BIG IDEA:
THE CLIMAX OF GOD’S JUDGMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE – ESPECIALLY ISRAEL
INTRODUCTION:
Gary Smith: Amos 2:4–16 treats the final pair of nations, Judah and Israel. These oracles bring the sermon to a climax by applying the theological principles developed in 1:3 – 2:3 to Amos’s own countrymen in Judah and then to his Israelite audience in Samaria. Since this is merely a continuation of the preceding section, the same date, background, and structure are maintained.
The surprising reversal of the usual positive ending of the war oracle gives this section a dramatic conclusion. Instead of ending his message with the expected promise of victory, saying that Israel will be saved by God’s strong hand and defeat all her enemies, Amos predicts the unparalleled defeat of Israel’s army. This shocking conclusion probably catches most of his listeners off guard and forces them to imagine what was previously thought to be impossible. How could God ever destroy his own people whom he earlier promised to bless? How could Israel’s strong army actually be annihilated? Is God speaking to Amos? Has Israel rebelled against God, and will they be punished for their sins of oppression just like the other nations?
Billy Smith: What lessons should the Israelites and modern readers glean from the previous oracles? The first lesson is the sovereignty of God. God’s sovereign rule means that every nation is accountable to him. Foreign nations were not immune to God’s judgment because of their allegiance to other gods. Israel and Judah did not enjoy immunity because they were in covenant with God.
The second lesson is the tolerance of God. “For three sins … even for four” describes God’s tolerance of sin to a point. His tolerance is impartial, for all nations alike, and limited, for “four” but no more. Ultimately a nation’s sin reaches a point when God’s tolerance ends and judgment is the only outcome (cf. 8:1-3).
The third lesson concerns the judgment of God. His judgment is impartial for any nation regardless of relationship to him. It matches in severity the sins judged. Inhumanity to humans in the case of foreign nations is comparable to rejection of the Lord’s instruction in the case of Judah. Judah’s covenant relationship with God did not immunize the nation from judgment.
Alec Motyer: The people to whom Amos spoke had devalued the doctrine of election into a non-moral doctrine of divine favouritism: Israel was God’s ‘pet’, surrounded by a divine imperial preference, protected, subsidized, the recipient of many unique allowances and special pleadings. The word to this people is based on the inflexible, unchanging righteousness of the Lord God, and the foundation for such a message is unobtrusively laid when Amos brings his charges against the nations. He speaks in the name of the God of righteousness, and neither here nor elsewhere in his book does the title ‘God of Israel’ appear. In the same way, the appeal to conscience, to common humanity, underlying his review of the world is another move depriving Israel of any special ground or plea. Whatever makes Israel distinct among the nations, there is no distinction at this point, that the same moral rules operate inside as outside. Thus the noose tightens until, as we shall now see, the unique position granted by grace to the church of God, far from excusing or even ameliorating the offence, aggravates the situation so that Israel’s fourth transgression is even less understandable or forgivable than that of the heathen who knew not God. The uniqueness of the church includes its unique peril.
Trent Butler: Main Idea: God’s judgment awaits any nation that forgets the basic rules of human decency, but it is even more certain when God’s own people forget him, his teachings, and all he has done for them.
I. (:4-5) AGAINST JUDAH
A. Reason
“Thus says the LORD, ‘For three transgressions of Judah and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they rejected the law of the LORD And have not kept His statutes;
Their lies also have led them astray, Those after which their fathers walked.’”
Warren Wiersbe: Although the temple was filled with people bringing their sacrifices, Judah was a nation given over to idolatry. “Their lies [idols] lead them astray, lies after which their fathers walked” (2:4, NKJV). They were wandering like lost animals and like drunken men. The Gentiles had sinned against conscience and the laws of brotherhood and humanity, but the Jews had despised and rejected the very laws of God, given to them by Moses. Theirs was the greater sin, for greater privilege always brings greater responsibility (Rom. 2:17-3:9).
Gary Smith: The willful sin of Judah is not described as an oppressive act against some foreign nation that has ignored the ethical standards of the Judeans’ conscience, but a direct refusal to follow God’s stipulations and instructions in the Torah. They are breaching covenant responsibilities with God. Moses warned the people not to forget what God did for them in the past and what God said to them at Sinai. If they did forget, they might soon become proud and self-sufficient, thinking that they really did not need God (Deut. 8:1–20). This presents a high standard for Judah, for they have been given the full revealed truth of what God wants them to do; they do not have to wonder what is right and wrong based on their conscience. . .
They have adopted social, economic, and political principles from the neighboring cultures and pervert the moral, ceremonial, civil, and economic guidelines in the covenant. These leaders have a clear understanding of what God wants from them, but they still fail to lead the people to follow after God. Who should be followed, God or these liars?
Gary Cohen: Notice in verse 4 the progression of God’s three charges against Judah:
- first, the despising of His holy and life-giving law;
- second, the consequent breaking of His commandments and regulations concerning worship and life;
- and third, the consequent self-deception that the ignoring of God’s regulations did not really matter much in daily living.
That triple error brought the divine wrath upon Judah.
Billy Smith: The most significant difference is that whereas previous oracles cited various forms of inhumanity perpetrated on others as the repeated indictment, the wrongs cited in the Judah oracle are covenant related. Breach of covenant was Judah’s intolerable rebellion against God. . .
The powerful, rich landowners stepped on the poor by using the courts to pervert justice. Thus they revealed their contempt for those less fortunate, treating the poor like dirt. A literal rendering of the third line of v. 7 reveals the emphasis of the speaker: “And the way of the afflicted they turn aside.” Needy ones were pushed off the road, “bullied and oppressed by the wealthy”, pushed aside as they sought justice at the gate (cf. 5:12; Exod 23:6; Prov 17:23). The specific charge is unclear; however, some circumvention of justice is the obvious reference.
Lloyd Ogilvie: We can surmise that some in Amos’s audience took prejudiced delight in hearing Judah included in the indictment of foreign nations. Since the division of the kingdom in Solomon’s time, tension, criticism, hostility, and conflict had grown. Judah was quick to denounce the apostasy of Israel. Now Judah was being given its comeupannce. “Long overdue!” some of Amos’s listeners probably said with pious self-justification.
The accusations of Yahweh against Judah could not have been more painted. His chosen, called, and cherished people in Judah had come to the place where they despised the Law of the Lord. The crucial issue is covenant disobedience. This led to breaking the Torah and to idolatry. They followed after “fakes” kĕzābîm. For generations their fathers had followed pagan gods rather than trusting only in Yahweh. .
Don’t miss the fact that this oracle of judgment was delivered by a citizen of Judah. Amos was confronting the sins of his own people. This must have had an impact on his audience. It made what he had to say about Israel all the more difficult to evade.
Alec Motyer: The final contrast whereby Amos describes their rejection of the Lord’s truth can now be seen in its full shame: the contrast between rejection and cultivation of the truth: they rejected and have not kept God’s word, but on the contrary have been led astray after lies in which their fathers walked. Both in what they have rejected and in what they adopted the whole man was involved. Rejected points a mental state which first despises and then dismisses; lies also belong to the activity of mental appraisal and (in this case) to the adoption of falsehood as truth. But in contrast kept and walked imply the sort of life which arises out of the mental decisions which have been made: once the truth has been despised it is not kept in an obedient, conformed life; once the lie has been embraced it guides the walk, the direction which life takes.
Allen Guenther: Amos explains the most frequent cause of such defection from the law of God as being the pursuit of false gods (their lies have led them astray). The word lie is used elsewhere in Scripture to refer to idols (Isa. 28:15, 17; Ps. 4:2; 40:4). Indeed, in Psalm 4:2 the godless are described as those who seek a divine word from the Lie. No wonder idols lead Judah astray-they constitute the Lie. They promise life but deliver death. They have enticed whole generations of God’s people with their deceitful words and have distorted the truth of God. Judah plunged headlong into the way of death instead of walking in God’s ways.
John Goldingay: The lies that have led Judah astray since the time of their ancestors would have included the recurrent recognition of other deities that began with Solomon, the false forms and objects of worship that they introduced into the temple, and their trust in foreign alliances. The alien deities are themselves “‘lies’ personified.”
B. Judgment
“So I will send fire upon Judah, And it will consume the citadels of Jerusalem.”
Warren Wiersbe: God had frequently punished His people in their land by allowing various nations to attack and subdue them, but now He would punish them out of their land. The Babylonian army would destroy Jerusalem and take thousands of captives to Babylon where they would live in the midst of gross idolatry for seventy years. However, unlike the six Gentile nations Amos had denounced, Judah would not be destroyed but would be spared. In His mercy, God would allow a remnant of Jews to return to establish the nation and rebuild the temple.
Gary Smith: Amos’s Israelite audience probably agrees that Judah deserves this judgment, but when they do this, they are admitting that God’s law is a legitimate standard to judge a nation’s morality. If so, it may then serve as a scale for evaluating Israel’s behavior as well. Many in Israel are somewhat aware of what God demands in the covenant stipulations. By supporting God’s punishment of Judah, the listeners recognize the authority that will spell out their own shortcomings.
Billy Smith: Being “God’s people” does not create immunity to the judgment of God but in fact increases accountability. Their guilt placed them alongside those foreign nations who perpetrated atrocities on fellow human beings.
J. Vernon McGee: Again and again, Amos mentions, as do the other prophets, that there is to be a judgment by fire. When Nebuchadnezzar came against the city, he absolutely burned Jerusalem to the ground. There was nothing left but the stones—of which there is an abundance in that particular area.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: If, however, the sins of v. 4 are understood to be of a sociopolitical and economic nature (instead of as religious or cultic violations), then the rationale of the judgment is plain. The mistaken foreign policy choices, the immoral decisions and lifestyle of the leadership, and the misguided words of false prophets had led Judah to engage in unwise wars and to the creation of a self-destructive social environment. These realities are echoed in the accusations and pronouncements of judgment made by Isaiah and Micah, Amos’s counterparts in the Southern Kingdom. The sins committed within Judah would bring a judgment of invasion and military defeat. This truth anticipates what will be said of Israel in the rest of the book.
II. (:6-16) CLIMAX: AGAINST ISRAEL
James Mays: In his indictment Amos does not proceed by assembling a list of laws which have been broken. The correlation between his language and particular statutes in the Book of the Covenant rest on allusions, on one word in some cases. The impression given is not so much that Amos itemizes one infraction of law after another, but rather that he throws together a montage of typical acts to portray the character of a society. The entire series could be brought under the rubric of one prohibition from the Book of the Covenant: ‘You shall not pervert the justice due to the poor in his suit’ (Ex. 23.6). And the concern which penetrates all the accusations is akin to the exhortations (in the style of a divine saying) which have been appended to certain prohibitions in the redaction of the collections in the Book of the Covenant. Ex. 22.22ff.: ‘You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword’ (cf. Amos 6.9; 9.1); Ex. 22.26f.: ‘If he [i.e. the neighbour whose cloak is expropriated] cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.’ It is this will of Yahweh for justice, this divine concern for the weak, which constitutes the basic norm for measuring the life of Israel. Amos does not preach law in legalistic fashion, but represents the divine will and concern which lies behind it.
A. (:6-8) Reason – Disobeyed in 3 Major Areas:
- (:6-7a) Injustice / Extortion / Oppression
“Thus says the LORD, ‘For three transgressions of Israel and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they sell the righteous for money And the needy for a pair of sandals. 7 These who pant after the very dust of the earth on the head of the helpless Also turn aside the way of the humble;’”
Gary Smith: This accusation is not pinpointing any illegal court action, but the merciless selling of destitute people who could likely remove their debt if given just a bit more time. This is a blatant case where wealthy Israelites do not care for the poor as the covenant stipulations required (Ex. 21:2–11; Deut. 15:12–18). Israelites were not to take interest, but were to have an open hand to share with those in need and to have mercy on the needy, for God’s covenant people were freed from slavery at the time of the Exodus from Egypt (Ex. 22:25–27).
Thomas McComiskey: The needy are seen as being in the right or having a just cause. The word ṣaddîq is used in this sense in Exodus 23:7, where in a context of litigation it is coupled with “innocent” (nāqî). In Deuteronomy 25:1 ṣaddîq is the antithesis of “guilty” (rāšaʿ). On a number of occasions (e.g., Isa 32:7; Jer 5:28) the prophets spoke of the “needy” as being in litigious situations. This shows us something of the social conditions of that time, when the poor had to fight for their just rights, which were all-too-frequently ignored. . .
Here the text presents certain difficulties; but if one follows the MT literally, the most favorable rendering is, “who pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor,” meaning either that the oppressing classes long to see the poor brought to extreme anguish, or the oppressors are so avaricious that they craved the dust with which the poor have covered their heads. In ancient Near Eastern culture, pouring dust on one’s head signified sorrow (e.g., 2Sa 1:2; Job 2:12).
John Goldingay: Whereas the earlier critiques basically involve one act of rebellion, in keeping with the implications of the three/four formula, the critique of Ephraim names a series of acts. Further, whereas the first six critiques concerned national acts of the kind involved in war-making against other nations and the seventh focused on unfaithfulness to Yahweh in worship, Ephraim’s acts of rebellion are undertaken by Ephraimites against one another. These actions do sometimes have direct implications for people’s attitude toward Yahweh, which makes for a comparison with the critique of Judah.
- (:7b) Immorality
“And a man and his father resort to the same girl
In order to profane My holy name.”
Gary Smith: This probably has nothing to do with the sacred prostitution practiced at Baal temples, nor an attempt by fathers to have sexual relations with their daughters-in-laws. Instead, it refers to sexual mistreatment of a hard-working household employee. Fathers and sons were not to have sex with the same woman (Lev. 18:8, 15, 17; 20:10–20). The law provided some protection for female slaves because they were so vulnerable to mistreatment by their masters (Ex. 21:7–11; Lev. 19:20–22). In spite of this, powerful men could intimidate them with dire financial consequences if they did not cooperate with their deviant immoral desires. The emphasis is still on the strong-armed oppression of defenseless people.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The word the maiden (hannaʿărâ) can refer broadly to a young woman. A number of scholars locate the girl within the religious sphere because of the words profaning my holy name in the next clause and the mention of altars and a worship center in v. 8. In this case, she would be a sacred prostitute, and so the prophet is denouncing sexually charged syncretistic rites of fertility religion (cf. Hos 4:14). Another religious interpretation is proposed by Barstad, who contends that the young woman is a marzēaḥ hostess. The marzēaḥ was an association of the well-to-do whose religious celebrations (perhaps funerary) were characterized by alcohol consumption (cf. 6:4–7; perhaps 4:1). In this case, the actions of the two males are not sexual but cultic. The protagonists would be wealthy, and what is criticized is connected to drinking in a non-Yahwistic festivity. Both of these options, however, are problematic, albeit for different reasons. The sacred prostitution view assumes the existence of cultic prostitution, something which is now contested. Even if such rituals with their accompanying theology did exist, neither the technical term for female cultic personnel (qədēšâ) nor the word for prostitute (zōnâ) is used. The most serious problems with Barstad’s interpretation are that it ignores the sexual meaning of the words go to and imposes the interpretation of a marzēaḥ feast with too little evidence.
Other scholars explain the impropriety as a reference to some sort of incest. The Law prohibits sexual intercourse between a man and his wife’s daughter (Lev 18:17; 20:14), a son and his father’s wife (Lev 18:8; 20:11; Deut 22:30 [MT 23:1]), and a father and his daughter-in-law (Lev 18:15; 20:12). This view envisions something similar here—for example, a father having a sexual relationship with a young woman with whom his son is to be married, perhaps because of the son’s own sexual involvement with her (cf. Deut 22:23–29).
The third option, the one favored by many commentators and taken here, is that this maiden is of lower social status like the other victims in the passage. Perhaps she is in the family’s domestic employ or finds herself in debt slavery and powerless before the advances of her masters. Lust is empowered by status; this victim is treated as nothing more than an object to be used for pleasure without any regard for her personal worth and reputation. This exact case lies beyond the purview of the decrees of the Law but this violation would be commensurate with its thrust concerning sexual decency. The choice of the ambiguous word naʿărâ is interesting. It can be used of a female servant (e.g., Exod 2:5; 1 Sam 25:42; Prov 31:15; cf. Exod 21:7–11), but the more technical terms are ʾāmâ and šipḥâ. The vagueness perhaps allows for consideration of a set of victims not limited to servants.
- (:8) Idolatry
“And on garments taken as pledges they stretch out beside every altar,
And in the house of their God they drink the wine of those who have been fined.”
Allen Guenther: Israel’s institutions, too, fail to embody the divine will. Trade and commerce, the judicial system, marriage and the family, the religious system-all have become perverted. These are representative sins. The description points to customary actions (2:6-8). The societal structures have become weapons of oppression for those in control. If the nation is to be restored to wholeness, the medium of exchange must become compassion, love, and justice.
Warren Wiersbe: Both Israel and Judah were enjoying peace and prosperity, and divine judgment was the furthest thing from their minds.
Amos first exposes their sinful present and names three flagrant sins. To begin with, the people of the Northern Kingdom were guilty of injustice (Amos 2:6-7a). Supported by corrupt judges, the rich were suing the poor, who couldn’t pay their bills, and forcing them into servitude and slavery.
Their second gross sin was immorality (Amos 2:7b), with fathers and sons visiting the same prostitute! These may have been “cult prostitutes” who were a part of the heathen idolatrous worship. Thus there was a double sin involved: immorality and idolatry. Or the girl may have been a household servant or a common prostitute. Regardless of what the act of disobedience was, it was rebellion against God and defiled His holy name.
The third sin was open idolatry (Amos 2:8). The wealthy men took their debtors’ garments as pledges but did not return them at sundown as the law commanded (Ex. 22:26-27; Deut. 24:10-13, 17). Instead, these rich sinners visited pagan altars, where they got drunk on wine purchased with the fines they exacted from the poor. Then, in their drunken stupor, they slept by the altars on other people’s garments, defiling the garments and disobeying the law. The officials were getting rich by exploiting the people, and then were using their unjust gain for committing sin. After describing their sinful present, Amos reminded them of their glorious past (Amos 2:9-12). God had led His people out of Egypt (v. 10a), cared for them in the wilderness (v. 10b), and destroyed other nations so the Jews could claim their inheritance in Canaan (vv. 9, 10c). He gave them His Word through chosen prophets (v. 11a), and He raised up dedicated people like the Nazirites (Num. 6) to be examples of devotion to God. What a glorious past they had! But instead of being humbled by these blessings, the people rebelled against the Lord by rejecting the messages of the prophets and forcing the Nazirites to break their holy vows. The Jews wanted neither the Word of God nor examples of godly living.
Robert Martin-Achard: Verse 8 attacks another abuse of the Israelites. Among them were individuals who used goods taken in pledge as if they were their own property, even for religious purposes. The Law actually saw to it that an insolvent debtor must hand over his cloak to his creditor; but it adds that if this is the only covering the poor creature has, then he must receive it back before the sun goes down (Exod. 22:25 f; Deut. 24:12 f, 17); for in the eyes of Yahweh the existence of a human life is more precious than any payment of a debt.
Amos observes that a favoured class profits from its situation by extorting another’s goods. In that case its attitude is doubly blameworthy, because it is accompanied by a veneer of piety. An iniquity, even when it reaches into cultic practice, remains an iniquity!
M. Daniel Carroll R.: One can also discern a list of seven. In contrast to the first option, the clauses of 2:6–8 are not seen as parallel but as distinct wrongdoings:
- selling the righteous (v. 6a),
- selling the poor (v. 6b),
- trampling the weak (v. 7a),
- pushing aside the afflicted (v. 7a),
- going to the girl (v. 7b),
- the misuse of pledges or distraints (v. 8a),
- and the consumption of wine in a sanctuary (v. 8b).
This enumeration would mirror the stylistic feature of the heptad so prevalent in the rest of the book.
B. (:9-12) Rejection of God’s Covenant Faithfulness
Tchavdar Hadjiev: Verses 9–12 function as a hinge in this text. On the one hand, they intensify the accusation by confronting the behavior of the Israelite leaders toward those dependent on them with Yahweh’s own intervention for Israel in its helplessness during the land conquest. Israel has learned nothing from its own history. On the other hand, they intensify the pronouncement of judgment against Israel in vv. 13–16 by juxtaposing Yahweh’s intervention for Israel in the form of the total annihilation of mighty adversaries with his imminent intervention against Israel, which will be just as thoroughgoing and comprehensive. Strictly speaking, this double contextual link and intensification applies only to v. 9. Verses 10–12 are already set apart by the transition to elevated prose and to the device of direct address, something one does not expect stylistically until the pronouncement of punishment in v. 13; their recollection of the exodus introduces the basic salvific-historical event of Israel’s confession, and the theme of the rejected prophets and nazirites introduces a new, substantively quite different accusation than in vv. 6–8.
Gary Cohen: This entire passage shows that God knows the bounty of blessing that He has bestowed on each of us and upon our nation. Our sins therefore appear all the worse, because they represent ingratitude for His many blessings.
- (:9-11) Examples of God’s Past Grace Shown to Israel
Gary Smith: Amos now changes his approach to describing Israel’s rebelliousness. He emphasizes what God did for Israel in the past by rescuing them when they were oppressed by stronger nations. One would expect Israel to be thankful to God and obey his covenant stipulations because of his grace. One would also assume that the Israelites would understand from their past history that God consistently fights against oppressors and on behalf of the oppressed. This view of God’s ways puts the present Israelite oppressors in a dangerous position as God’s potential enemies. Their failure to appreciate his gracious deeds in the past and their rejection of his attempts to warn them through the prophets and Nazirites put the nation on a collision course with God.
a. (:9) Destruction of the Impressive Amorites (Tall and Powerful)
“Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, Though his height was
like the height of cedars And he was strong as the oaks; I even destroyed his fruit above and his root below.”
Billy Smith: The first action of God Amos mentioned was the destruction of the Amorite. Why that action was given priority over the chronologically preceding exodus from Egypt (v. 10) is a puzzle. Could it be that Amos gave priority to the destruction of the Amorite because that action alone allowed Israel to possess the promised land? Or was it because Israel’s continued possession of the land was at stake, since they were engaging in the kinds of behavior for which God had judged the Amorites? Deterioration of their moral and spiritual condition would surely result in their being driven off the land just as the Amorites had been (9:7-8). Another possibility is that following the rhetorical pattern of 1:3 – 2:16, that is, announcing this message to Israel last, he reversed the chronology to make the historical and theological point all the more significant. This prophetic word is not just about the Amorites; it is about Israel’s covenant with God dating back to the exodus, the act of God par excellence. . .
Amos employed two metaphors to describe the abnormal size and strength of the Amorite: “tall as the cedars” and “strong as the oaks.” Cedars and oaks were the most massive of native trees in Israel. The prophet also used a common idiom regarding the “fruit” and the “roots” to express total extermination of the Amorite. Destruction of “his fruit” left no possibility of future life from seed. Destruction of “roots” left no possibility of future life for the tree. God is able to deal decisively with the enemies of his people.
Allen Guenther: Amorites is used as a general term for the assortment of peoples whom Israel eventually replaced in Palestine (Num. 13:28-29). The metaphors which characterize the Amorites as tall as the cedars and as strong as the oaks display people at the height of arrogance and power (Isa. 2:10-18). The divine judgment destroyed their fruit above and roots below (cf. Hos. 9:16; Job 18:16; Mai. 4:1). The metaphors shift the scene from the hills of Lebanon (cedars) and Bashan (oaks) to the fertile valleys of Palestine, where orchards flourished and were an important part of the economy. Destroying both root and fruit “combines the imagery of both planting and harvesting, imagery which when applied to human beings conjures up images of stability and prosperity” (Wolff: 169). Both are erased in the sweep of God’s judgment.
The horticultural imagery contains a double message. In spite of all their security, self-confidence, pride, and strength, the Amorites were felled by their Creator. Yet God delayed their destruction for four generations until the Amorite measure of sins was filled to overflowing (Gen. 15:16). That bushel of sins consisted of idolatry and disgusting practices (Exod. 23:23-24). A second, thinly veiled message is directed against Israel. For many generations, the Lord has patiently endured their smug self-satisfaction, their misuse of power against fellow Israelites, and their worship of foreign deities. Their sins exceed by far the iniquity of the Amorites. So now the ax is about to strike at Israel’s roots, scattering her fruit as she comes crashing to the ground (cf. Matt. 3:10).
b. (:10) Deliverance Via the Exodus
“And it was I who brought you up from the land of Egypt, And I led you in the wilderness forty years That you might take possession of the land of the Amorite.”
Lloyd Ogilvie: In verse 10 Yahweh continues to review His acts in Israel’s salvation history. He alone made possible the Exodus, the provision and protection in the wilderness, and the possession of the Promised Land.
Billy Smith: God’s goal was more than their liberation from slavery. He brought them up in order to put them in the land of promise. God’s action of abundant provision is the basis for his judgment against them (). The act of deliverance from Egypt was the single most important event of 2:10; 3:1; 9:7Israel’s history. It was the foundation of the covenant between God and the nation Israel (Exod 19-24) and fully revealed God’s providential care of his chosen people (Josh 2:10; Judg 2:1; 6:8; 1 Sam 8:8; 2 Sam 7:6; Isa 11:16; Jer 2:6; 7:22; 11:4; 23:7; Ezek 20:10; Dan 9:15; Hos 2:15; 11:1; 13:4; Mic 6:4).
c. (:11a) Designation of Spiritual Leaders — Prophets and Nazirites
“Then I raised up some of your sons to be prophets
And some of your young men to be Nazirites.”
Billy Smith: God raised up prophets to proclaim his message to Israel and Nazirites to serve as models of dedication to God. With prophets and Nazirites, God provided guidance to Israel for their life in the land.
Gary Smith: In the years since the Exodus God graciously sent various prophets (Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha) to communicate messages from God, to encourage the people to maintain their covenant relationship with him, and to call them back from their sinful ways. God also raised up Nazirites (Samson in Judg. 13; Samuel in 1 Sam. 1) to be examples of holy living. They followed a disciplined manner of life, dedicated themselves to live in an especially close relationship to God, and strictly observed the promises of their vows. They were illustrations of godly living. They were so thankful for God’s grace to them that they purposely changed their lifestyle to show their gratitude.
(:11b) Lament
“’Is this not so, O sons of Israel?’ declares the LORD.”
James Mays: Stylistically, the question is a feature of a dispute-saying and it therefore interprets the proclamation as a weapon in a controversy between prophet and audience. Amos uses the ‘salvation-history’ here in precisely the way he employs the election theme in 3.2a. The recitation of Yahweh’s deeds in history is unfolded only to bring Israel under judgment. The events of that history were the constant themes of Yahwist orthodoxy recited by the Israelites in the cult as their claim upon Yahweh and in pious hope that Yahweh would continue to protect and prosper them (5.14, 18). But Amos does not employ the proclamation as salvation-history; he brings it as indictment.
2. (:12) Resistance to Spiritual Leadership and Divine Revelation
“But you made the Nazirites drink wine,
And you commanded the prophets saying, ‘You shall not prophesy!’”
Gary Smith: But some Israelites in Amos’s audience apparently oppose the Nazirites and prophets. In Amos 2:12 he reports that these Israelites coerce people who have taken a Nazirite vow into drinking wine and thus force them to break their vows of abstinence. This is in direct conflict with what God required and is a blatant attempt to substitute their own cultural rules for God’s expectations. Maybe less spiritual people are embarrassed by the dedication of the Nazirites, or perhaps they consider the Nazirite rules as old-fashioned cultural remains from a bygone era. The fact that they make the Nazirites do these things suggests a dictatorial atmosphere in which people feel obligated by social pressure or priestly demands to do something they do not want.
Alec Motyer: In all this catalogue of divine grief, one thing stands out for special astonishment—rightly reflected in RSV by the allocating of a separate paragraph to verse 12. If there is one thing which (dare we say it?) amazes God more than anything else in the life of His people, it is that He should make His way plain to them, in word and deed, and that they should reject and deny it. Israel wanted neither the example of holy living nor the declaration of divine truth.
Amos has come full circle. True indeed it is that the outward sins of the people of God lie in parallel to the sins of the heathen, but behind this similarity there is a most appalling difference. To Israel, to His own people, God had spoken and they had said ‘No’. The deepest sin of the people of God, the sin from which all sin springs, the sin which, through His prophet, the Lord singles out for final reaffirmation, is the sin of possessing revelation from God and ignoring it. This is the ‘fourth transgression’ of the people of God.
Allen Guenther: Israel has consistently distorted the examples of godliness and countermanded God’s orders. The people of Israel are not about to honor the self-effacing example of the Nazirites. Self-denial, asceticism, and voluntary poverty do not fit their plans. Nor are the rich and powerful inclined to receive the word of preachers critical of their interpretation of the faith and their way of life.
Early in the Northern Kingdom, prophetism came under the thumb of the monarchy and was nearly squelched by it. Ahab molded Israel’s future ruling elite and held the Lord’s prophets in fear as well as contempt. He attempted to silence the prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22). Elijah’s Nazirite lifestyle was hardly attractive to King Ahab. With a one-generation interlude of Jehu’s revolution (2 Kings 9-10), the pattern remained intact down to Amos’s day.
Political, economic, social, and religious structures have become infested with paganism and have sealed themselves against the healing balm offered by God’s messengers and saints. Gangrene has set in; the patient cannot survive.
C (:13-16) Judgment
- (:13) Heavy Judgment
“Behold, I am weighted down beneath you
As a wagon is weighted down when filled with sheaves.”
Lloyd Ogilvie: We need to look carefully at the translation of verse 13, “Behold, I am weighed down by you, as a cart full of sheaves is weighed down.” The Hebrew verb in both clauses is active and not passive. The RSV thus translates, “Behold, I will press you down in your place, as a cart full of sheaves presses down.” The rare verb, ʿûq (hiphil), is rendered by Wolff as “break open,” as a cart of sheaves breaks open the earth beneath its wheels, suggesting the image of an earthquake. Stuart thinks the verb more likely means “bog down,” as a heavily loaded cart sometimes grinds to a halt.
James Mays: The one thing that is clear about v. 13 is that Yahweh’s action upon Israel is compared to the effect of a wagon, overloaded with sheaves of grain. The metaphor may seem less than adequate for its subject, but it is quite typical of Amos to select an image from the life of the shepherd and farmer to portray the most awesome divine reality (cf. 3.8, 12; 5.19). H. Gese thinks that the verb means ‘cleave/furrow’: Yahweh will cleave the ground under Israel as a laden wagon furrows the soft earth of a field. The imagery describes an earthquake that furrows the earth and throws the populace into a panic. The earthquake motif appears in 4.11, perhaps in 3.14f.; 6.11; 8.8; 9.1a; and a particular earthquake is used to date Amos in the superscription of the book (1.1). The power of Yahweh will split the very earth of the land which he gave them, leaving Israel no security in the encounter.
Alternate View:
Gary Cohen: “As a wagon is weighted down” (v. 13). God describes by a vivid picture His feelings of abused longsuffering. The portrait is one of His having borne a great deal of evil from the people of Israel. They had filled up the full measure of His patience. Their sins had reached His straining and breaking point, and He could bear no more—judgment was about to fall. (Cf. Matt. 23:35-36; 1 Cor. 11:30; Eph. 4:30.)
- (:14-16) No Possibility of Escape – Futile Flight
“’Flight will perish from the swift, And the stalwart will not strengthen his power, Nor the mighty man save his life. 15 “He who grasps the bow will not stand his ground, The swift of foot will not escape, Nor will he who rides the horse save his life. 16 Even the bravest among the warriors will flee naked in that day,’ declares the LORD.”
Robert Martin-Achard: Yahweh’s intervention throws panic into the Israelites’ ranks, as when a military disaster occurs (vv. 14 ff). It becomes a general ‘each one save himself’. Each one seeks safety in flight, but in vain. The bravest and the swiftest are in confusion; warriors, bowmen, infantrymen, and horsemen (vv. 14c–15c) lose their lives. We note the deliberate repetition of the same terms and the panting rhythm of this strophe. The most valiant of all will flee away naked, that is to say, without anything to protect them on the day when Yahweh will chastise his people (v. 16). This poem comes to its climax with a vision of collapse and of panic. So disappeared the troops of Jeroboam II, who had been the glory of their land.
Warren Wiersbe: Amos closed his message with the announcement of their terrible future (Amos 2:13-16). Israel would be crushed by their own sins just as a loaded cart crushes whatever it rolls over. Judgment is coming, and nobody will be able to escape. The swift won’t be able to run away; the strong won’t be able to defend themselves; the armed will be as if unarmed; and even the horsemen will be unable to flee. The bravest soldiers will run away while shedding their equipment and clothing so they can run faster. Yes, Assyria would invade Israel (720 B.C.) and the nation would be no more.
Gary Smith: The results of God’s action are astonishing. God will shake up the troops in Israel’s army so badly that they will not be able to escape in an upcoming battle. The fast runners will find that they are not swift enough and cannot escape defeat. The strongest and bravest will have no fortitude for battle and will be unable to save even themselves from death. The archers will not stand their ground in the face of the enemy’s charge, and horsemen (probably charioteers) will unsuccessfully try to run away.
In other words, Israel’s strong military force will collapse and run, and none will escape death. This will be an awesome demonstration of God’s power! As Amos’s audience in Samaria hears these words, they must have been astonished and petrified. How can such a thing happen? Will God actually do this? What will happen to them if such a disaster does take place?