger a coup, like Elisha’s disciple had done years before (2 Kgs 9:1–10; cf. 1 Kgs 21:20–24). Accordingly, he reports the prophet to the king and demands that the prophet leave Israel. What right does Amos, a foreigner from Judah, have to denounce their country? Amaziah calls Amos a “seer” (v. 12), which may relate to Amos having visions (cf. 1:1). The priest believes that prophets give messages for hire, since he tells Amos to “earn” his support in his homeland (v. 12).

7:14–17 Amos responds that his profession had been taking care of his animals and property. He had not aspired to proclaim this harsh message. He was “neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet” (v. 14). He had come to Israel solely because of the irresistible call of the Lord.

7:14 shepherd. Or “herdsman” as the Hebrew word (used only here in the OT) can suggest ownership of herds, not just flocks of sheep. Amos apparently was a prosperous individual (see Introduction: Author; see also 1:1).

7:17 With a fivefold curse, Amos applies the prediction of national exile to Amaziah’s family. As chief priest, Amaziah was most responsible for propagating false views of God at the national sanctuary. His wife would be disgraced, his family killed, the inheritance of his land lost, and he banished to die in an unclean land in exile along with the rest of the nation (see Introduction: Date and Background; see also 5:27).

8:1–3 The Fourth Vision: A Basket of Ripe Fruit. Once again, the Lord shows something to Amos (cf. 7:1, 4, 7). The vision utilizes a wordplay in vv. 1–2 between “ripe fruit” (Hebrew qâyiṣ) and “the time is ripe” (Hebrew qēṣ). God’s patience has run out. Now is the day of judgment, a central theme of the chapter (vv. 9, 10, 11, 13). Death and destruction will cause “the songs in the temple” (or palace) to “turn to wailing” (v. 3; see 5:1–3, 16–17). Exposure of the dead to the elements and animals of prey was a source of shame (e.g., 1 Kgs 14:11; 2 Kgs 9:26; Jer 22:19). The impact would be so terrible that everyone would be reduced to “silence” (v. 3; cf. 6:10).

8:4–14 Expansion: The Cost of Religious Perversion. This is the second amplification of a vision (cf. 7:10–17). This section describes the divorce of worship from ethical responsibility (vv. 4–6) and the judgment that this brings (vv. 7–14).

8:4–6 This passage highlights the economic greed of the merchants who manipulate the weights, scales, and prices in the marketplace—even as they continue with their religious practices. They could not wait for these gatherings to end in order to profit from their corruption. Tampering with weights and scales is prohibited in the law and elsewhere (Lev 19:35–36; Deut 25:13–15; Prov 11:1; 16:11; 20:10, 23). The language of vv. 4, 6 is reminiscent of 2:6–7, but here victims of injustice are bought as debt slaves (in 2:6 the poor are sold).

8:7–10 The seriousness of the charges is underlined by God’s swearing by himself (v. 7; see 4:2). In 6:8 “the pride of Jacob” refers to Israel’s misplaced confidence in its fortresses, but here in v. 7 it appears to refer to the Lord. That the land will “tremble” (v. 8) like the powerful twisting and surging of the Nile suggests that an earthquake would be part of the divine judgment (1:1; 2:13; cf. 9:1, 5). Other vocabulary echoes earlier passages: darkness (v. 9; see 5:18–20) and mourning for the losses suffered (v. 10; see v. 3; 5:16–17).

8:9 darken the earth in broad daylight. Some suggest this refers to an eclipse that occurred in 763 BC.

8:11–14 Rejection of God’s messengers (2:11; 7:12–13) yields “a famine of hearing the words of the LORD” (v. 11). This rebuff of the prophets is made worse by the nation’s three oaths. These oaths connect a place with a deity; they could refer to other gods or to what some thought to be different manifestations of the Lord at various sanctuaries. If these oaths refer to other deities, this would be more evidence of syncretism (cf. 2:8; 5:26; 7:9). To swear by other gods is prohibited (Josh 23:7). Israel must make its oaths only in the name of the Lord (Deut 6:13; 10:20). Whichever is the case, the nation “will fall, never to rise again” (v. 14; cf. 5:3).

8:14 the sin of Samaria. A disputed phrase. sin. Or guilt. Some versions view “sin” as a wordplay on the name of a goddess, Asherah or Ashima (cf. 2 Kgs 17:16, 30), who may have been worshiped in the capital.

9:1–10 The Fifth Vision: Israel to Be Destroyed. The fifth and final vision depicts the destruction of a temple, most likely the chief sanctuary at Bethel (cf. 3:14; 5:5; 7:9, 13). This was the primary place where the unacceptable national theology was celebrated and perpetuated.

9:1–4 Unlike the previous four, this vision begins with “I saw the Lord.” As in other passages (e.g., 6:9–10), it is difficult to know whether the destruction is wrought by an earthquake (1:1; 8:8) or by an invading army (3:11; 4:3). Either way, the religious center of Israel was to be no more (3:14; 5:5; 7:9). The inescapability of divine judgment is expressed poetically in vv. 2–4 by literary merisms (totality expressed by two extremes); everywhere between the two extremes is included in the judgment’s scope.

9:4 for harm and not for good. The nation’s fate is sealed.

9:5–6 This is the third doxology, and it also closes with the declaration “the LORD is his name” (cf. 4:13; 5:8–9; see notes on 4:12–13; 5:8–9). The vocabulary recalls earlier passages—God is Creator (4:13) and shaker of the land (8:8)—and the various descriptions emphasize the power of the divine Judge.

9:6 lofty palace. Can be translated “steps” and could be a reference to the steps of the Lord’s temple (cf. Ezek 40:6), throne (cf. 1 Kgs 10:19–20), or palace (cf. 2 Kgs 20:9–11) “in the heavens.” The idea of steps may echo Jacob’s dream of the ladder connecting the earth with heaven (Gen 28:10–22).

9:7 Once again the language of the exodus is used in a surprising way. In 3:1–2 the text declares that Israel’s unique position as the Lord’s chosen people would in no way spare them from judgment. Here, God declares that he also was involved in the history of other nations, even two of Israel’s enemies (Philistia and Aram, 1:3–8). Cushites. From the southern Nile region, today identified with Sudan.

9:8 eyes of the Sovereign LORD. Recalls v. 4. Although the judgment on the northern kingdom of Israel was inevitable (vv. 1–4; 2:14–16; 5:19) and would be severe, a remnant would survive (3:12; 5:15).

9:10 the sinners. Those who brought this ruin upon the nation. They had a misplaced confidence in God’s protection (5:18–20; 6:13; 7:13).

9:11–15 Expansion: Israel’s Restoration. The book closes with a brief word of hope that announces a glorious future for Israel and the rest of the world. Judgment is not God’s final word; beyond divine chastisement lies wonderful restoration.

9:11 restore David’s fallen shelter. “Shelter” (meaning “booth” or “tabernacle”) in this context probably refers to the monarchy of Judah. In Amos’s time it was not as impressive as it had been in the past, and a few decades later Isaiah and Micah would condemn Judah for its sin and announce judgment. Nevertheless, the ultimate future for the northern kingdom of Israel lay to the south in Judah, not in Jeroboam II’s regime or dynasty. “In that day” the promise of a global kingdom under a Davidic king would be fulfilled (2 Sam 7:8–16; cf. Isa 9:6–7; Jer 23:5–8; 33:14–26; Ezek 37:24–28; Hos 3:4–5). For the original audience, these words would have brought to mind this kingdom as a concrete political entity headquartered in its promised land. Some Christian eschatological systems hold that this prediction will find its fulfillment in a millennial age after the second coming of Christ, at which time Israel will turn to its Messiah (cf. Acts 3:19–21; Rom 11:25–27). Several Christian traditions, however, do not contemplate such a future for ethnic Israel. They propose that with the coming of Jesus, the Son of David (Rom 1:3), distinctions between Jew and Gentile have been done away with (Gal 3:26–29; 6:16; Eph 2:11—3:6), and because Jesus “tabernacled” among us (John 1:14), he is the new temple (John 2:18–22), and established believers and the church as temples (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; Eph 2:21). So in this theory, there is now no place for a separate sociopolitical destiny for Israel nor will there be an earthly Davidic kingdom instituted at Jesus’ second coming. Rather, at Jesus’ second coming the new heavens and new earth of Rev 21–22 will be ushered in.

9:12 The neighboring nations that had attacked Israel (1:3–15), Edom in particular and assumedly even the one that was to invade Israel, would become part of that Davidic kingdom. The inclusion of Gentiles among the people of God finds its roots in the Abrahamic promise (Gen 12:1–3; cf. Deut 28:9–10; 1 Kgs 8:41–43) and was predicted by several prophets (Isa 2:2–4; 19:19–25; Jer 12:15–16; Zech 2:11; 8:22). It is not surprising that at the Jerusalem council of Acts 15:1–29, James introduced his citation of Amos 9:11–12 by saying that “the words of the prophets are in agreement” (Acts 15:15) with the idea of allowing believing Gentiles to be brought into the people of God (Acts 15:13–17). Interestingly, James quotes primarily from the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT), whose wording differs from the Hebrew text (i.e., the Masoretic text). The Septuagint of this verse reads “that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name” (Acts 15:17). A slight change to the Hebrew is required for this translation, but this rendering does capture the inclusive spirit of the prophetic message and serves as an appropriate summary. Some Christian interpreters relate this verse to the global mission of the church (Matt 28:19–20; Luke 24:45–49; Acts 1:8) and its multinational character.

9:13–15 The vision of restoration starkly contrasts with the hunger, drought, and destruction that most of the northern kingdom already had endured (4:6–11; cf. 4:1; 6:4–6). The suffering that Amos had announced was imminent. What awaited the faithful remnant and the survivors of God’s judgment were abundant crops, food, and drink, which the prophet describes with hyperbolic language. The destruction would pass, and the “ruined cities” (v. 14) would be rebuilt; Israel would return from exile and rest secure in “their own land” (v. 15). This Edenic hope is foundational to the prophets’ vision of the future for Israel and the world (e.g., Isa 11:6–9; 35:1–10; 65:17–25). As at v. 11 (see note there), some Christian interpreters connect this prediction with the millennial kingdom and the special promises to ethnic Israel for its future return to the land. Others argue that the historical fulfillment of return occurred when Israel came back from Babylonian exile with the permission of the Persian Empire (2 Chr 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–4); they hold that the further realization of these promises can be found in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church.