BIG IDEA:
GOD’S MESSENGER MUST STAND UP TO OPPOSITION BY RELYING ON DIVINE AUTHORITY
INTRODUCTION:
Gary Smith: The incident focuses on two factors:
(1) the authority of Amos’s vision about the future destruction of Israel’s temples and ruling family, and
(2) the nature of Amos’s prophetic calling.
Amos and Amaziah have conflicting points of view on both issues and dispute the validity of Amos’s words from the Lord.
Billy Smith: The issue in the narrative of the encounter between Amos and Amaziah was one of authority. Who was in charge of the people called Israel? Was it Jeroboam the king, or Amaziah the priest at Bethel, or Amos the prophet of God, or God himself? The prophet’s report of his vision of a plumb line (7:7-9) ended with a strong judgment word against Israel’s religious sites, such as Bethel, and against the nation’s ruling dynasty, represented by Jeroboam II.
James Mays: This story of the encounter between Amos and Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, the only piece of prophetic biography in the book, falls into three parts:
- the priest’s report to the king (vv. 10f.);
- the priest’s command to Amos (vv. 12f.);
- Amos’ answer to the priest (vv. 14–17).
This answer contains an oracle against the priest, the only example in Amos of an oracle of judgment against an individual. The oracle may have occasioned the composition of the narrative; it supplies the introduction of characters and the setting which the oracle pre-supposes. The occasion must have been a crisis in Amos’ career, and may have marked the end of his activity, at least at Bethel. But what happened as a sequel to the encounter is unknown.
Thomas Constable: [7:16-17] Amos then announced a prophecy from the Lord for Amaziah. Because the priest had told the prophet to stop doing what Yahweh had commanded him to do (cf. 2:12), Amaziah’s wife would become a harlot in Bethel. She would have to stoop to this to earn a living because she would have no husband or sons to support her. Her children would die by the sword. This may also imply the end of Amaziah’s family line. Amaziah’s land would become the property of others, presumably the Assyrians, and he himself would die in a foreign, pagan land. All these things would evidently happen when the foreign enemy destroyed Israel. Stifling the word of God proved disastrous for Amaziah, as it still does today. Finally, Amos repeated that Israel would indeed go into exile, the message that Amaziah had reported that Amos was preaching (cf. v. 11).
Alec Motyer: This little piece of personal narrative about Amos reveals him at his courageous best, but, more than that, provides us with deep instruction about the nature and function of the man of God, the experiences he may expect to encounter, the resources on which he can draw and the persevering fortitude which is to mark his career. . .
There is no service of God without opposition, persecution and trial. This truth lies on the surface of the story before us, and it is well worth our while to face it and accept that it is so. How often servants of God are knocked off course by the onset of difficulties and oppositions!
Robert Martin-Achard: Verses 10–17 rest upon a direct witness; they comprise actually three wordy confrontations.
- In the first one Amaziah denounces the prophet to the king (vv. 10 f).
- In the second, he takes Amos to task himself and orders him to leave the country as quickly as possible (vv. 12 f).
- In the last, the prophet justifies himself by referring to his vocation (vv. 14 f), and ends the dialogue by uttering a terrible oracle against Amaziah that seems indirectly to involve also the Israelites as a whole (vv. 16 f).
He speaks with the marvelous and terrible freedom of one who knows himself to be the messenger of the God of Israel. Nothing then can restrain him, neither political nor religious powers, nor can anything divert him from his calling.
John Goldingay: The Amos scroll is more interested in the bigger picture:
- that the prophet confronts the priest,
- that the word of Yahweh confronts the state,
- and that the resistance of the latter indeed means that Yahweh must bring about the calamity that he has shown Amos.
I. (:10-11) OPPOSITION TO AMOS INTENSIFIED BY AMAZIAH’S APPEAL TO THE KING
A. (:10a) Unholy Power Partnership of Priest and King
“Then Amaziah, the priest of Bethel,
sent word to Jeroboam, king of Israel, saying,”
Gary Smith: Amaziah’s authoritative tone and strong statements suggest that he is the high priest at the Bethel temple. He seems to be an important government official with the power to regulate and supervise what happens at this sanctuary and to protect it from foreign ideologies that might undermine its state-approved religious activities. Amaziah’s strong accusations (7:10–13) that Amos’s words are a “conspiracy” (qšr, falsehood, treasonous act) suggest an organized plot to overthrow the government. This would be considered rebellion, sedition, or subversion by those in authority. No wonder Amaziah thinks the land cannot possibly allow him to speak like this in Israel (7:10). As a loyal political appointee and protector of the status quo of that culture, Amaziah communicates his concern over Amos’s words to King Jeroboam II.
Lloyd Ogilvie: Of all the people in Israel who should have been alarmed by a direct word from Yahweh, it should have been the head of the religious establishment. But then, down through history religious leaders from popes to pastors have sometimes been the least responsive to revival or reform—these threaten their vested interests.
Allen Guenther: Amaziah, then, appears to be fulfilling a double obligation: informing Jeroboam of the content and source of prophecies directed at him, and expelling prophets who have spoken as madmen or without authorization (cf. Jer. 29:26).
B. (:10b) Unsubstantiated Rumors Reported to the King
“Amos has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel;
the land is unable to endure all his words.”
Tchavdar Hadjiev: The claim that the land is not able to bear all his words implies that there is widespread dissatisfaction with Amos’s preaching. This may be a self-serving exaggeration, but it could very well reflect accurately the situation. The oracles in the rest of the book indicate that the prophet’s provocative statements met with scepticism and unbelief.
Gary Cohen: Amos did not “conspire against” the king, as Amaziah charged. The prophet who condemns the evil is not the cause of the evil, or of the punishment that follows the evil. Similarly, in 1 Kings 18:17, wicked Ahab accused Elijah by his question of denunciation, “Is this you, you troubler of Israel?” Note Elijah’s classic reply, “I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father’s house have, because you have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and you have followed the Baals” (v. 18).
C. (:11) Unfavorable Misrepresentations of Amos’ Message
“For thus Amos says, ‘Jeroboam will die by the sword
and Israel will certainly go from its land into exile.’”
J. Vernon McGee: Amaziah went in and deliberately lied to the king about Amos. Amos had not said that Jeroboam would perish with the sword, and Jeroboam did not. Amos had said, “And I [God] will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword,” which meant that warfare would come, and it did come. Israel was finally taken into captivity to Assyria.
Allen Guenther: The fact that Amaziah’s report does not quote Amos’s words precisely as they are given in 7:9 has raised some questions.
Tchavdar Hadjiev: Amaziah’s report could be taken either as a quotation of an oracle which did not find its way into the book (Soggin 1987: 131), or as an accurate and fair representation of the gist of Amos’s preaching (Sweeney 2000: 258).
II. (:12-13) OPPOSITION IMPLEMENTED BY THREATENING CONFRONTATION WITH AMOS – DELIVERING ULTIMATUM OF DISMISSAL
A. (:12) Dismissal Based on Imputation of False Motives to Amos
“Then Amaziah said to Amos,
‘Go, you seer, flee away to the land of Judah,
and there eat bread and there do your prophesying!’”
Gary Smith: The motivation that Amaziah provides to encourage a positive response is that Amos can make money in Judah. This comment imputes negative financial goals (he is a professional prophet who wants to get rich off the people of Israel with his wild prophecies) as Amos’s primary reason for prophesying. Finally, Amaziah legitimates his own authority by stating that this is a state temple that is controlled by the king; thus, he has the power to deny permission for anyone to make negative political statements about the king in the temple area.
Billy Smith: Stacking two imperatives together, “get out” (lek, “go,” or “walk”) and “go back” (berah, “flee,” i.e., “run for your life”), reveals Amaziah’s sense of urgency in dealing with the problem Amos created by his preaching. He wanted Amos out of Bethel, back in Judah, and out of his way.
Allen Guenther: From Amaziah’s perspective, Amos’s prophesying in Israel means that some enemy of Jeroboam’s is financing a revolt, or perhaps the prophet is being paid to invoke evil on the kingdom, in the manner of Balaam (Num. 22-24).
B. (:13) Dismissal Based on Elevating Human Institutions over Divine Authority
“But no longer prophesy at Bethel,
for it is a sanctuary of the king and a royal residence.”
Tchavdar Haejiev: Amaziah disparagingly brushes aside Amos’s accusations as politically motivated drivel. The prohibition to prophesy at Bethel is explained by pointing out its status as the king’s sanctuary and a temple of the kingdom. If there was any doubt about the close link between cult and monarchy, this final remark removes it completely. It also demonstrates why cultic and social criticism are so closely tied in Amos’s preaching. Israel’s worship is governed and administered by the royal court and serves to legitimize royal power.
III. (:14-17) OPPOSITION INVALIDATED BY RELIANCE UPON DIVINE AUTHORITY
A. (:14-15) Confirmation of His Divine Calling and Commission
“Then Amos answered and said to Amaziah,”
John Goldingay: In the way Amaziah has spoken of Amos as a seer or prophet, however, he has shown that he misunderstands who Amos is. He is not a prophet in either of the senses that Amaziah might assume (the personal counselor or the royal counselor). He isn’t someone who went to prophetic school; he didn’t belong to the “sons of the prophets,” to a prophetic community such as the one at Beth-el with which Elijah and Elisha were involved (2 Kings 2:3). He wasn’t sent by a prophet mentor whom he might call “father,” like Elisha in relation to Elijah. He isn’t on the sanctuary payroll. He works as a cattleman, and as a dresser of the trees that produce mulberry-figs down in the Jordan Valley (or in the Shephelah, according to Tg) for human beings and/or cattle to eat. It sounds like a much humbler role than being a sheep-farmer in Teqoa (1:1). If he is being ironically self-deprecating, this supports the suggestion that he is being ironic throughout v. 14.
- (:14b) Clarifying His Background
“I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet;
for I am a herdsman and a grower of sycamore figs.”
James Mays: When Amos answers Amaziah, does he deny that he is a prophet (nābī’), or does he say that he had not been a prophet until Yahweh called him (v. 15)? Are the sentences in v. 14 to be translated in the present tense or in the past tense? The problem lies in the ambiguity of Hebrew syntax; the sentences are nominal sentences which could be translated in either tense.
Gary Smith: Since Amos was sent to prophesy, his statement that he is not a prophet (7:14) can make sense only if nbyʾ (prophet) is interpreted to mean a professional prophet who makes his living by being paid for prophesying.
Billy Smith: Jeroboam claimed authority in Bethel as the king of Israel. Amaziah claimed authority in Bethel as the high priest there. But Amos claimed no authority. He had no official title. Neither a bôqer nor a bôles of sycamore figs had any professional clout in Bethel. Nevertheless he did not flee before Amaziah (cf. 1 Kgs 19:2). The only authority Amos needed rested in the God who took hold of him for service as his spokesman. Wolff considered it notable that “the first classical and canonical prophet stresses that he is a layman.” He observed that Amos denied three times “the connection between his own self and what he proclaims: I—no prophet! I—no prophet’s disciple! I—a livestock breeder!” Then Amos gave a threefold pointer to Yahweh as the way Amaziah and Israel should hear what he had to say: “But Yahweh took me from following the flock, and Yahweh said to me: ‘Go, prophesy unto my people Israel! Now therefore hear the word of Yahweh!’” The prophet explained that he could not resist God’s word and that Amaziah and Israel should not resist God’s word. Only those chosen and sent out by God have authority to speak God’s message.
Tchavdar: Hadjiev: Amos’s opening response ‘I [’ānōkî] am not a prophet, and I [’ānōkî] am not a prophet’s disciple, I [’ānōkî] am a cattle breeder’ (njps) contains a threefold recurrence of the first-person singular pronoun ’ānōkî (on which see 2:9–13 above) which in Hebrew sounds very much like the ’ănāk object seen in the third vision (7:7–8). Scholars have long suspected that the choice of this exotic word in the vision has, in part at least, been dictated by desire to convey some meaning via wordplay. The similarity between ’ănāk and ’ănaḥâ ‘groaning’ is often noted, and it is possible it played a role, especially in the original formulation of the visions. The link between the narrative and the third vision identifies the prophet Amos with the plumb line. He is the final test of the nation’s spiritual condition. Israel’s response to Amos’s ministry will demonstrate whether the wall is salvageable or bent beyond repair.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Sycomores did not grow in the area of Tekoa but rather in the Shephelah to the west of Tekoa (1 Kgs 10:27; 2 Chr 1:15; 9:27–28) and in the Jordan and Jericho Valleys to the northeast. The text does not say whether Amos owned the land on which the sycomores grew or leased it, but their mention confirms that he worked with flocks and herds (nôqēd, 1:1; bôqēr). The tree’s leaves and fruit can serve as fodder, so it is likely that Amos (and perhaps others of his group) went down to one of these areas (the Jericho Valley would have been closer) for pasturage at the end of the summer. The dense foliage of the sycomore and the presence of the figs would have served him well for several months and would not have led him too far from Jerusalem. He could have harvested the figs for his stock and perhaps sold some of the excess, as well as stored some for future need. The principal intent was probably not to have another source of income but to nourish his animals throughout the year.
- (:15) Citing His Divine Call and Commission
“But the LORD took me from following the flock
and the LORD said to me, ‘Go prophesy to My people Israel.’”
Gary Smith: Amos makes his living by secular employment and is not motivated to come to Israel to prophesy for money. The motivation for his prophecies is the call of God that has instructed him to prophesy in Israel (7:15). He is under divine compulsion to do what Amaziah says he may not do. Amaziah is in rebellion against God’s plan and opposes God’s power. His command to Amos is a conspiracy against the divine command and God’s obedient servant. Amaziah’s rejection of both the message and the messenger of God puts him in opposition to God.
Alec Motyer: The man of God rests upon his divinely given authority. The essence of what Amos says to Amaziah can be summed up in the words ‘Not I… the Lord’. He rests his whole case on the single fact of obedience to the vocational word of God. As against Amaziah’s attempt to ‘pull rank’, Amos replies that he has,
- first, the authority of vocation, the Lord said to me, Go;
- secondly, the authority of revelation, the possession of a word from God to speak: the Lord said… prophesy;
- thirdly, the authority of commission: Go… to my people Israel.
Amos underlines this authority by a denial and an affirmation. He denies that his authority is in any way whatsoever self-generated. He was neither by nature nor self-appointment a prophet, nor had he ambitions or plans such as would have made him enter the probationary stage by becoming a prophet’s son, a member of a school or guild presided over by a senior prophet (cf. 2 Ki. 6:1). His life and attentions were directed in a humdrum, secular job, herding sheep and farming sycomore-figs. On the other hand he affirms that the Lord took me. The added words from following the flock imply the element of surprise and suddenness, that is to say, while he was (contentedly) engaged in his daily concerns, he was arrested, apprehended, conscripted. An authoritative hand from outside gripped him and he became what he was not before and what he would never have made himself.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: That Yahweh uses a spokesperson from another country, who is not a trained prophet, to condemn the Northern Kingdom makes the indictment more impactful. God will use whom he wills—in this case a well-placed foreigner and true follower—to denounce Israel’s sociopolitical and religious world and its unjust and wrongheaded national ideology.
B. (:16-17) Confirmation of His Prophetic Message from the Lord
James Mays: The oracle against Amaziah is in the standard form of an oracle of judgment. It opens with a summons to hear (16a), states the indictment against its addressee (16bc), then uses the messenger formula (17a) to introduce the verdict of punishment (17b-e). Amaziah is guilty of having contradicted the command of Yahweh to Amos. The messenger of a king who came bearing the king’s own word was an extension of the royal person; Amaziah has pitted his order against the very will of Yahweh in presuming to exercise authority over his messenger. In doing so the priest stands in a company of others who have opposed prophets raised up by Yahweh and so added to the guilt of Israel (2.11f.). His punishment will be to suffer the judgment which will fall upon the nation as a whole, and therein lies its poignant appropriateness. When the divine sentence of exile for Israel is carried out Amaziah will go too. His wife will be publicly shamed, used as a harlot for the soldiers of the victorious enemy (Isa. 13.16; Zech. 14.2). His heirs will be slain. His own property will be divided up and parcelled out by the victors (II Kings 17.24; Micah 2.4; Jer. 6.12). He himself, the priest whose office it was to protect the cult and people against all uncleanness (Lev. 10.10), will be carried away to die in a land that is unclean because it is the dominion of foreign deities (I Sam. 26.19; Hos. 9.3f.; Ezek. 4.13). All this will happen to others, but it has a terrible particularity for Amaziah. The desecration of his wife, the end of his house, the loss of his inheritance in Israel, and his contamination—all, in effect, constitute a fearful divesting of office. His priesthood will be brought to a terrible and final end.
- (:16) Fatal Fallacy of Rebuffing Divine Warnings of Judgment
“And now hear the word of the LORD:
you are saying, ‘You shall not prophesy against Israel
nor shall you speak against the house of Isaac.’ “
2. (:17) Five Covenant Curses to Be Executed Without Fail
“Therefore, thus says the LORD,”
Alec Motyer: The Word of God has a steely insistence on being heard and requires an insistent ministry. No matter how much the Amaziah’s of this world say Do not prophesy—or, to put the matter for today, Do not preach the Bible—the reply must always be the same: Therefore thus says the Lord (17). The man of God abides faithful to the Word of God.
Gary Cohen: To that one who wanted Amos’s message of judgment against the Northern Kingdom stopped, God addresses a castigation of the utmost severity: “Your wife will become a harlot in the city” (v. 17). The word spoken of Amaziah’s wife is zanah, “to commit fornication.” Thus Amos’s stinging rebuke to the clergyman who seeks to silence Amos’s denunciation of the immorality of the day was, “Your wife [Amaziah’s]” would end up in such desperate conditions that for survival she would turn to the most demeaning, illegal, and immoral form of self-support. In his sophistication, Amaziah resented Amos’s direct, upbraiding speech, which indicated there would be a disruption of the smooth, royal high society in which he and his wife mingled. The cities of Samaria and Bethel, with their false religion, pseudo-sophistication, and immorality, would be destroyed and degraded by the ungodly Assyrians. Those who longed to engage in so much paganism would soon feel what the forces of complete paganism would bring when unleashed upon a group. Women, whose husbands had been slain, would turn to prostitution to earn a living. Men and women, who were the children of Amos’s day, would be slain by the Assyrian sword. The land of Israel would be divided by the conquerors and given away to foreign people. The nation of Israel would “certainly go from its land into exile” (v. 17).
a. Wife Humiliated via Public Prostitution
“Your wife will become a harlot in the city,”
Deut. 28:30
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Amaziah’s wife will become a prostitute (znh) in the city. In context, this could very well mean in Bethel. That is, the wife of one of the foremost individuals in the city of the nation’s premier sanctuary will be publicly humiliated in that very place. Opinions differ about exactly what is pictured here. One possibility is that she will be raped by the conquering enemy troops (e.g., Isa 13:16; Lam 5:11). The evidence for such behavior, however, is not as clear as one might suspect. Victorious armies could be incredibly cruel, but this act is not listed among the ways that they would humiliate defeated peoples. In addition, the Old Testament uses different verbs than the one here to describe forced sexual violation: ʿnh (piel; e.g., Gen 34:2; Judg 19:24; 20:5; 2 Sam 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam 5:11) and šgl (Isa 13:16; Zech 14:2). A better interpretive option is that she will be driven to prostitution to support herself after the death of her children and the removal (and ultimate death) of Amaziah in another land. A middling view is that both rape and prostitution were likely outcomes of war. The vocabulary of the verse and the contextual data endorse the second option. His wife’s tragic status would disqualify Amaziah from his priestly office (Lev 21:7–9, 13–15).
b. Children Eliminated
“your sons and your daughters will fall by the sword,”
Deut. 28:30; also Lev. 26:32
M. Daniel Carroll R.: It was not uncommon to kill younger children if the vanquished were to be deported. Little ones would be a burden in such a trek. There is no reason, however, for Amaziah’s children to be thought of as small; they could be older. Whether they will die in the taking of the city or be executed afterward is not said. Either way, the family will be left without heirs.
c. Land Confiscation
“your land will be parceled up by a measuring line,”
Deut. 28:30; also Lev. 26:32
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Amaziah’s land will be confiscated and distributed among the victors (2 Kgs 17:24; Jer 6:12; cf. Mic 2:4–5). Priests normally did not own property (e.g., Deut 10:9; 18:1; Josh 13:14, 33; Ezek 44:28), but there are a few instances where priests and their families did possess land (Abiathar, 1 Kgs 2:26; Jeremiah, Jer 32:6–15), whether it was granted to them for some reason, such as loyalty to the crown, or purchased. If the former were the case with Amaziah, it would reveal deeper, intertwined commitments to Jeroboam’s regime and its ideology. This man of means will be reduced to pauper’s status with the loss of heirs and inheritance.
d. Disgraceful Death
“and you yourself will die upon unclean soil.”
Lev. 26:38–39
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The meaning is most likely that the priest will die in another country far from Yahweh’s residence and Israel’s religious system and be buried in an unclean place and so permanently defiled (cf. 1 Sam 26:19; Ps 137:4; Ezek 4:13; Hos 9:3–4). Amaziah’s end is similar to others who opposed God’s prophets, such as Zedekiah (1 Kgs 22) and Hananiah (Jer 28).
e. National Exile
“Moreover, Israel will certainly go from its land into exile.”
Amos 5:27; 7:11
Billy Smith: The narrative of the encounter between Amos and Amaziah settled the issue of authority. Jeroboam was king of Israel, but he was supposed to rule the Lord’s people under the Lord’s authority. As a high priest Amaziah’s concern should have been to serve the Lord’s people under the Lord’s authority. As God’s prophet, Amos spoke to the Lord’s people under the Lord’s authority. The Lord was in charge in Israel because the people there were the Lord’s people. The same is true in the church, where leaders as well as congregations all serve under the Lord’s authority. Each one is accountable directly to God, and each one has accountability to the others in the church.
Tchavdar Hadjiev: As the priest represents Israel in its rejection of the Lord, so his fate embodies the doom of the nation. The five-line oracle deals with the judgment on the priest whose exile in an unclean land prefigures the exile of Israel from its land. He will lose everything when his sons and daughters . . . fall by the sword, and when his land is parcelled out by line. His present possessions and the future of his line will come to nothing. Wrapped in this description of total loss is a dual statement of his utter humiliation and defilement. The fact that his wife will become a prostitute is the source of unimaginable disgrace and defilement that will result in the loss of his priestly status (Lev. 21:7). Dying in an unclean land also implies defilement and contradiction of his priestly calling. The oracle ends with the explicit statement of the reality symbolized by the priest’s dire fate: Israel shall surely go into exile away from its land. This line, which frames the narrative (v. 11), highlights the unstoppable nature of the word of God. Amaziah’s efforts to ban Amos from Bethel do not prevent the disaster from happening, but only ensure the ultimate fulfilment of his oracles.
Allen Guenther: The fate of the nation will enclose his own fate. The national sin of consistently silencing God’s spokespersons (Amos 2:12) is mirrored in Amaziah’s rejection of Amos for personal and political reasons. For Amaziah, exile is certain. The story of the interchange between Amos and Amaziah may be inserted between these visions as a way of pointing to overall unresponsiveness. This prepares the reader for the subsequent vision of judgment. Nothing can any longer avert the judgment.