BIG IDEA:
THE AWESOME ALL-POWERFUL GOD JUDGES WITH THOROUGHNESS AND FINALITY REGARDLESS OF CLAIMS OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE
INTRODUCTION:
Billy Smith: The climactic fifth vision is unlike the other four from start to finish. Among the differences are the following: no introductory formula declaring divine enablement of the prophet to see (cf. “This is what the Sovereign LORD/he showed me,” 7:1, 4, 7; 8:1), no symbolic component as an interpretive key, and no words of Amos. There is a progression of the Lord’s control in the visions and a receding of Amos’s involvement. In the first pair of visions Amos spoke more than the Lord; in the second pair Amos spoke only a word or two; here Amos is silent. The Lord’s words in first person dominate the report (9:1b-4). No escape from divine retribution is the unrelieved theme.
Gary Smith: The three paragraphs in this section remove any remaining false hopes that Amos’s audience may still have. His final persuasive arguments are contained
- in a vision emphasizing that no one can escape God’s judgment (9:1–4),
- in a hymnic fragment about the overwhelming power of God (9:5–6),
- and in a disputation against Israel’s false belief that its special status will prevent it from being overcome by any enemy (9:7–10).
- This fifth and final vision has no paired element, unlike the previous four visions, but is balanced by the dispute in 9:7–10 (similar to the dispute in 7:10–17, which comes after the vision in 7:7–9). One reason why there is no parallel vision is because God actually executes his final judgment in this vision, and no one is allowed to escape. Thus, there is nothing left to warn the people about.
The hymn that follows the vision (9:5–6) emphasizes the power of the God who will bring an end to the nation of Israel. Parts of the hymn are identical to the hymnic fragments in 5:8 and 8:8; thus, the prophet reemphasizes the unavoidable and overpowering strength of God’s controlling hand. God’s sovereignty is legitimated by claims that he is the One who has control over the heavens, the land, and the sea.
The dispute (9:7–10) further undermines the audience’s confidence by attacking the theological basis of their false hopes. Does their elect status and their past Exodus experience guarantee God’s favor forever? No, God relates to people primarily on the basis of either their sins against him or their love for him.
Warren Wiersbe: In this final chapter of the book, the Prophet Amos shares four affirmations from the heart of the Lord—three of which deal with judgment and the fourth with mercy.
“I will strike!” (Amos 9:1)
In a vision, Amos saw the Lord standing by an altar and announcing that the worshipers would be slain because the building would be destroyed and fall upon them. This was probably not the temple in Jerusalem because Amos was sent to the Northern Kingdom of Israel; and when the Babylonians destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, it was by fire (Jer. 52:12-13). This may have been the king’s royal chapel at Bethel, although we don’t know what kind of building that was.
God’s warning in Amos 3:13-15 seems to parallel this vision, describing what the Assyrian army would do when it entered the land. The altar was the place of sacrifice and atonement, but God refused to accept their sacrifices and forgive their sins (5:21-23). Their man-made religion, carried on by unauthorized priests, was an abomination to the Lord; and He would now destroy it.
“I will search!” (Amos 9:2-4)
Any idolatrous worshiper who tried to escape would be tracked down and slain. Though they dug down into Sheol, the realm of the dead, God would search them out; and if they could reach heaven, there would be no protection there. They couldn’t hide from God on the highest mountain or in the depths of the sea (see Ps. 139:7-12). Even if they were taken captive to a foreign land, He would find them and judge them. His eye would be upon them for judgment, not for blessing (33:18; 34:15; Rev. 6:12-17).
“I will destroy!” (Amos 9:5-10)
Nine times in his book, Amos calls God “the Lord of hosts,” that is, “the Lord of the armies of heaven and earth.” The people of Israel created their gods in their own image and held such a low view of Jehovah that they thought He would approve of their sinful ways. Amos reminded them of the greatness of the God they thought they were worshiping. He is the God of creation, who can melt the earth with a touch and make the land rise and fall like the swelling of the Nile River. He controls the heavens, the earth, and the seas, and no one can stay His hand. Jehovah is the God of history, who showed His great power by delivering the Jews from the bondage of Egypt (v. 7). He claimed them for His own people. Yet they turned against Him and went their own way. Therefore, He will have to treat the Jews (His special people) as He treats the Gentiles!
But He is always the God of mercy (vv. 8-10), who will keep His covenant with Abraham and his descendants and not destroy the nation. The nation would be sifted, and the sinners punished, but not one of His true worshipers would be lost.
“I will restore!” (Amos 9:11-15)
In contrast to God’s destroying the Israelite house of false worship, God will raise up the “hut” of David, thereby assuring a bright future for the people of Israel and Judah. Like a rickety shack, David’s dynasty was about to collapse. From the Babylonian Captivity to this present hour, there has been no Davidic king ruling over the Jews; and though a Jewish nation has been restored, they have no king, priest, temple, or sacrifice.
But one day, the Lord will restore, repair, and rebuild the dynasty of David and establish the kingdom He promised. When Jesus Christ comes again, the breach between Israel and Judah will be healed, and there will be one nation submitted to one King. God will bless the land and the people, and His people shall live in peace and security. It will be a time of peace and prosperity to the glory of the Lord.
Amos ends his prophecy with the wonderful promise that Israel shall be planted, protected, and never again pulled up from her land “says the Lord your God.” Your God! What a great encouragement for the Jews to know that, in spite of their unbelief, their God will be faithful to keep His covenant promises.
Lloyd Ogilvie: There is a unity to this final chapter of Amos. We are called to behold our God. We behold Him as a God with whom we cannot trifle, a God who is inescapable, a God who is sovereign over all nature and all nations. A God who is Lord of the future.
I. (:1-4) THE VISION: NO ESCAPING GOD’S JUDGMENT . . . NO EXCEPTIONS –
GOD IS INESCAPABLE
A. (:1) Comprehensive Execution – No Fugitive Escapes
- Powerful Vision of the Lord beside the Altar
“I saw the Lord standing beside the altar,”
Lloyd Ogilvie: The Lord stands on (niṣṣāb’al; cf. 7:7) the altar, symbolizing His supremacy over the false and distorted worship of Israel. Note that Amos uses the word Adonai,ʾādōnāy, rather than the name Yahweh. This probably expresses the prophet’s reverence for the invisibility of God and communicates his vision of a manifestation of the presence of God. Adonai means “sovereign” and “king.” Perhaps Amos wanted to underline the supremacy of God, the Sovereign One, over Israel’s kings who offered sacrifices on the altar.
James Mays: The sanctuary in question must be the one at Bethel. It is the only holy place at which tradition locates Amos during his ministry (7.10ff.); in 3.14 he speaks of ‘the altar’ which is to be smitten in judgment. Jerusalem is an unlikely setting because it is the congregation assembled in the shrine who are the object of Yahweh’s wrath. The pronoun ‘them’, which occurs repeatedly without specific identification, can only refer to the congregation assembled at the sanctuary, perhaps for the autumn festival. . .
The altar was the point in the sanctuary upon which communication with the deity focused. Through the sacrifices offered upon it the worshipper reached the deity, established community with him, and opened the way for the divine ministry of blessing. That a prophet should announce that Yahweh was present by the altar was an auspicious revelation. The congregation would have anticipated next some divine word that Yahweh accepted their offerings and regarded them with favour. But the announced word contradicts their assumption. The attitude of the deity is hostile (4b); altar and sanctuary are to be destroyed, a way of saying that from his side Yahweh breaks off the intercourse through the cult. Yahweh has commanded that the sanctuary be shaken to its foundations.
Tchavdar Hadjiev: Within the framework of Ancient Near Eastern thought, the vision carries a symbolic significance that far outstrips the mere prediction of a natural disaster. In both Egypt and Mesopotamia, the temple, as the meeting point of the divine and the human spheres, had cosmic significance. It was a mirror image of creation, a celebration and actualization of the triumph of order over chaos. Its proper maintenance ensured the stability of the world and the prosperity and security of the nation (Hundley 2013: 41–48, 76–84). A similar worldview may underline some Old Testament texts, such as Psalm 24, where the created world is parallel to the ‘hill of the Lord’ and the gates of the temple are synonymous with the ‘ancient doors’ of the heavenly sanctuary. The shaking thresholds of the temple in Amos’s vision, then, indicate that the boundaries between the holy and the profane are compromised and the world itself is in danger. Bethel, which once was a ‘gate of heaven’ (Gen. 28:17), now no longer fulfils this function (Riede 2008: 207–208). The strike against the temple shatters the world of the Israelites and is followed by a cosmic pursuit that will end only with their total extermination. . .
The shattering of the temple has deprived the world of security and stability.
- Powerful Image of Smiting
“and He said,
‘Smite the capitals so that the thresholds will shake,
break them on the heads of them all!’”
Billy Smith: A strike against the support pillars would shake “the thresholds,” the cut-stone bases for the doorposts (cf. Isa 6:4). Collapse of the sanctuary would be the result of the strike. Destruction would be total, from top to bottom.
Worshipers and worship leaders would be crushed by the collapsing sanctuary. “Bring them down” (also a singular command, lit., “cut them off”) is a second order following the command to “strike.” The object is the “pillars” coming down on the heads of “all the people” (lit., “all of them”). Emphasis again is on the completeness of the devastation.
J. Vernon McGee: At the time of the siege [by the Assyrians], the people would seek refuge in the temples, but the temples would be brought down so suddenly that many of the people would be trapped when the pillars crumbled.
Allen Guenther: These pillars (literally: capitals) may support a roof over a shrine or several rooms reserved for priests. On the other hand, they may be free-standing pillars (male sex symbols?) like those placed before Solomon’s temple by his Phoenician craftsman, Hiram (1 Kings 7:15-22). In both cases, each pillar is topped by an elaborately carved or cast capital. These pagan symbols are to be brought down on the assembled worshipers with such a crash that the thresholds will tremble. The temple is destroyed from top to bottom (cf. Judg. 16:23-30). False gods will be unveiled for what they are: impotent. The people who worship them must bear the consequences of their perversion.
- Powerful Elimination of Survivors
“Then I will slay the rest of them with the sword;
They will not have a fugitive who will flee,
a refugee who will escape.”
Jorg Jeremias: This is not, however, a world from which God has withdrawn, but rather a world full of God’s pernicious presence; since the third vision (7:7f.), he has, after all, become Israel’s enemy.
Gary Smith: The action within the vision involves an unknown power (some suggest an angel) shattering the columns that hold the roof of the temple. If this structural damage to the columns and the shaking of the foundations of the building are connected to Amos’s other predictions of an earthquake, then it is unnecessary to hypothesize any other power at work. God himself is behind this enormous earthquake, which happened about two years after Amos spoke (1:1).
Once the earthquake begins, the building crumbles on the heads of those gathered for worship. Instead of providing security and hope, this temple will bring deadly panic. Its destruction is a direct sign of divine disapproval. These events lead to the divine determination to kill the remaining Israelites “with the sword” of an enemy army (9:1; cf. 2:14–16; 3:11–12; 4:2–3; 5:2–3, 27; 6:7–11; 7:17). No one will escape God’s judgment. This vision removes all hope and security; no exceptions are noted until we get to 9:8.
B. (:2-4) Concealment Impossible — No Place to Hide
Gary Smith: To convince the audience of the impossibility of any hope of survival, a series of five conditional clauses are presented (9:2–4). Each gives a possible way one might try to escape from God’s mighty hand of judgment, but each is a useless waste of effort because there are no limits to the power of God’s eyes or hands.
Billy Smith: Five conditional sentences in vv. 2-4a, each introduced by the Hebrew particle ‘im, cover five possible hiding places for escaped Israelites seeking to avoid divine retribution. The connection here with Psalm 139 (esp. vv. 7-12) and the biblical theme of the inability to escape from God is apparent. More so, the Book of Jonah is dominated early on by this same theme. No one can escape God’s presence.
Robert Martin-Achard: Yahweh’s presence over the altar is normally a pledge of safety for his own people. In the present case it is just the contrary, since the divine announcement is explicit: what Yahweh intends is nothing less than the total annihilation of the sinful Israelites (vv. 1b–4a). There will be no possibility of escaping the justice of Yahweh. All possible hypotheses are considered only to be successively discarded. Those who might escape the initial catastrophe, probably an earthquake, (raʿash), will fall with the sword from which not one of them shall escape (v. 1b), even if the Israelites in their panic, and using the most desperate means, should attempt not to fall into the hands of God, God is able to catch up with them to punish them. He will find them even if they have taken refuge in the underworld, Sheol, where nevertheless Yahweh intervenes so rarely that he seems to have no contact with the dead (Ps. 6:5; 88:5; etc.; conversely at Prov. 15:11; Job 26:6; etc.). Neither heaven (v. 2), nor the abundant vegetation on the top of Carmel will serve as an adequate hiding place from God. The bottom of the sea seems to be so far removed from Yahweh that it might appear to offer a sure refuge; but, Yahweh says: ‘There I will command the Serpent’, a sort of marine monster, ‘and it shall bite them’ (v. 3); Finally, the hope that in exile, beyond the land of Israel, it should be easier to escape from their God was in vain (v. 4a). There is something grandiose and terrible about this relentlessness of Yahweh in pursuing his own people in order to judge them.
Tchavdar Hadjiev: Yet 9:1–4 is connected to the cycle both thematically and formally. Its five conditional sentences with five places where the Israelites will not be able to hide (9:2–4a) correspond to the five visions. The first four (Sheol/heaven; Carmel/sea) are paired just like the first four visions, and the last stands on its own. The fifth vision brings the message of the report to a climax: the inexorable fate of Israel. The end of the people, avoided in 7:1–6 and announced in 7:7–9 and 8:1–3, is now described in detail.
- (:2) No Possibility of Escape to the Invisible Extremes of the Universe
a. Down into Sheol
“Though they dig into Sheol,
From there shall My hand take them;”
Jorg Jeremias: The cosmic significance of the temple corresponds to the cosmic effects of God’s disasters in a world without the temple. For both Amos and his tradents, God’s power is limitless, extending even into the underworld, which Psalm 88 presents as separate from God; its instruments are mythical powers which traditionally were considered to be anti-divine powers of chaos (“serpent”; cf. Isa. 27:1; Job 26:13).
b. Up into Heaven
“And though they ascend to heaven,
there will I bring them down.”
- (:3) No Possibility of Escape to the Visible Extremes of the Earth
a. Heights of Mt. Carmel
“And though they hide on the summit of Carmel,
I will search them out and take them from there;”
b. Depths of the Sea
“And though they conceal themselves from My sight
on the floor of the sea,
From there I will command the serpent and it will bite them.”
Gary Smith: The second set of comparisons contrasts the many good hiding spots in the thick forests and caves of Mount Carmel and the unexplored coral reefs in the dark, uninhabitable depths of the ocean. Those who imagine that they can hide from God in these places will not escape either, for God will hunt them down or send a divinely controlled sea serpent to find them.
Billy Smith: “The top of Carmel” and “the bottom of the sea” represent the limits of the nearer world. No terrestrial hiding place could conceal them from God’s determined pursuit (cf. Ps 139:7-12; Rev 6:15-17). As G. Smith points out, “If neither heights nor depths can separate people from the love of God (cf. Rom. 8:38-39), they are also unable to hide them from the wrath of God.”
3. (:4) No Possibility of Escape to Enemy Nations
a. God Still Controls All and Executes His Judgment
“And though they go into captivity before their enemies,
From there I will command the sword that it slay them,”
Billy Smith: The fifth hypothetical place to hide would be as unsuccessful as the previous four places. Even captivity would not grant immunity from the Lord’s determined pursuit. The “sword” under his command would slay them. Mention of the term “sword” in vv. 1, 4 encloses the chiastic structure and stresses that Yahweh’s sovereign control extended to every possible hiding place an Israelite escapee might consider.
Lloyd Ogilvie: As we will see in our commentary on Jonah, some of the Israelites had a funnel-like concept of providence, that Yahweh’s power was limited to the geographical territory of Israel and Judah. We can imagine that some of the people said, “What’s the worst that can happen? Defeat and captivity? At least then we will be out of the sphere of Yahweh’s judgment.” Serious miscalculation. Yahweh was going to use even Israel’s enemy to execute His judgment.
John Goldingay: To go into captivity might seem to mean they have escaped from the realm where Yahweh has any involvement. No, there is no such realm. Yahweh is Lord of the entire universe. There is no place of escape. From the very realm of their captivity, he will commission slaughter.
b. God Still Sees All and Holds People Accountable
“And I will set My eyes against them for evil
and not for good.”
Billy Smith: The reason no one could escape the judgment of God was his decision to turn against them (v. 4b). Usually God’s gaze was upon his people for good. His decision to set his eyes upon them for “evil” (ra’a, here “calamity”) and not “good” (tobâ) represented a radical departure from the norm.
Trent Butler: The person who disobeys God, who refuses to repent and turn to God for forgiveness—that person finds God’s acts to be evil. Not evil in the sense of absolutely bad, but evil in the sense of bringing harm and destruction to the people who are suffering God’s judgment.
II. (:5-6) THE HYMN: PRAISING THE NAME OF THE LORD WHICH PROCLAIMS HIS AWESOME POWER AND MAJESTY –
GOD IS MIGHTY
Alec Motyer: Omnipotence is forthwith described (5, 6). God can speak with certainty that there will be no escape for these people anywhere in His universe, because He is God of the whole. He has absolute mastery over all the earth in its physical substance (5a), its human inhabitants (5b) and its condition at any time (5c); the celestial (6a) and the terrestrial (6b) are equally open to His use, and all the elements, represented here by water and earth (6c), are His to do what He wills with.
Allen Guenther: The hymn fragments in Amos have all centered in the divine name, the Lord (4:13; 5:8-9; 9:5-6). In each instance they constitute the climax of the message, whether as the concluding element in a linear development of thought or the central element of a chiastic literary structure. The effect is to press home to Israel that it is God with whom they have to do. In form and function, Hymns focus attention on the nature and acts of God. This God is awesome. Escape from him is impossible, a point made initially with the lion’s roar (1:2), and again in conjunction with the day of the Lord (5:19), and now in the finale.
The hymn fragments also draw attention to Israel’s preoccupation and perversion of worship. The defective worship consists of things – animals, offerings, gifts. God intends to be the center of their worship.
Finally, these hymn fragments present God’s alternatives to the lamentations of a nation in mourning (5:1, 16-17), the shallow worship of a pleasure-oriented people (5:21-23), and the entertaining compositions of the idle rich (6:5). God commends worship which acknowledges the Lord of nature and history from the core of one’s being.
A. (:5) Awesome in Power
“And the Lord God of hosts,
The One who touches the land so that it melts,
And all those who dwell in it mourn,
And all of it rises up like the Nile
And subsides like the Nile of Egypt;”
Tchavdar Hadjiev: The vehement rhetoric of the fifth vision is designed to convey one message: the end of Israel is going to be an utter and complete disaster from which no-one will be able to escape. This end is presented as destruction of creation, the shattering of the temple and universal death. The personal presence of the Lord dominates the passage but provides little basis for comfort. His omnipresent power is bad news for the victims of his judgment. As King of the world, every sphere of his creation is under his surveillance and control, which means there can be no hope, and no escape.
B. (:6) Awesome in Majesty
“The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens,
And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea
And pours them out on the face of the earth,
The LORD is His name.”
James Mays: The effect of the hymnic section as a conclusion of the vision-report is to exalt the unqualified power of the God who passes judgment on Israel. His role as covenant Lord does not so exhaust his nature that Israel can find in her election some security from his anger. The whole world is in his hands!
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Each doxology describes the incomparable power and rule of Yahweh, the Creator, who is God of Israel. Yahweh has announced the reasons for judgment, and these doxologies declare that he has absolute authority and incalculable force to accomplish this task. This third doxology, which concludes the section of the last vision, presents the grandest picture of all of this incomparable one. Yahweh is his name.
III. (:7-10) THE DISPUTE: JUSTIFYING JUDGMENT DESPITE ISRAEL’S PRIVILEGED STATUS –
GOD IS JUST
M. Daniel Carroll R.: This subsection has been categorized form-critically as a disputation speech that responds to questions that might have been raised about Israel’s unavoidable and devastating fate announced in 9:1–4. On the one hand, Israel has to accept the fact that, like any other nation, it deserves punishment. The cherished belief that its special status is a safeguard against judgment is misplaced (9:7). But the predicted devastation of the nation will not eliminate everyone. Not all will perish, even though the Northern Kingdom will cease to exist as a political entity (9:8–10).
A. (:7-8a) Counteracting Pleas of Privileged Status
- (:7a) Is Israel too Special to Be Judged?
“‘Are you not as the sons of Ethiopia to Me, O sons of Israel?’
declares the LORD.”
James Mays: The opening questions are rhetorical; they are in fact assertions made by Yahweh in an assault upon the theology of the addressees. Both questions take up the theme of ‘Israel and Yahweh’, but their intention is to bring to light a dimension of that relationship with which Israel does not reckon. Precisely why Amos chose the Cushites for comparison with Israel must unfortunately remain somewhat obscure. Cush was the Old Testament name for the territory of Ethiopia and Nubia, but Cushites are seldom mentioned. An isolated tradition in Num. 12.1 reports that Moses’ Egyptian wife was a Cushite, and that Aaron and Miriam opposed him because of her. Cushites appear as servants and eunuchs in Israel occasionally (II Sam. 18.21; Jer. 38.7). Jeremiah’s proverb about the Cushites’ colour is at least a play on their strangeness (Jer. 13.23). On the evidence one can say no more than that the Cushites were a distant, different folk whom Israelites knew mostly as slaves. ‘You are to me,’ says Yahweh, ‘as these Cushites are to you.’ What the comparison does is to humiliate Israel completely with respect to Yahweh, to reduce them to the role in Yahweh’s order of things which the Cushites played in their own society. The relation of Israel to Yahweh creates no privileges, no special status which qualifies his sovereignty; it is rather one which manifests that sovereignty in radical fashion.
Trent Butler: God led Amos to make the audacious claim that God directed the history of these people just as much as he did Israel’s. The prophet rejected Israel’s claim to fame as the one nation whose history the Lord planned and directed. God directs the history of every nation. No nation can claim pride of place and set demands on God because they are an elect nation—the people whose history God oversees. God can pronounce judgment on all nations (Amos 1:3 – 2:16), and he can claim to be Lord of the history of all nations. No nation is exempt from God’s discipline or destruction.
- (:7b) Is Israel’s Deliverance from Egypt a Free Pass?
“Have I not brought up Israel from the land of Egypt,
And the Philistines from Caphtor
and the Arameans from Kir?”
Gary Smith: Amos refers to the common exodus experiences by the Syrians, Philistines, and Israelites. This comparison clearly puts Israel on the same level as two of her bitterest enemies. Certainly no Israelite would believe that the exodus experiences of the Syrians and Philistines guarantees them eternal protection from God’s judgment.
Billy Smith: In Deuteronomy 2 Moses had affirmed God’s involvement with other nations, declaring that he had given Edom the land of Seir, from which he had driven the Horites (2:5,12, 22); he had given Moab the land of Ar, from which he had driven the Emites (2:9-11); he had given Ammon their land, from which he had driven the Zamzummites (2:19-21); and he had given the Caphtorites (Philistines) the villages that included Gaza, from which he had driven the Avvites (2:23). In the same way the Lord was about to give Israel the land of the Amorites (2:24). In Amos 9:7 this same concept is in view but is seen from the perspective of God’s declared judgment against the Arameans in 1:3-6 and the Philistines in 1:6-8. As God had brought the people of Aram from Kir1 (9:7), he also had declared his intention of driving them back to Kir (1:5) for their sins. And as he had brought the Philistines from Caphtor (9:7) to the villages of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron, he had also determined to destroy them for their sins (1:6-8). The messages of judgment in Amos 1-2, then, are assumed in 9:7, where the point is that God’s involvement with Israel does not immunize them from judgment any more than his involvement with any nation immunizes it from judgment.
James Mays: In the second question the Exodus from Egypt is listed along with the migration of the Philistines and Arameans, and therefore put on the same footing. The reference is a clue to Amos’ surprisingly full knowledge of the general historical traditions of the region, even more striking than the material used in the oracles against the nations (1:3 – 2:3). The migrations of the philistines from the Aegean area (Caphtor = Crete) and of the Arameans from Kir (a Mesopotamian locale; cf. 1:5) had occurred early in the twelfth century, not long after Israel was settled in the hill country of Palestine. The Philistines and Arameans had been the classic foes of Israel; and yet their history, says Yahweh, was none the less his work than the Israelites’ move from Egypt. Putting the matter in this way brings into focus the pivotal utterance in the texts: “Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt . . .?” This basic datum of Yahweh’s historical relationship with Israel is neither denied or robbed of emphasis by its expansion to include the Philistines and Aram. What is denied and shattered is a theology based on that datum – that Yahweh’s act in the Exodus established Israel in a special status vis-à-vis the other nations. The Exodus is set in the context of international history and becomes in this context a manifestation of Yahweh’s unconditional sovereignty. It cannot be understood as a point of departure for an automatic history of salvation which runs comfortably and inevitably from it, a kind of history which holds Yahweh the captive of Israel’s own existence, a feature of the history which the people make for themselves. Instead it is the act of the world-God who thereby in no way qualifies or limits his sovereign freedom. The effect of this formulation of the Exodus announcement is the same as the question about the Cushites. Yahweh is exalted over against Israel, exalted in such a way that their existence as the people of Yahweh is stripped of all self-assertion and self-security that protects and hides them from the reality of Yahweh.
Robert Martin-Achard: Amos is not doing away with the privileges of Yahweh’s people, as once was thought, he is just reminding the Israelites that their God remains Master of his choices, and that his solicitude is not limited to Israel. He opposes the pretensions of the people of the northern kingdom in their monopolizing of Yahweh’s benevolent activities and in making use of his interventions when he acts in their favour, yet disobeying his commandments and treating his will with contempt. This short verse opens up universalistic perspectives that are not foreign to the message of the Old Testament, but which are only too often neglected. The election of Israel does not imply that Yahweh is uninterested in the other nations; in fact, on the contrary, he set free Israel first (the Exodus) in order to guarantee the liberation of the whole of humanity (Gen. 12:1 ff).
- (:8) Does the Lord Look the Other Way When It Comes to Israel?
“Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom,
And I will destroy it from the face of the earth;”
Lloyd Ogilvie: Verse 8 makes it clear that Israel is the focus of Yahweh’s attention alright, but as a sinful kingdom deserving destruction. Amos alone uses the term “the sinful kingdom.” The article stresses the apostasy, unrighteousness, and rebellion of the northern kingdom. However, there is a thin ray of hope that pierces the darkness of the judgment. There will be a remnant saved. Some scholars suggest that the “sinful kingdom” refers to the monarchy and the house of Jacob to the people. What is most significant, however, is that Yahweh had a future planned for His people. He always has plans for working His purposes out in ways beyond our imagination. This, too, is a basis of hope.
Alec Motyer: One divine government rules all, and (8a) one moral providence observes all, and judges all. The Lord does not look on people in the light of their historical past but in the light of their moral present. Every nation is equally under this moral scrutiny. Again there is no difference between Israel and the nations. But once more let us stress that this is not a negative, as if to say, ‘You do not possess the special relationship you once enjoyed.’ Amos is not talking about privileges removed. It is positive: You stand where you have always stood, alongside every other kingdom, subject to the moral enquiry of a holy and all-seeing God. Again, therefore, there is no benefit gained by appeal to the remote and historical past. The Lord says, I am not looking for a lesson in history, I am examining the facts of life and character. And at this point, as Amos has already taught (3:2), Israel is in fact worse off than any of the nations, for alone (and thanks to the Exodus, indeed) Israel had been taught how sinners might become aware of their sin, through the law of God, and be cleansed from their sin through the grace of God in the blood sacrifices.
B. (:8b) Covenant Promises Require Showing Mercy to a Remnant
“’Nevertheless, I will not totally destroy the house of Jacob,’ Declares the LORD.”
Gary Smith: God judges sinful, oppressive people and sinful, oppressive nations. If the Syrians, Philistines, or Israelites sin, all God’s past grace will not prevent his future judgment (see 1:3 – 2:16).
But this principle is not a blanket condemnation of every person in a sinful nation. It is true that sometimes the innocent suffer as God judges the guilty, but God confirms through Amos that not every person in Israel will be killed (9:8): “I will not totally destroy” is God’s commitment that sin makes a difference in determining who will be destroyed and who will be spared. There is hope for the remnant who seeks God (5:14–15). This clause clarifies the message of no escape in 9:1–4 and maintains God’s mercy in the midst of judgment. It also explains how God will finally fulfill his past promises to his people in the distant future, when he establishes his kingdom (9:11–15).
C. (:9-10) Condemnation Will Target the Smug Sinners
- (:9) Process of Sifting and Separation
“For behold, I am commanding,
And I will shake the house of Israel among all nations
As grain is shaken in a sieve,
But not a kernel will fall to the ground.”
James Mays: In threshing, wheat was first beaten or shredded on the threshing floor to separate the grains from stalk and husk, then winnowed to allow the light chaff to blow to one side. The remaining grain would contain trash and small stones. The large mesh sieve was used to catch the larger debris and let the smaller grains fall through. The primary point of the metaphor is catching the undesirable. The stones represent the sinners (10a). The focus of the metaphor is upon their inexorable elimination, and not so much on the grain.
- (:10) Puncturing the Myth of Arrogant Exceptionalism
“All the sinners of My people will die by the sword,
Those who say, ‘The calamity will not overtake or confront us.’”
Billy Smith: Here is the last of eight references to the “sword” in Amos. “By the sword” occurs first in the verse, perhaps echoing its last occurrence in the final vision in vv. 1, 4. Some warring nation would serve as God’s agent of judgment. “All the sinners among my people” implies that all the people of Israel were not sinners and thereby were not destined for death by the sword. “The sinful kingdom” (v. 8) was made sinful by “all the sinners among my people.” The purpose of judgment was to remove them.
They are further specified as “all those who say, ‘Disaster will not overtake or meet us.’” Some in the prophet’s audience were contradicting his message. They were saying that “disaster” (ra’a, “evil,” or “calamity;” cf. 3:6; 9:4) was not their destiny. Thus they were ones who rejected the word of God (cf. 2:12; 7:16). Amos was saying that only a remnant could hope to survive the coming disaster.
Trent Butler: Just as Jesus surprised people as he identified the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, so God surprised Israel by bringing judgment on people who felt secure in the divine arms of love.
James Mays: The “Day of the Yahweh” was a hard and fast scheme for them – always catastrophe for the enemies of the nation, a dogma therefore of their invulnerability. This characterization of his audience is a significant extension of Amos’ definition of “sinful”. When Amos speaks of Israel’s guilt, he usually cites specific deeds. But here he speaks of a sin of belief, the sin of excepting oneself from Yahweh’s judgment and therefore from his sovereignty. Israel’s dogmatic security is a real declaration of independence from Yahweh which lies behind all their other transgressions.