BIG IDEA:
PROSPERITY MUST NOT PROVIDE A PLATFORM FOR PRIDEFUL FALSE SECURITY ON THE PART OF LEADERS WHO FAIL TO PURSUE JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS
INTRODUCTION:
Thomas Constable: [6:1-2] Amos challenged these proud leaders to visit other cities that had once considered themselves great. Calneh (or Calno, Isa. 10:9) and Hamath were city-states in northern Aram. Shalmaneser III of Assyria had overrun them in 854-846 B.C., but Israel controlled them in Amos’ day. Gath had been a notable city in Philistia, but it had fallen before King Hazael of Aram in 815 B.C. and again to King Uzziah of Judah in 760 B.C. Presently Judah controlled it. Samaria was no better than those city-states, and their territories were larger than Samaria’s. Yet they had fallen to foreign invaders. What had happened to them could happen to Samaria even though the people of Israel believed that Yahweh would protect it.
Warren Wiersbe:
- “WOE TO THE IGNORANT!” (5:18-27)
- “WOE TO THE INDIFFERENT!” (6:1-2)
- “WOE TO THE INDULGENT!” (6:3-7)
- “WOE TO THE IMPUDENT!” (6:8-14)
These impudent people, who rejected God’s warning, would one day face three terrible judgments.
Death (Amos 6:9-10)
Amos describes a hypothetical situation to emphasize the terrors that will come when the Assyrians invade Samaria. Ten men, perhaps the remnants of a hundred soldiers (5:3), would be hiding in a house, but pestilence would catch up with them, and they would die. If a relative came to burn the bodies (the safest thing to do in war when disease is rampant), anyone in the house guarding the bodies would deny there were others there who also might die in the plague.
But the disposal of the dead bodies wouldn’t be a “religious” occasion, for the people would be afraid to even mention the name of the Lord lest He become angry and send more judgment.
Destruction (Amos 6:11-13)
Pride always goes before destruction (Prov. 16:18). The summer houses and winter houses that the wealthy enjoyed and boasted about would one day be nothing but ashes and fragments. The Babylonians would even burn Judah’s beautiful temple. This would occur because the Lord commanded it, and His commands are always obeyed.
Disgrace and defeat (Amos 6:14)
Assyria’s invasion of Israel wouldn’t take place because of the accidents or incidents of
international politics. God would bring the army into the land and give Assyria the responsibility of chastening His people. “‘Behold, I will bring a nation against you from afar, O house of Israel,’ says the Lord” (Jer. 5:15, NKJV).
Gary Cohen: Chapter 6 is replete with lessons concerning the futility of misplaced confidence.
Allen Guenther: In the time of Amos, the court personnel in both Zion and Samaria are smugly self-confident and secure. They are notables, living in defensible cities, there by special appointment or because of their outstanding qualities. They speak proudly of their nation as a superior people, a foremost nation (cf. Num. 24:20). These elite relish the attention and pride of place that come with their leadership roles. It is gratifying to be wanted and needed by the common people.
Robert Martin-Achard: We find here Amos’ familiar themes:
(a) condemnation of an ‘aristocracy’ preoccupied above all else with enjoying life (vv. 1 ff);
(b) announcement of the destruction of Samaria (vv. 8 ff);
(c) denunciation of the wickedness inherent in the land (v. 12); and
(d) a polemic against the illusions in which the Israelites persist in living (vv. 13–14).
What strikes us here is the peculiar tone adopted by the prophet, his sarcastic irony and his slashing criticism of a populace that refuses to recognize the reality of the situation.
Chapter 6 commences with the funereal cry ‘Woe …’ (hoy). Following it is the picture of a city in ruins, piled high with corpses (vv. 8 ff); and it concludes with the threat of an invasion that will dumbfound the efforts at reconquering east Jordan, of which the government of Samaria is so proud (vv. 13 f). Once again Amos lets his hearers glimpse how the catastrophe is near and how death is prowling around the capital and its inhabitants. There is no escape from the living God and his wrath, when, in search for pleasure, security and comfort, one ignores the needs of others and makes a mock of justice. Such then is the warning with which Amos and the other prophets who follow him address us.
Jorg Jeremias: A precise exegesis of this lamentation must determine whether the revelry described in vv. 4–6 is of a private or institutional nature. Only when one understands that the latter is the case, does the text acquire its sharp profile. In particular, only then do the striking parallels to the characterization of worship activities in 5:21–23 (the eating of meat, the musical instruments, singing) come into focus in their intended sense, as does also the analogous association of feelings of security, repression of all notions of misfortune, and worship celebrations in 5:18–20 and 5:21, as well as in 6:1, 3 and 6:4ff.
This question depends on the understanding of the next-to-last word (marzēaḥ), occurring otherwise in the Old Testament only in Jer. 16:5, where the funeral repast takes place in the “marzēaḥ-house,” a repast attested quite frequently outside Israel. . .
The connection between Amos 6 and this institution presumably comes to expression most clearly in the fact that the wine is served in vessels otherwise attested exclusively in cultic contexts as containers for the blood of sacrificial animals, for oil as part of the cereal or grain offerings, and possibly also for libations (mizraq, v. 6; HAL translates—appropriately for the other occurrences—“sprinkling basin”). The verb “anoint” (mšḥ) in v. 6 also occurs almost exclusively in cultic contexts.
I. (:1-7) WOE TO THE SMUG WHO FEEL SECURE
A. (:1-3) Smugness Based on Denying Reality
- (:1) Warning of Coming Disaster – (Expressed as a Woe Oracle)
a. False Security of the Nations: Both Judah and Israel
“Woe to those who are at ease in Zion,
And to those who feel secure in the mountain of Samaria,”
Gary Cohen: Hoi is the Hebrew word of admonition and lamentation, much like our English woe. Amos directs that word at those who were “at ease” (shaanan, “resting quietly”), and those who were “secure” (batach, “trusting in”).
Trent Butler: Wealth cannot bring security to a people who will not worship and obey God. Again the prophet picks up funeral oratory to condemn Israel’s affluent class. Israel’s elite are complacent or at ease in Zion. They are self-confident, carefree, undisturbed by the nation’s situation or the prophet’s predictions. They feel secure; they place their trust in Mount Samaria. As Amos had done in the opening oracles against the nations (Amos 1–2), so here he introduces the Southern Kingdom first. Mount Zion refers to Jerusalem with its religious and political traditions. It was Amos’s capital city. By announcing disaster for the south, Amos gained credence and a hearing in the north. His audience in Samaria began to anticipate the day they could move south and expand their territory and power at Jerusalem’s expense.
But Amos quickly shifted to Mount Samaria, the capital city of the Northern Kingdom. In his day Samaria was flying high as one of the most powerful and influential cities in the world. God’s prophetic word pointed to the end of such power and prosperity. It was time to preach Samaria’s funeral, but no one wanted to listen. The people of Samaria were notable men, dignitaries. They exercised influence in the foremost nation, or Israel. The people of Israel came to them for advice and direction. These men were too busy being important and too enthralled with power. They had no time for a southern prophet’s funeral orations.
John Goldingay: Amos’s critique begins in a startling way with its reference to Zion. When the scroll was being read in Judah, the effect would be again to warn Judahites against feeling superior to Ephraim. Half of the First Testament references to being “relaxed” (šaʾănān) refer to wise or unwise calm in Judah; references to reliance or trust occur in parallel with references to being relaxed (Isa. 32:9, 11), often denoting trust that has no basis. If Amos began a message in this way in Beth-el, then his words would have a similar effect to that of 2:4–5. The first colon would make people smirk; the second colon would then hit them with its parallel description of them as people with the same mistaken reliance on Samaria as the Judahites’ trust in Zion. Both Zion and Samaria were walled towns on defensible hills, whose people thought they were fairly safe.
Tchavdar Hadjiev: The passage is addressed simultaneously to the elites of Samaria and of Jerusalem. Originally Amos spoke primarily to the leaders of the Northern Kingdom, but his denunciations were just as applicable to the leaders of the South. When the Babylonians burned the houses of Jerusalem and led its citizens into exile, the people of Judah could see that their own oppression, affluence and injustice were just as odious to the Lord as those of their Northern neighbours from a century and a half before.
b. False Security of their Distinguished Leaders
“The distinguished men of the foremost of nations,
To whom the house of Israel comes.”
Tchavdar Hadjiev: The feeling of security is coupled with the conviction that they are the first of the nations, either a ridiculously exaggerated view of the importance and power of Israel or a sense of spiritual superiority derived from their special relationship to the Lord.
Billy Smith: The first focus of the woe oracle is upon the proud leaders of Judah and Israel. They considered themselves the top men of the top nation. The entire house of Israel came to them in all matters of importance “for advice or in order to petition them against injustice.”
- (:2) Lessons from Recent History
“Go over to Calneh and look,
And go from there to Hamath the great,
Then go down to Gath of the Philistines.
Are they better than these kingdoms,
Or is their territory greater than yours?”
Gary Cohen: Calneh was a Babylonian and Assyrian capital city, filled with temples, on the east bank of the Tigris River. Hamath was the capital of a Syrian state of the same name, and it was on the banks of the Orontes River. Gath was one of the five capitals of the Philistines, which by this time had lost its former grandeur. All three cities had at one time been great, and all had now fallen into decay. Thus, Amos tells those who rest in Samaria’s strength that they should look at the record of history, at similar cities and nations of the past who neglected or rejected God.
Alternate View:
James Mays: Verse 2 is best understood as a quotation which Amos puts in the mouth of the leading class. This command to see how well Israel comes off in comparison with other nations is simply a case of unmitigated bragging. The technique of using a quotation to typify the attitude of his audience is employed by Amos in 8.5; 9.10; 5.14; 6.13. ‘Let our countrymen travel to Calneh, Hamath and Gath, and observe that none of these countries is so large as Israel and Judah!’ Hamath (cf. 6.14) and Calneh (= Calno in Isa. 10.9) were city-states to the north of Israel, the former in upper Syria on the Orontes River and the latter still farther north in the vicinity of Carchemish. Gath was a city in the Philistine Pentapolis to the west of Jerusalem. In Isa. 10.9 Hamath and Calno are ranged together with Samaria. The allusion to Gath is puzzling since it appears that in the time of Amos’ ministry the city was held by Judah. Another interpretation takes v. 2 as the warning of Amos to Israel to go see nations which were greater than they and yet had met their doom. This interpretation requires the emendation of the text (‘your borders than their borders’; cf. BH), and is embarrassed by the uncertainty whether Hamath and Calneh had been captured by the Assyrians in the mid-eighth century; we cannot be sure that Hamath was put under Assyrian tribute before 738. The MT conveys a vivid sense as a quotation. The boast articulates a pride that is nurtured by the success of Jeroboam’s reign (6.13) and a belief in their manifest destiny as the people of Yahweh (5.14).
Living in such complacent confidence, the leaders are in no mood to hear dire predictions of a ‘day of disaster’, no patience with a country Cassandra. ‘Day of disaster’ is an alternative term for the day of Yahweh (cf. 5.18, 20; 8.10). They take their own accomplishments as the sign of God’s favour and presence with them and boast that misfortune will never be their lot (9.10). They reject the judgment day warning of Amos, and busy themselves with plundering the poor. ‘Seat’ is used in its technical sense of throne or judicial seat (Pss. 122.5; 74.20). Violence (3.10) reigns where they sit to govern; these men are doing too well at creating misfortune for others even to consider the possibility that they may be digging their own graves.
- (:3) Irony of Contrasting Actions – Impossible to Avert Calamity
“Do you put off the day of calamity,
And would you bring near the seat of violence?”
Trent Butler: Israel’s carefree leaders “postponed” the evil day but “invited” or “celebrated ahead of schedule” a reign of terror or perhaps more likely “a cessation of violence” (author’s translation). Israel ignored the prophetic warning and lived as if judgment day would never come. They escaped from reality, thinking they had established a kingdom without threat so they could celebrate the absence of violence in their day. Amos apparently used a play on words here. The people expected no violence, but the same phrase in Hebrew could be understood as a “reign of violence.” Amos said Israel had established just such a reign of violence. Those at ease in Zion and trusting the mountains of Samaria—the political and economic elite—carved out their lifestyles with acts of oppression on the lower economic classes.
Gary Cohen: Here the prophet points with irony at the people’s contrasting actions. They “push away” (nadah) their day of reckoning with the Lord, while still “pulling close” (nagash) their sinful, violent lives. On the one hand he asks them sarcastically if they think they really can “put off the day of calamity (yom ra, “day of evil”).” The verbal form put off is nadah, and it means “to remove or cast out someone or something.” In the Talmud, the writings that record the words of the ancient rabbis, this word is used to designate the excommunication of someone from the synagogue congregation. So Amos seems to be saying, “Do you think you can eliminate God’s coming day of judgment by excommunicating it from your lives and thoughts?”
Next, in a purposeful contrast to nadah, the prophet asks, “And would you bring near the seat of violence?” Here, in the second half of the verse, “bring near” (nagash) is in direct contrast to “put away” in the first half. Simply put, he is asking, “How can you push away God’s judgment when you pull close to yourselves sinful violence?” Chamas, “violence,” refers to sinful oppression, Amos tells them that such thinking is a contradiction—you cannot live in sinful violence and at the same time expect God to be at peace with you. Therefore, God’s message to those at ease in Zion is, “Your calamity is coming!”
B. (:4-6) Self-made Reality Focuses on Self Indulgence
- (:4-6a) Exposure of Self-Indulgent Opulence
a. Expensive Furniture
“Those who recline on beds of ivory
And sprawl on their couches,”
Billy Smith: “Lounge” may be rendered “sprawling,” or “hanging over” with a distinctly negative connotation. Implied in the word is either laziness or drunkenness or both.
J. Vernon McGee: Illicit sex and gluttony are the two sins that are mentioned here, and they are sins of the flesh. . .
“And stretch themselves upon their couches” suggests their preoccupation with sex. That was the thing that they were engaged in, and it is that which characterizes our own day. . .
The sins of the flesh (illicit sex and gluttony), heathen music, and drunkenness are the three great sins which have brought great nations down. I simply cannot believe that our nation will be the exception to the rule.
b. Elegant Dining
“And eat lambs from the flock
And calves from the midst of the stall,”
c. Elaborate Entertainment
“Who improvise to the sound of the harp,
And like David have composed songs for themselves,”
d. Excessive Drinking
“Who drink wine from sacrificial bowls”
e. Exotic Perfumes
“While they anoint themselves with the finest of oils,”
John Goldingay: Through ruling oppressively, they can ensure that they live comfortably (6:4–5). They recline on their ivory-decorated seating in order to eat well. Generally people would eat lamb and beef only at great festivals of the kind that 5:21–22 critiqued; evidently these are not the only occasions when the well-to-do eat this way. And they eat the (best) lambs from the flock and calves that have been fattened in their stalls for the purpose. Meanwhile the diners hum along with their minstrels and make up songs. The talk of mandolin and song recurs from 5:23 and further draws attention to the comparison between their enjoyment of a festival at the sanctuary and their celebration of the good life in other contexts.
Allen Guenther: Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous
Amos hits hard at extravagant furniture, elegant dining, elaborate entertainment, excessive drinking, and exotic perfumes. The nations’ leaders live in idle opulence. They have the latest in design and the most expensive modern furniture (6:4a). Ivory is ‘in’ in Samaria. One envisions ivory-inlaid furniture. Furthermore, in a society where the average person rarely eats meat (except for festive occasions), Israel’s elite dine on lambs and fattened veal (6:4b; Beach, 1992:130-139). They twitter away their time composing songs extemporaneously, in what they regard as the great lyrical tradition of their foremost ruler, David (6:5). Wine is served them in widemouthed bowls, probably to permit the wine to be mixed with spices (6:6a). The aroma of the best anointing oils wafts through their spacious houses (6:6b).
- (:6b) Exposure of Spiritual Indifference to the Nation’s Ruin
“Yet they have not grieved over the ruin of Joseph.”
Gary Cohen: This luxurious living amid basins and oils was not complemented with spiritual beauty. There was no grieving for sin here, no personal repentance, no asking God for forgiveness and strength to live for Him, and no weeping or prayer for the nation, which was daily sinking deeper into sin.
Allen Guenther: Most serious, is the sin of omission: They are not sickened (6:6, lit.) by the shattering of their people. They cannot see the destruction of society around them. They seem incapable of feeling the pain of others. Their thoughts are for themselves alone. Here is the crux of Amos’s critique. The wealthy are called to account for serving self alone. Gone is compassion for broken people. Absent is any concern for the well-being of God’s people (Joseph = Israel).
C. (:7) Shock Based on Facing Reality
- Humiliation of the Leaders Condemned to Exile
“Therefore, they will now go into exile at the head of the exiles,”
John Goldingay: The subsection ends with another “therefore.” The leadership to whom ordinary Ephraimites have to look will maintain their position in the preeminent nation when they lead it into exile, as the banquet of the loungers (see v. 4) ceases. “The first shall be first.”
- Halting of the Self-Indulgent Partying
“And the sprawlers’ banqueting will pass away.”
Billy Smith: God does not tolerate a self-indulgent lifestyle. The history of Israel and Judah brought to literal fulfillment the judgment sentence Amos delivered against them (2 Kgs 24:11-16; 25:11-12, 18-21). When the worship of God’s people fails to produce justice and righteousness in society, God’s judgment cannot be far behind.
II. (:8-14) WARNING THAT DESTRUCTION FROM THE LORD IS COMING SOON
Trent Butler: God swears to bring total destruction to a people whose lifestyle has become the exact opposite of God’s expectations.
Allen Guenther: This oracle consists of five literary snippets. The end has come for Israel. What true prophet could announce the death of his people in clear, calm speech? The thought leaps from image to image, like the semi-coherent account of an accident victim or the reminiscences of the recently bereaved. A common thread unites these short outbursts: Yahweh has turned against his people.
A. (:8) Confirmed by the Divine Oath
“The Lord God has sworn by Himself, the LORD God of hosts has declared:
‘I loathe the arrogance of Jacob, And I detest his citadels;
Therefore, I will deliver up the city and all it contains.’”
Billy Smith: The Lord’s character, integrity, and power stood behind the oath.
James Mays: The economic base of such luxury is violence (hāmās; cf. 3.10) against the poor. In all their luxury they have not the slightest concern for the breakdown of Joseph (= Israel). The sufferings of the oppressed and wronged in the nation do not touch them. They neither see nor hear their covenant brother. Surely the God who made himself known to Israel in Egypt as one who heard their cry and knew their sufferings there (Ex. 3.7) cannot bear this revelry. Just as he rejects the sound of their worship (5.21–24), he is nauseated by the noise of their amusement.
Alec Motyer: When this God swears by himself He commits the totality of His nature (the holy One, the Redeemer and Judge), the totality of His status as the world’s Sovereign Lord, and the totality of His effective power as the Omnipotent. Again, what is it that so rouses and antagonizes the Lord? Human pride. And when pride is assaulted the strongholds and the capital city (cf. verse 1) which are its embodiment fall as well.
B. (:9-10) Chronicled by the Scope of Death and Destruction
“And it will be, if ten men are left in one house, they will die.
10 Then one’s uncle, or his undertaker, will lift him up to carry out his bones from the house, and he will say to the one who is in the innermost part of the house,
‘Is anyone else with you?’ And that one will say, ‘No one.’
Then he will answer, ‘Keep quiet. For the name of the LORD is not to be mentioned.’”
Gary Cohen: It should be noted that the word undertaker in v. 10 is miseraph, literally “a burner,” hence the diseases, and perhaps the large number of dead, required cremation rather than the usual Hebrew custom of burial—except in the case of the badly mutilated or criminals (Josh. 7:25; 1 Sam. 31:12).
Tchavdar Hadjiev: Those who are left behind after the catastrophe do not dare to speak, for fear of inadvertently pronouncing the name of the Lord. They are scared of drawing divine attention to themselves and dying as a result.
Thomas McComiskey: Verses 9–10 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 will surely fall on oppressing Israel.
Charles Feinberg: How widespread the plague will be is noted for us in verse 10. When one’s next of kin, to whom the duty of burial belonged, would come to carry the corpse out of the house to burn it, he would find but one remaining out of the ten who lived there formerly. And that last surviving one hidden away in the innermost recesses of the houses fearfully awaiting the hour when the plague would carry him away also. In ancient Israel in accordance with the words of Genesis 3:19 burial was the accepted method of disposal of the dead. In this the New Testament doctrine of the body concurs. Hence cremation was considered wrong and not countenanced (see Amos 2:1). But when God’s judgment falls upon His people, there will be so many dead that they will not bury but burn them. The cases here and 1 Samuel 31:12 are exceptional cases. Here cremation is resorted to in order to prevent contagion; in 1 Samuel it was done to obviate further dishonor of the bodies of Saul and his sons by the Philistines. When asked if there are others alive, the remaining occupant of the house will say there is none. Immediately he will be told to hold his peace for fear he would mention the name of the Lord in announcing the death of the others in the household, or in praising God for his own deliverance. Punishment will so work fear and despair in them all that they will refrain from even the mention of the name of the Lord (which should be their sole refuge in such an hour) lest further wrath come upon them.
C. (:11-13) Caused by Divine Opposition to Prideful Rebellion and Self-Reliance
- (:11) Smashed to Bits
“For behold, the LORD is going to command that
the great house be smashed to pieces and the small house to fragments.”
John Goldingay: Amos returns to poetry (v. 11) for a more literal description of the total devastation that faces Samaria. Big and small houses implies all of them. Perhaps Yahweh is commanding his supernatural executioners (cf. 3:9 and the comments), or perhaps it is a kind of self-command. Amos’s point is that the destruction is going to happen.
- (:12) Senseless Unrighteous Lifestyle
“Do horses run on rocks? Or does one plow them with oxen?
Yet you have turned justice into poison,
And the fruit of righteousness into wormwood,”
Trent Butler: To get his point across, the prophet turned to rhetorical questions that expect negative answers. Do horses run on the rocky crags? Does one plow there with oxen? Obviously not. But Israel’s actions are as logical as a farmer trying to plow through the huge stone cliffs overlooking the sea. God has consistently demanded justice. Israel has transformed the justice that should preserve equality and fairness in the community into a poisonous plant that brings death to the community. God expects righteousness to characterize the people so that the stable order of the community can continue. Those who live by righteousness will produce fruit—justice. Instead, Israel’s elite have produced bitter wormwood (Amos 5:7).
Allen Guenther: Amos assigns the cause of the divine judgment to two sins; injustice (6:12) and pride (6:13). The fundamental character of the people of God has been violated by the nation’s leaders. The judicial system, which should empower the poor and create equity between covenant members, has been poisoned. It has become the tool of the powerful in suppressing the helpless and in promoting their own welfare. What should show itself as the results of righteousness – wholesome, creative relationships – has been transformed into bitterness and enmity. Such perversions on Israel’s part should be as improbably and contrary to nature as having horses gallop on rocks or oxen plow the sea.
James Mays: When the poor and afflicted come to the courts of Israel expecting their rights to be protected and vindicated, instead of justice they are dealt out the very same injustice from which they sought relief. To Amos, who will allow Israel no other identity and way of life than that given her in the election of Yahweh, such a reversal of things staggers the mind, and he can only compare it to some incredible perversion of the normal order of things. And with this argumentative saying he seeks to make the leaders of the nation see their deeds as Yahweh sees them.
Gary Smith: By using these ridiculous rhetorical questions, Amos gets his listeners to agree with him. This makes it easier for them to see the absurdity of their own action of turning righteousness into something vile, bitter, or poisonous. This type of injustice is as absurd as riding a horse over a rocky field; it makes no sense. In this verse “righteousness” is not defined by a specific context (social relationships, religious, or a worship context), but it is frequently used in relationship to social justice in other contexts in Amos (5:10–15, 21–24). At the least, it indicates that people are not living according to the standards of God’s law or demonstrating just behavior or pure heart attitudes in their relationships with God and other people.
- (:13) Self Reliant Pride in Military Exploits
“You who rejoice in Lodebar,
And say, ‘Have we not by our own strength taken Karnaim for ourselves?’”
Trent Butler: These people face the threat from the general who controls the heavenly hosts, and they take time to celebrate a victory over Lo Debar, translated literally as “No Thing.” They claim, “Did we not capture for ourselves Karnaim (that is, “the horns of power”) in our own strength?” (author’s translation). Lo Debar was a city-state east of the Jordan River (2 Sam. 9:4–5). Karnaim, just north of the Yarmuk River, was the most important city in the northern part of Transjordan called Bashan. Apparently, Jeroboam II had recently captured these cities as he expanded his territory eastward and northward. This gave Israel a strong sense of power. Amos declared it was “nothing.” God is the only one with power and might.
James Mays: An Israel which saw its own strength as the foundation of military victory was flying in the face of the old theology of Holy War. Yahweh was a God of war (Ex. 15.3) and had revealed himself in Israel’s battles; when she won it was because Yahweh himself had given the enemy into her hand. For Israel to think that she had prevailed on the field of battle was a perversion of the ancient faith and a usurpation of Yahweh’s role in the nation’s existence.
Billy Smith: The horns of an animal were symbols of power or authority in Old Testament times. Perhaps Israel thought that by taking Karnaim they had doubled their strength. Actually Karnaim was a relatively insignificant city.
D. (:14) Carried Out by the Lord God of Hosts Via an Oppressing Enemy Nation
“‘For behold, I am going to raise up a nation against you, O house of Israel,’ declares the LORD God of hosts, ‘And they will afflict you
from the entrance of Hamath To the brook of the Arabah.’”
Trent Butler: God would soon display his power and strength. He would raise up an enemy nation to oppress Israel. All the territory Jeroboam II had conquered anew for Israel (2 Kgs. 14:25), God’s enemy nation would take back. Lebo Hamath or the Entrance to Hamath represents the southern border of the Syrian city-state mentioned in Amos 6:2 (Ezek. 48:1). The valley of the Arabah or the wadi of the Arabah represents a stream bed running off the Dead Sea that carried water only in the rainy season. It represented the southern extension of the conquests of King Jeroboam II.
All Israel’s winnings would be lost. Israel had partied long enough. They had not taken care of God’s business or heeded God’s warnings. The end was in sight. When God had no impact on daily life, those living without God would soon not be living at all.
Robert Martin-Achard: Chapter 6 ends then on the perspective of a political disaster rendering the ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude of Samaria’s leaders, indicated in his first couplets, all the more ridiculous and culpable. Woe awaits a nation whose authorities make proof of frivolity and blindness. They are dragging down the whole of Israel to its doom.