Amos

A Vision of Inescapable Judgment. Israel is too far gone to avoid judgment.

The Vision Itself. God reveals to Amos in three pictures that there is no hope for Israel. In response to the first two, the prophet pleads for mercy for the nation (vv. 2, 5), and God twice graciously relents (vv. 3, 6). But the third picture is so convincing that the prophet sees there is no hope and therefore makes no intercession. The idea is that God has repeatedly shown mercy to his erring people, only to have them continue in their complacency toward him. Sooner or later, their time will be up.

Judgment would fall on Israel like a plague of locusts. The latter growth was the wheat crop harvested after the barley. If it was lost, there would be little to eat in the coming year. The king’s mowings were the part of the crop paid as a tax to the king.

please forgive. In spite of the severity of all that Amos had said, there was no element of vindictiveness in him. Unlike Jonah, he did not want what he was predicting to happen. He pleaded earnestly that God would show mercy.

The LORD relented. Like Amos, God does not desire to destroy his people. He is very patient (see Ex. 34:6). Unlike the capricious gods, who may decide for no reason either to destroy or release, the Lord is utterly reliable: he has promised to relent in response to repentance (see Jer. 8:5–10; cf. Jonah 3:10–4:2).

Judgment would come upon Israel like a fire so intense it would dry up the sea (the great deep) and scorch the land.

The third picture that God showed Amos was of a plumb line held against a wall. A plumb line is a string with a weight fastened to the end of it. When the string is placed beside a wall and the weight is allowed to hang freely, it will be apparent whether or not the wall is perfectly vertical. If the wall is leaning and it is not fixed, it will eventually collapse. Compared to the standard of the Torah, the plumb line according to which the wall of Israel was built, it is clear to Amos that the nation is now so far out of true vertical that the collapse cannot be prevented. Israel is hardened in sin; thus, in this case, Amos does not ask God to relent.

The reference to high places and sanctuaries makes it plain that Israel is out of line with reality, particularly regarding her relationship to God. When this situation is laid where it should be, at the foot of the king Jeroboam (II), the royal chaplain comes to his defense (vv. 10–17).

Amos, a native of Tekoa in Judah, was told to prophesy in the northern kingdom of Israel (v. 15) as well as in Judah. For this purpose he went to Bethel, one of the two sanctuaries set up by Jeroboam I as alternatives to Jerusalem when he led the northern tribes in revolt against Solomon’s successor Rehoboam (1Kg 12:26-30). Amaziah, the priest at Bethel, told him, “Go away, you seer!” (Am 7:12). A seer (Hb hozeh) was the earlier term for a prophet (1Sm 9:9), a sort of technical functionary who could solve problems such as locating a lost herd of donkeys (1Sm 9:3). To call a man who was the proclaimer of the Lord’s word a mere “seer” was to insult him. Amos’s words in reply, lo’ ’ani navi’, are usually rendered “I was not a prophet,” but they can also be translated as protest against Amaziah’s insult: “No! I am a prophet!” Amos’s following words, that he was not “the son of a prophet,” can also be understood to mean that, though he was a prophet, he was not a member of a guild or community of prophets. That is, he was not a “professional prophet” but one the Lord had specially called from another line of work as an herdsman and caretaker of sycamore figs (Am 7:14-15). Amaziah’s response to Amos further showed his disdain for the Lord, in that he referred to the sanctuary at Bethel as “the king’s sanctuary and a royal temple”—not a temple of the Lord.

An Experience Reinforcing the Vision. If the plumb line according to which Israel was constructed was the Torah, then the priesthood should have held Israel accountable to the Torah (Deut. 33:10; Mal. 2:6–7). But the priesthood itself was corrupt (see 1 Kings 12:31 for how Jeroboam I ruined the priesthood for the northern kingdom). Thus, there was no external standard being applied by which Israel’s true condition could be recognized and corrected. In such a case, the end truly was at hand.

The reference to Amaziah the priest shows that a representative of the established religious leadership, who had the ear of the king, opposed the prophecies of Amos. His words, Amos has conspired against you, were a lie.

When Amaziah called Amos a seer, his intent may have been contemptuous. This term for a prophet (2 Sam. 24:11) suggests Amos is not a member of the royal guild of prophets (who, since they were paid by the king, would speak to his pleasure), and thus has no standing in the king’s sanctuary. Note that no mention is made of this being God’s sanctuary or temple. never again prophesy at Bethel. Amaziah the priest and those supporting him wanted only to hear messages of God’s promises of blessing and success, not messages about sin and obedience and judgment (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3).

Far from being humiliated at his lack of professional standing, Amos takes it as a badge of honor. He is not paid to say what he is saying, but does so solely at the command of the Lord.

dresser of sycamore figs. Sycamore figs were somewhat like a mulberry. They would only ripen if bruised. They were usually eaten by the very poor.

the LORD took me … the LORD said to me. Amos was not prophesying on his own authority but on God’s authority.

After Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, acted to curtail Amos’s mission in Israel, Amos prophesied not only that Amaziah would die in exile but also that his sons and daughters would be killed and that his wife would become a “prostitute in the city.” Why would God punish the priest’s innocent wife and children when Amaziah was the guilty one? The prophets viewed the Assyrian advance into the region as the instrument of the Lord’s judgment upon Israel’s disobedience. That disobedience was evident not only in the social inequalities that had developed between rich and poor but also in the false religion that the nation tolerated. The temple at Bethel, like that of Dan, had been established as a rival to the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem in the kingdom of Judah (1Kg 12:26-30). Amos, a Judean, viewed these sanctuaries as sites of false worship, together with other local sanctuaries where sacrifices were conducted. To conduct worship at these locations was an act of rebellion against the Lord (Am 4:4-5). As priest of Bethel, Amaziah epitomized this condemned religious system, and because Bethel was “the king’s sanctuary” (7:13), he represented the entire nation of Israel. The invasion of the Assyrians would be marked by great cruelty; all Israel’s inhabitants would suffer, including Amaziah’s children and his wife. When the Assyrians carried Amaziah into exile, along with other Israelite leaders, his wife would have no source of support and might well be forced into prostitution for a livelihood. Regardless of their personal guilt or innocence, the members of Amaziah’s family would face the dire consequences of the judgment to come.

All the honor that Amaziah prized so highly would be taken from him: his wife would belong to other men indiscriminately; he would be deprived of any progeny; he would lose his property; he would lose his profession (because of being defiled by the unclean land to which he would be taken as captive); and he would die as an exile. These terrible punishments would be heaped on this religious leader (recognized by the king but not by God) for rejecting the words of God that came through the prophet Amos.