Amos 3:1-15 — First Message of Condemnation Against Israel — Judgment Should Be No Surprise

BIG IDEA:

THE FACT OF ISRAEL’S GUILT IN THE PRESENT – ISRAEL STANDS GUILTY OF IDOLATRY, VIOLENCE AND MATERIALISM

INTRODUCTION:

J. Sidlow Baxter: [following his outline in this section]

(3:1 – 6:14) THREE MESSAGES OF CONDEMNATION AGAINST ISRAEL

Key introductory phrase: “Hear ye this word!” [3:1; 4:1; 5:1]

Each of them is divided by an emphatic “therefore,” so that in each we have, in the first part, judgment deserved, and in the remainder, judgment decreed . . .

1. The first of these addresses declares the fact of Israel’s guilt in the present.
2. The second stresses Israel’s sin in the past (see verses 6 to 11, which recount Jehovah’s repeated but unavailing chastenings of Israel, and note the five-times occurring mournful refrain, “Yet have ye not returned unto Me, saith Jehovah” – verses 6, 8, 9, 10, 11).
3. The third address stresses the punishment of Israel’s sin in the future (see 1-3 and v. 16 to vi. 14). Note the vehemence and intensity at the end (vi. 9-14). Yet notice, also, in this third address, the eleventh hour warning in the thrice-uttered appeal of Jehovah: “Seek ye Me, and ye shall live,” etc. (v. 4, 6, 14).

Note further about these three addresses that in the first we see the principle underlying Divine judgment – “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore will I punish you for all your iniquities” (iii. 2). This is the key verse of this book.

1. Amos is the prophet of judgment for abused privilege. Judgment is always determined according to privilege. Increased privilege is increased responsibility. Israel had been supremely favoured, and therefore was supremely responsible. Here is a solemn lesson for all of us to learn.
2. In the second address we see the forbearance behind Divine judgment. Before the stroke of a final major judgment is allowed to fall on the nation, there comes a succession of minor judgments, to warn (). It is when these are ignored and the Divine patience is outraged iv. 6-11 that the culminative judgment falls (iv. 12).
3. In the third address we see the uncompromising severity of Divine judgment on the impenitent, where sin has been obdurately persisted in (v. 2, 3; vi. 8-14).

Thomas Constable: [Alternative Approach]

After announcing that God would judge Israel, Amos delivered five messages in which he explained more fully why God would judge the Northern Kingdom. Appeals for

repentance and explanations of how to avoid judgment appear within these messages.

The first three begin with the word, “Hear” (3:1; 4:1; 5:1; cf. Prov. 8:32), and the last two begin “Alas” (5:18) and “Woe” (6:1), both translations of the Hebrew word hoy.

The first message was explanation, the second accusation, and the third lamentation.

Allen Guenther: Israel suffers from what some might call attention deficit disorder. Amos shouts for Israel’s attention: Hear this word (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). The nation is occupied with everything except God. The prophet here fleshes out the earlier sweeping accusations (2:6-16).

The nation has grown moral callouses. It is too set in its ways to recognize its own plight. In an attempt to stop its headlong rush to destruction, the Lord exposes the corruption which threatens to tear this people apart. Israel is unaware that her vital signs are so dangerously weak and deteriorating. Will these warnings startle her into remedial action, or will they fall on deaf ears?

The perspective shifts from Israel as one of the nations (Amos 1-2) to Israel’s unique covenant relationship to the Lord [Covenant, p. 379]. Amos begins by describing his reluctant participation (3:3-8). His assigned role is to announce God’s legal proceedings against his people (3:1-2, 9-13) and to invite the witnesses to come forward with the evidence they have gathered. The lawsuit follows what in modern legal proceedings amounts to the formal arraignment (2:6-16).

Jorg Jeremias: In its present form, Amos 3–4 is in its own turn divided into three sections. The center is occupied by a collection of individual sayings revealing the sin of influential groups in the capital Samaria (3:9 – 4:3). The collection is itself doubly framed: at the beginning by the superscription (3:1), a programmatic saying (3:2), and a pericope of legitimation (3:3–8), and at the end by a (probably exilic) penitential liturgy following one of Amos’ cult-critical sayings (4:4ff., 6–13). Both parts of this framing structure, each in its own way, prevent the sayings against Samaria from being read as a reproof against certain groups (as was yet the case in the oral discourse); they now name—pars pro toto— the sin of all Israel.

I.  (:1-10) JUDGMENT DESERVED

A.  (:1-2) Israel’s Unique Covenantal Relationship Heightens Accountability

M. Daniel Carroll R.: These first two verses encapsulate the essence of Amos’s message: Israel merits the punishment that is to come because of its unique relationship with Yahweh. Instead of functioning as a guarantee of blessing, that historical bond establishes the basis for divine judgment. Yahweh has the right to chastise his people and hold them accountable for their transgressions. In the rest of the book, Israel’s guilt will be explained in more detail and its judgment portrayed graphically.

James Mays: This brief oracle has been placed at this point in the collection as a kind of introduction to the following sayings. Since it bases Yahweh’s punishment on the special relation to Israel which he himself inaugurated, the word furnishes a theological framework within which other announcements of coming judgment can be understood. The particular sins which Amos itemizes in the subsequent oracles are to be seen within the context of Yahweh’s relation to Israel if the passion and significance of the divine decision to judge is to be understood. The unit is composed of introduction (v. 1) and divine saying (v. 2). The introductory proclamation-formula summons a group to hear the word, identifies the divine speaker and addressees (1a) and then elaborates further the identification of the audience by referring to the deliverance from Egypt (1 b). The two members of the divine saying are joined by ‘therefore’, which throws Yahweh’s statement of his unique relation to Israel (2a) into the role of a basis for his announcement that he will punish all their iniquities (2b).

(:1a)  Call to Attention

“Hear this word”

M. Daniel Carroll R.: This oracle begins with what some categorize as a “call to attention” (Hear this word + relative clause; cf. 5:1). This is not a mandate merely to listen; it carries a strong expectation of a response. This word (haddābār hazzeh) must be understood, internalized, and acted upon, because Yahweh has spoken.

1. (:1b)  Focus of Judgment = Family of Israel

“which the LORD has spoken against you, sons of Israel,

against the entire family which He brought up from the land of Egypt,”

Tchavdar Hadjiev: The family of Israel is part of the families of the earth. Its election is to be understood against the background of that commonality.

2. (:2a)  Privilege of Election Intensifies the Judgment

“You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth;”

Jorg Jeremias: The people of God have forgotten that election means not only privilege, but also heightened responsibility they have not assumed. Sin weighs more when it occurs in the knowledge of divine salvation (cf. 2:6–9); the “unfaithful servant” (Matt. 18:23–35) cannot expect leniency from the judge, since he has misused God’s undeserved kindness by treating his own fellow human beings severely. Israel experienced God’s proximity in a unique way whose exclusivity Amos 3:2 doubly emphasizes through the initial “alone” and through reference to Israel’s difference from all other nations.  At the same time, the intensity of this relationship is emphasized. In Hebrew, the verb “know” (yd῾) means far more than cognitive understanding; among human beings, it circumscribes the most intimate fellowship extending even into the sexual sphere (Gen. 4:1 et passim), and refers to the ideal fellowship between Israel and God for which Hosea hopes (cf. Hos. 2:22 [21E]; 4:1; J. Jeremias, Der Prophet Hosea, ATD 24/1 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983], 51, 61). When God is the subject, as in Amos 3:2 and Deut. 9:24, both the unique favor he at his own initiative shows to Israel as well as his care for Israel are meant. The term yd῾ aims more strongly than does the terminus technicus “elect” (bḥr) at God’s intimate personal favor, something made especially clear by its more frequent use as a reference to God’s election of individuals (Abraham: Gen. 18:19; Moses: Ex. 33:12, 17; Deut. 34:10); in the case of the prophet Jeremiah, the temporal indication (“before I formed you in the womb I knew you”) makes it quite clear that this relationship comes from God alone, and the parallel verb (“. . . I consecrated you”) shows that God links the choice of Jeremiah with a commission. According to Amos 3:2, Israel misunderstood God’s election and nearness in the sense of the self-assurance of the favored one, instead of comprehending the commission to be a model for the world of nations. “I have known you” (yd῾, v. 2)—“they do not know (yd῾) how to do right” (v. 10): so the respective disposition of Yahweh’s and Israel’s “knowing.” Thus has Israel wasted its uniqueness among the nations, and is now called to account by God against the standard of its experience with God (“therefore”). The kind of performance review originally implied by the verb pqd leads, as in Hosea (cf. Hos. 1:4), to an exclusively negative result, the consequence of which is thus the “punishment” of “offenses” explicated by vv. 9ff.

Robert Martin-Achard: Verse 2a refers to a fact, the election of Israel, and v. 2b deduces its consequences. The prophet does not elaborate on this; he takes for granted in the case of the Israelites that from amongst the masses of the families of the earth—an allusion to the patriarchal tradition (Gen. 12:3; 28:14)—Yahweh has selected Israel (v. 2a). But from that he draws a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of his partners in dialogue. The latter take it for granted that their election protects them from the divine wrath, and shelters them from the menace of destruction. As for the prophet, it is precisely because the Israelites are the object of Yahweh’s choice that he will require them to give an explanation of their iniquities (v. 2b). Just being the people of God offers no absolute guarantee, rather it confers a special responsibility—‘It is you only whom I have “chosen” … therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities’. We are to note the astonishing reversal accomplished by Amos: election (v. 2a) takes the place here of the bill of indictment. We can conceive just how scandalized his hearers must have been by his proposition: the prophet had turned the history of salvation into a history of judgment.

Thomas McComiskey: God’s choice of Israel as the vehicle of his redemptive purposes is, from the human standpoint, strange. The people were slaves, possessing no homeland; and Israel was the weakest of the nations of the world (cf. Dt 7:7). The calling of Christians is similar, for Paul reminds us that God calls the weak so that human boasting may be excluded (1Co 1:26–29).

3. (:2b)  God’s People Are Never Exempt from Accountability for Sin

“Therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities.”

Trent Butler: Covenant Consequences –

He showed them why they should believe his word from God and obey it.

1. First, they were the people of Israel (literally, sons of Israel). They belonged to the family of the patriarch Jacob to whom God had appeared at their sanctuary Bethel with his promise of blessing for the nation (Gen. 28:10–22).
2. Second, they were an extended family. They were not individuals looking out for themselves. They had common interests and common responsibilities. They had to hear God’s message and obey it in the interest of the larger clan, not just for their own sakes.
3. Third, they had a special reason for obedience—God’s saving history with them. God had brought them up from slavery in Egypt to make them into a nation. The only satisfactory response would be to show their gratitude for salvation through obedience to their Savior.

God had one final reason why Israel should obey (3:2). They were the special chosen people of God. Out of all the families of the earth he had made a covenant with them (Josh. 24). They had agreed to obey the covenant regulations and expectations because they knew God would fulfill his promises to the patriarchs. God had kept his covenant promises. Israel had not kept theirs. Thus we hear the awesome prophetic word therefore predicting disaster. A people who do not keep covenant promises face God’s covenant lawsuit where God brings charges against his people and then announces the verdict: punishment for all their sins.

John Goldingay: Yahweh here reformulates the nature of Israel’s wrongdoing. Here (alone) he speaks not of rebellion (against him) but of waywardness, deviation from the proper way, and of Israel’s many such deviations. “Other nations are indicted for grave atrocities and barbaric actions, but only Israel is taken to task for every one of its moral-ethical infractions.”

B.  (:3-8) God’s Clear Revelation of Certain Judgment Should Awaken Fear

1. (:3-6)  Perceived Relationship between Actions and Responses – Series of Examples

Trent Butler: Just as you can predict certain results in nature, so you can explain the supernatural destruction of a city as divine action.

M. Daniel Carroll R.: The structure of 3:3–8 is carefully crafted. Verses 3–5 present a series of five rhetorical questions that all begin with the interrogatory particle hă; v. 6 adds two more questions, which are prefaced by ʾim (if), for a total of seven. Series of five and seven are a common literary characteristic of the book.

John Goldingay: The answer to the first five questions is “Not usually.” In each case the listeners are invited to work back from an event that must have a cause. While no doubt there are exceptions to the rule, generally it works. Two people walking together probably arranged to meet (v. 3). When a lion roars, it’s probably caught something, and the same applies to a cougar or young lion (v. 4). When a bird dives into a trap, it’s probably been lured by some bait, and if a trap goes off, it’s probably caught something (v. 5). Events have causes. Okay, Amos, so what? In light of v. 2, are the two walkers Yahweh and Israel (cf. LXX’s assimilation of v. 3 to v. 2)? Or are they you and Yahweh? Is Yahweh the lion, as 1:2 might imply? Is the bird Israel?

Allen Guenther: With the exception of the first question, which provides linkage to the idea of election, intimacy, and wilderness travel (3:1-2), the cause-and-effect imagery is bound up with death and destruction. The prophet’s message is an unpleasant one, to say the least. In this sequence of destructive metaphors, one moves through a progression of causal agents: animals, people, God, indicating that all of life is bound up with the “law” of cause and effect.

James Mays: The first seven questions range across happenings which common experience and outlook would connect self-evidently with another event. When two men are seen making their way across the horizon of Judah’s empty hill country, one knows they could hardly have met except by appointing a time and place (v. 3). The lion’s distant roar announces that his stalk, during which a sound would alert his quarry, is over; he has captured his prey (v. 4). If one sees a bird checked in his flight, tumbling to the ground, it is clear that a hunter’s throw-net ensnared it; or a hunter who sees his spring-trap snap up knows something has tripped its trigger.  In 6a the sequence is reversed—the cause is the blast of the šōpār sounded in alarm, and the result is the hubbub of the city stirring in near panic—but the argument remains the same. Of more consequence is the progress of the series from the situations of normal life to one of crisis precipitated by nearing danger. The harmless argument to which no listener could object now grows ominous. Now the question is asked whether disaster strikes a city unless Yahweh wills it and does it. To this proposition the listeners might not so readily agree. Was not Yahweh their God, the deity who wrought weal and peace for them? But if disaster struck, would it not be also his work, for surely they were not in the power of another god. Yet if Yahweh worked woe as well as weal, how in principle could they object to Amos’ prophecy that God had decreed disaster for them? The problem they found with Amos’ message becomes more a problem with their God and less with the prophet!

a.  (:3)  Example of Appointments – God’s Judgment Is No Accident

“Do two men walk together unless they have made an appointment?”

Trent Butler: Two people do not just happen to meet and travel together. They schedule an appointment. So Israel’s walk with God was no accident. God had planned it and scheduled it, but now Israel was failing to appear for their scheduled appointment.

Gary Cohen: the thought of verse 2 continues as God declares that He can no longer walk with Israel because they, He and Israel, are no longer in agreement regarding where to meet or in which direction to walk. A different view is taken by Keil, who sees this verse as beginning the next section and speaking of the meeting between Amos and God. According to this view, Amos would not be speaking for God and breathing out judgments if he and God had not met by God’s call.  Both explanations fit the context and are reasonable, however I favor the first view. A bisection of the union between God and Israel has taken place.

Billy Smith: The condition for two people traveling together, as stated in the rhetorical question of v. 3, is that “they have agreed to do so.” They must have met, worked out travel plans, and agreed on time to depart, destination, and the route to take. His use of an everyday “life situation in the first question lured his listeners into his train of thought.”

Amos’s initial question may have been only proverbial. But could the Lord and Israel be the “two” in the prophet’s mind? Certainly they had met (3:2). Their walking together was a grave concern of the prophet. Their failure to do so was the result of their sin (vv. 9-10) and would surely bring down the judgment of God upon them (vv. 11-15). As Micah would urge, all people are to walk with God (Mic 6:8). As Gitay observes, this connection between vv. 2 and 3 is suggested by the fact that only in v. 3 does he have a rhetorical question in this paragraph that is not paired with another. Also, v. 3 (like v. 6) has nothing to do with animals hunting or being hunted as do vv. 4-5.  The relationship between God and Israel is the result of a covenant.

b.  (:4)  Example of the Lion Exulting over Its Prey – God’s Roar Means He Is Ready to Devour in Judgment

“Does a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey?

Does a young lion growl from his den

unless he has captured something?”

Tchavdar Hadjiev: The roar of a hungry lion means that he will eventually start hunting and no-one will be safe.

M. Daniel Carroll R.: Lions do not roar when they attack; they are in fact quiet as they stalk their victims in order not to scare them away. Lions roar for other reasons, one of which is hunger. Once the prey has been caught and a lion feasts on the kill, it does not roar.68 It will snarl at other lions, predators, and scavengers to keep them from the prize or from its part of the carcass. Clearly, the scene in v. 4 occurs after the violent death of the quarry. In this context, it is best not to translate either of the two verbs as “roar.” Our translation has growl and snarl respectively. The noise from the bushes alerts all who hear of violent carnage.

c.  (:5)  Example of Effectiveness of Traps – God’s Judgment Has Been Activated by Israel’s Sin

“Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground when there is no bait in it? Does a trap spring up from the earth when it captures nothing at all?”

Tchavdar Hadjiev: The focus now moves from the terrifying awesomeness of the predator (lion) to the helplessness of the prey (birds). The snare which spring[s] up from the ground introduces the additional idea of disaster that is sudden and unexpected. The main point of the trap is that the victim is unsuspecting to the very last minute, just like the people of Israel who believe that no evil will befall them. The parallel between the bird which fall[s] (npl) as a snare springs from the ground (’ădāmâ) and the virgin Israel who has fallen (npl) on her land/ground (’ădāmâ) in 5:2 underlines even more strongly the point for the reader of the book (Fleischer 2001: 168). The ‘falling’ to the earth (’ereṣ) in 3:5a also anticipates the ‘falling’ of the horns of Bethel’s altar to the ground/earth (’ereṣ) in 3:14.

d.  (:6) Example of Arousal of Fear – Announcement of Coming Divine Judgment Should Arouse Fear

“If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble?

If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?”

John MacArthur: The Lord posed a series of questions to show that, as some things are certain in nature, surely nothing happens in Israel that is outside His sovereignty. Certain actions have certain results! The Lord had spoken a word, and therefore the prophet was to speak, and the people were to listen with trembling. Instead, they tried to silence the prophet (cf. 2:12; 7:12,13).

Lloyd Ogilvie: Calamity in the city, in our lives, through other people, or because of our sins, are sometimes used by the Lord to alert us to the fact that we have refused to walk humbly with Him toward His destination for us. When trouble strikes, it is a trumpet call to reestablish our walk with Him. Of course, sometimes we get into trouble because we are walking with the Lord doing what love requires. But we know the difference between corrective trouble and persecution for righteousness sake. Our daily conversations during our walk with the Lord make that abundantly clear. The question, “Lord what are you trying to say to me in what’s happening to me?” never goes unanswered—if we are listening.

2.  (:7-8)  God Has Roared in Judgment

a.  (:7)  Purpose of Prophetic Revelation

“Surely the Lord God does nothing

Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets.”

John Goldingay: Amos’s other big theological statement is that God doesn’t do anything without revealing it ahead of time. It’s one of the ways he shows that he’s God. He has the capacity to say what he intends to make happen, then to see that it happens, then to say “You see, it happened as I said.” In Isa. 40–48 it is a key argument for the recognition that Yahweh is God. It’s also an expression of his compassion, because part of the point about the revelation is to get his people to turn back to him so that he doesn’t need to implement his plan when it’s negative.

Tchavdar Hadjiev: The claim of 3:7 is that Amos’s words are a public proclamation of the hitherto secret decisions of the divine council as to how the Lord will deal with Israel.

J. Vernon McGee: It has always been God’s method to reveal information to those who are His own concerning future judgment. You will recall that during Noah’s day, God told him of a coming flood judgment and gave Noah 120 years to warn his generation. But the world did not heed his message. Also, remember that God let Abraham know ahead of time regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is a good thing He did that, because if He had not, it would have given Abraham a wrong viewpoint of the almighty God. It has always been God’s method to reveal such things to His own. When He was here in the flesh, He told His disciples, “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” (John 15:15). There are many examples of this throughout the Bible. He gave a forewarning to Joseph in Egypt of the seven years of famine that were to come upon the earth. Also, Elijah was forewarned of the drought that would come upon Israel. He walked into the courts of Ahab and Jezebel to announce to them that they were in for a drought—“. . . As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word—[and I’m not saying anything!]” (1 Kings 17:1). Then he walked out of the court and dropped out of sight for over three years. Since it is God’s method to warn of impending judgment, our Lord told His apostles, when He was gathered with them on the Mount of Olives, that Jerusalem would be destroyed—not one stone would be left upon another.

It is God’s method always to give a warning of impending judgment, and that is all that Amos is doing here although his contemporaries are very critical of him. Folk just don’t want to hear about judgment. They would much rather hide their head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich. Some people will not even go to a doctor because they do not want to know that something is wrong with them. The human family does not want to hear the bad news of judgment which is coming. If you preach and teach the truth, they will say you are a pessimist, a killjoy, a gloom-caster. However, God follows the principle that for every effect there is a cause, and God sends judgment only upon a sinning people.

Gary Smith: The implications are too obvious to miss. Why has Amos given this news about God’s plan to destroy Israel? He has not dreamed these ideas up out of the blue. God has revealed them to the prophet because he intends to act in the near future, and he desires to have one of his servants warn those he will judge.

b.  (:8)  Proper Response to Prophetic Revelation

• • • Response of the People

“A lion has roared! Who will not fear?”

• • • Response of the Prophet

“The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy?”

Warren Wiersbe: At this point, the people were probably saying, “Who is this rustic farmer that he should preach to us and claim to be God’s prophet? What kind of authority does he think he has?” Amos even dared to preach uninvited at the king’s chapel at Bethel, where King Jeroboam’s chaplain told Amos to go home and preach in Judah (7:10-16).

Amos replied to their ridicule by arguing from effect to cause. If two people want to walk together, they have to appoint a time and place to meet (Amos 3:3). If the lion roars, it’s because he’s caught his prey (v. 4). If a trap springs, it means the bird has been caught (v. 5); and if the people in a city are terrified, it’s because the trumpet has blown, warning them of danger (v. 6). These are obvious facts of life that any thinking person would acknowledge. When a prophet proclaims God’s Word, it’s because the Lord is about to do something important and wants to warn His people (3:7).

M. Daniel Carroll R.: The issue is not finally the prophet’s obligation to prophesy but rather the inevitability of the word of catastrophic judgment. It is a sure and solemn word spoken by the sovereign Yahweh. He is the one who communicates his will through the prophets (2:11–12; 3:7), the one who will bring the enemy against the land (3:11), and the one who swears by his very person that national calamity is coming (4:2).

Robert Martin-Achard: Conclusion: the fact that Yahweh has spoken had the immediate consequence that a prophet has arisen in the land. Amos here defends his ministry and at the same time suggests that, since he has intervened, it is Yahweh himself who has decided to speak forth his word. Thus people must take seriously the presence in the northern kingdom of Yahweh’s witness.

Billy Smith: The style shift in v. 8 alerted Amos’s audience (reader) that he had reached the climax. He turned from hypothetical situations (vv. 3-6) to statements of fact. “The lion has roared,” the first statement of fact, is the cause of “fear.” Here the lion’s roar strikes fear in humans, “who will not fear?” The effect of the lion’s roar in v. 4 was on other animals. Since “the lion has roared” is parallel to “the Sovereign LORD has spoken”, both expressions refer to God. This usage accords with the parallel statements in 1:2, “The LORD from Zion will roar, and from Jerusalem he will give his voice” (author’s translation).

Amos had heard the lion’s roar of the Lord’s judgment upon Israel. That roar struck “fear” in Amos. He knew the lion’s roar signaled a kill. Amos spoke God’s message in Israel because he had heard the Lord speak. The prophet’s message was not his own. He only spoke what he heard the Lord speak. With this rhetorical unit Amos would justify his appearance in Israel as spokesman for God. S. Paul captures Amos’s point: “The prophet speaks when commanded but, once commanded, must speak.”  Gitay explains the significance of this point as adding to Amos’s credibility. Amos did not enjoy his task of conveying unpleasant words. He was simply “one of the audience, one who [had] no choice but to prophesy.”  D. Hubbard’s concluding paragraph on the unit contains a striking statement about how Amos “won his points”: “He has done so by leading his hearers through a catechism of common-sense questions to his double conclusion that reinforces all that he said in the beginning verses of this chapter: Yahweh will bring disaster on his people (v. 6b), and Amos has no choice but to announce it” (v. 8b).

C.  (:9-10) Invoking Witnesses to God’s Judgment against Samaria for Idolatry, Violence and Materialism

1. (:9) Eyewitnesses of Incriminating Oppression

“Proclaim on the citadels in Ashdod and on the citadels in the land of Egypt and say,

‘Assemble yourselves on the mountains of Samaria and see the great tumults within her and the oppressions in her midst.’”

M. Daniel Carroll R.: The choice of peoples is interesting. Ashdod, one of the Philistine city-states, was singled out for judgment earlier. Its transgression was trafficking in those captured in war (perhaps Israelites) as slaves to Edom, another foe of Israel (1:6–8). Egypt, of course, was the ultimate symbol of oppression and the one from whom Israel had been redeemed (2:10; 3:1). To invite these two nations that had mistreated the people of God to verify Yahweh’s assessment of Israel and watch his punishment is the height of irony—and an indication of the depth of Yahweh’s disappointment. . .

“tumults” — communicates the immense dismay experienced by the disadvantaged in the capital city (cf. Ezek 22:5–6; Prov 15:16).

James Mays: Amos pretends to issue a summons to heralds authorizing them to carry an invitation to the city-state of Ashdod and the great empire of Egypt as a highly dramatic and ironic method of commanding the attention of his listeners. This introduction creates the atmosphere of preparation for a state visit. Prominent men from these neighbouring states are to come and see what Samaria is like! . . .  Since the invitation to Samaria is sent to the residents of strongholds in Philistia and Egypt, the upper classes from these foreign states are summoned to Israel to learn that these Israelites have outstripped them in the practices of their own culture. Like a great crowd of witnesses they are to assemble on the mountains around Samaria and see for themselves.

Allen Guenther: The eyewitnesses will see great tumults within her. Israel’s way of life has brought social unrest and confusion (cf. Frov. 15:16; 2 Chron. 15:5). Her communal life is no longer ordered by charity, compassion, or concern for fellow Israelites. Distrust, unrest, and anxiety rule a people meant to live in harmony. Trust between God’s covenant partners has vanished, leaving uncertainty and social chaos in its wake. Israel has transformed Edenic tranquility into turmoil.

Within Samaria, the capital, oppressions are the order of the day. The context of the same word in Jeremiah points to oppression as the misuse of economic power: “Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed” (Jer. 22:3; cf. Prov. 28:16; Isa. 33:15). Extortion prevails. In the following lines (Amos 3:10), these money-grubbers and land-grabbers are described as those who hoard plunder and loot in their fortresses. Or more aptly put, They store up the product of murder and robbery in their palaces.

Thomas McComiskey: Amos summons the Egyptians and the Philistines of Ashdod to witness the oppression going on within Samaria. Amos may have named these particular nations because of their past oppression of Israel. The Egyptian bondage and recurrent Philistine oppressions in Israel’s early history were not forgotten. So now Amos summons these oppressors to witness the violence being perpetrated by the rich and powerful of Samaria against their own poor neighbors—a kind of oppression that would surprise even the pagan nations. Amos’s rhetoric shows that Israel is as violent as they were.

2. (:10)  Enslaved to Violence and Devastation

“‘But they do not know how to do what is right,’ declares the LORD, ‘these who hoard up violence and devastation in their citadels.’”

Thomas McComiskey: The word “right” (nekōḥâ) has the basic meaning of “straightness.” Their moral sense has become so warped that the concepts of right and wrong are totally blurred.

Trent Butler: Israel used violence and destruction of the poor to gain their wealth and then carefully hid the money away in the strongest military fortress, thinking it was safe from all intruders. God had another thought. What they hid was not wealth but violence and destruction—two sins that God must punish (Ezek. 45:9).

Warren Wiersbe: In his day, the Prophet Isaiah called heaven and earth to witness against Judah (Isa. 1:2; see Deut. 30:19; 31:28); and Amos summoned the Gentile nations to witness against the Northern Kingdom of Israel whose capital was Samaria. The sin of Israel was so great that it even appalled the pagan nations; for, after all, Israel was sinning against a flood of light (1 Cor. 5:1).

Amos called for the Philistines (“Ashdod,” Amos 1:8) and the Egyptians to witness what was going on in Samaria (v. 9). The leaders of Israel weren’t interested in obeying God’s Law and helping the less fortunate. Rather, they were eagerly and unjustly robbing the poor and amassing as much wealth as possible. They built costly houses, filled them with expensive furnishings, and lived in luxury while the poor of the land suffered (3:15; 4:1; 5:11; 6:4-6).

What a terrible indictment: “They do not know how to do right” (Amos 3:10, NIV). They were so bound by their greed and idolatry that it was impossible for them to do what was right.

James Mays: The norms which ought to govern the affairs of men in Israel under Yahweh had dropped out of sight and consciousness among Samaria’s leading citizens. The older ways of social life in Israel had been displaced by Canaanite social custom. Amos is no ascetic in his attack on the residence-towers, nor simply an Israelite chauvinist attacking foreign ways. What is alone of moment to him is the departure from an order of society which was formed according to Yahweh’s will and which maintained every Israelite one with the other in a system of mutual responsibility. In Samaria the strongholds had become treasuries in which the powerful stored away the profits of ‘violence’ against others and of ‘destruction’ of rightful custom (cf. violence and destruction in Jer. 6.7; 20.8; 48.3; Ezek. 45.9; Hab. 1.3. This series of texts which combine the words indicate that the two synonyms became a single expression in the prophetic vocabulary for the collapse of normal conditions).

Thomas Constable: Yahweh announced that the Israelites had plundered, looted, and terrorized each other so long that they no longer knew how to do right (Heb. nekohah, straightness). The Israelites were different from their aggressors because they plundered and looted their own fortresses rather than those of a foreign enemy. It was as though the Israelites hoarded up violence and devastation as others, and they, hoarded material wealth. Now the wealthy foreigners, infamous for their own similar sins, would see that the Israelites behaved even worse in their citadels.

II.  (:11-15) JUDGMENT DECREED –

COMPREHENSIVE JUDGMENT – EXTENDING TO THEIR PRECEIVED INVINCIBILITY, THEIR MAN-MADE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM AND THEIR DECADENT OPULENCE

 A.  (:11-12)  Punishment by Foreign Conquerors

1. (:11)  Samaria Conquered and Looted

“Therefore, thus says the Lord God, ‘An enemy, even one surrounding the land,

Will pull down your strength from you And your citadels will be looted.’”

James Mays: ‘Therefore’ binds the city’s deeds to its doom. What Samaria’s leading citizens perpetrated within their own city will be visited upon them within the international society. The punishment is described by a little narrative of defeat. A foe will encompass the land, bring down the city’s defence system, and plunder its residences. The three measures of the line sketch in terse staccato sentences the stages of a military campaign: invasion, siege, and looting. The foe is not identified. It is generally assumed that the Assyrians are in mind. But Amos never mentions Assyria in his preserved speeches. Were the hearers to assume that Egypt and Ashdod who come to inspect would remain to conquer a city whose internal condition portrayed a fatal weakness? In any case, the foe is the instrument of Yahweh’s announced decision, the fulfilment of his word. It is Yahweh who makes himself the foe of his people Israel in judgment on the enmity of Israelite against Israelite. What matters in the prophetic view is that history transacts the judgment of Yahweh who rules over all nations (9.7f.).

2. (:12) Evidence of Destruction

“Thus says the LORD, ‘Just as the shepherd snatches from the lion’s mouth a couple of legs or a piece of an ear,

So will the sons of Israel dwelling in Samaria be snatched away– With the corner of a bed and the cover of a couch!’”

James Mays: The imagery of the comparison is drawn from the work of the shepherd who, in pasturing his flocks across wide, uninhabited hill country, had frequently to face the raids of marauding wild beasts (e.g. I Sam. 17.34f.). According to the customary legal tradition of Israel and the surrounding cultures, a shepherd had to give evidence to the owner of the sheep, when any of the flock had been captured, by producing what was left of the carcass. He had not stolen or sold it, for here was proof! In the collection of legal stipulations in Ex. 21–23, there is a case-law which deals with the responsibility of a shepherd or herder to the owner (22.10–13). 22.13 says: ‘If it [one of the sheep or cattle] is torn by beasts, let him bring it as evidence; he shall not make restitution for what has been torn.’ A similar law appears in the Code of Hammurabi: ‘If a visitation of god has occurred in a sheepfold, or a lion has made a kill, the shepherd shall prove himself innocent in the presence of the god, but the owner of the sheepfold shall receive from him the animal stricken in the fold.’  This legal custom lies behind the saying. Israel’s deliverance will be like that of the poor beast whose remains only serve as evidence of destruction. The rescue of evidence proves that rescue came too late—surely an ironic thrust! The saying does not promise the survival of a remnant, however small and wounded, after the coming judgment, but rather shatters any hope of rescue. The oracle may well have been given in answer to those who disputed the doom prophesied by Amos in the name of the deliverance which Israel expected from Yahweh as a matter of course. ‘Is it deliverance you expect, O Israel! Well, here is what your “deliverance” will be like—the rescue of a corpse’s shredded remains, a deliverance that means nothing to you!’ For other instances of the dispute-saying in Amos, cf. 3.2, 3–8.

Thomas McComiskey.: As the remaining parts of the slaughtered animal attest to its destruction, so the broken remains of the wealth of Israel will be a pathetic witness to the complete destruction of that kingdom.

B.  (:13-15)  Punishment of Center of Worship and Houses of Opulence

(:13)  Summons to Hear God’s Word of Judgment

“’Hear and testify against the house of Jacob,’

Declares the Lord God, the God of hosts.”

Robert Martin-Achard: Yahweh is about to conduct an attack upon the religious centre of the northern kingdom (v. 14) and on what constitutes the glory of the leaders of the state—their rich homes (v. 15). The prophet means here the sanctuary at Bethel, a fact which a note at v. 14b makes explicit. He indicates that on the day when God will render the account to his people every source of security will be removed; the horns of the altar, pledge of the right of asylum where even the guilty can find refuge if he but seizes hold of them (Exod. 21:12–14; 1 Kgs. 1:50; 2:28), shall be smashed just as the winter and summer houses, covered over as they are with ivory, shall collapse in ruins, smitten by Yahweh. In excavations made in Samaria ivory decorations have turned up revealing that the rich loved to decorate their various residences.

Billy Smith: The integrating word in this section is “house” . With this term reference is made to (1) Israel as the covenant people of God; (2) Bethel (“house of God”), the primary royal shrine in the Northern Kingdom; and (3) winter and summer houses, houses of ivory, and the mansions, indicators of the wealth and extravagance of Israel’s leaders.

1.  (:14)  Punishment of Bethel = Center of Worship

“For on the day that I punish Israel’s transgressions,

I will also punish the altars of Bethel;

The horns of the altar will be cut off, And they will fall to the ground.”

James Mays: The judgment of Yahweh will strike two foci—temple and mansion. The two furnish a virtual paradigm of Amos’ conception of Yahweh’s incursion against Israel. The temple is the centre of religious life; the mansions are the incarnation of Israel’s social economy of luxury built on exploitation. Indeed the entire saying turns on the catchword ‘house’: house of Jacob, house of God (Beth-El), winter house and summer house, ivory house and great house. What Israel had built stands as the manifestation of the nation’s rebellions. The devastation of these houses is the actualization of Yahweh’s ‘no’ to Israel’s cult and culture. Bethel was the pre-eminent religious centre of Israel in the time of jeroboam II (7.10–13). It draws the prophet’s denunciation in a special way (cf. the commentary on 4.4f.; 5.5f., 21–24; 7.9; 9.1–4). Because the very worship carried on at Bethel was at root a rebellion against Yahweh (4.4) the central focus of its cult, the altar (9.1; 2.8) was doomed.

2.  (:15)  Punishment of Houses of Opulence

“’I will also smite the winter house together with the summer house;

The houses of ivory will also perish And the great houses will come to an end,’ Declares the LORD.”

Allen Guenther: The second summons to the witnesses invites them to hear the pronouncement of judgment based on the flagrant sinning they have evidenced (3:13). The punishing word comes from the Lord of heaven’s armies.

Once more the message strikes at Israel’s securities and her comfortable living. The judgment will eliminate the many altars of high places in Bethel, where the Israelites thought that by multiplying offerings, they were assuring themselves forgiveness for their sins and protection by the Almighty (3:14b). In fact, even the horns of the altar at Bethel will be cut down as by some giant sword. The significance of destroying these horns lies in their judicial function. The corners of stone altars project upward, serving the fugitive who grasps them as a final sanctuary from which to plead for grace (Exod. 21:13-14; 1 Kings 1:50). A murderer, however, was to be torn away from the altar and executed (Exod. 21:14; 1 Kings 2:28-34).

When the Israelites in desperation flee to the altar to claim sanctuary, they will find the horns missing. Their deeds warrant no more grace. In that judgment day, their well-built winter homes and summer cottages will become rubble (Amos 3:15).

Billy Smith: The enduring principle here is that God will destroy elaborate altars, expensive houses, and other accoutrements of an extravagant lifestyle when these items are acquired through oppression, fraud, and strong-arm tactics. The idolatry of the people led to their opulent lifestyles. Life apart from God may yield temporary material gain, but it will surely result in eternal loss.

Warren Wiersbe: Amos announced that the kingdom of Israel would fall to an enemy and the great city of Samaria would be plundered. This happened in 722 B.C. when the Assyrians invaded Israel. The people of Israel had plundered one another, but now a pagan Gentile nation would plunder them. We reap what we sow.

To illustrate what would happen to Israel, Amos borrowed from his experiences as a shepherd. According to Exodus 22:10-13, if a lion takes a sheep and tears it to pieces, the shepherd had to bring remnants of the sheep to prove that it was truly dead (see Gen. 31:39). This would assure the owner of the flock that the shepherd wasn’t stealing sheep and lying to his employer. By the time Assyria was through with Israel, only a small remnant of the people would be left. The lion was about to roar! (Amos 1:2; 3:8)

According to 2 Kings 17:5ff, the Assyrians killed some Israelites, took others captive, and then brought into the land captives from other nations, thus producing a people with diverse racial and religious backgrounds. The surviving Jews in the ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom married people who were not Jews, and this produced the people we know as the Samaritans. The “pure” Jews rejected this new “mongrel race” (John 4:9); so the Samaritans set up their own temple and priesthood and established their own religion, which the Lord rejected (vv. 19-24).

Amos made it clear that the invasion of the Assyrians was a work of God, for He was punishing Israel for her sins (Amos 3:14). Why? Because of their selfish luxury and their impudent idolatry. The people resting on their ivory beds in their expensive mansions would be stripped and led off as prisoners of war. The wealthy who had both summer and winter houses would have no houses.

When the Jewish kingdom was divided after the death of Solomon (1 Kings 12), King Jeroboam of Israel didn’t want his people going to Jerusalem to worship, lest they go to Judah and never return to Israel. So he established shrines with golden calves at Dan and Bethel, set up his own priesthood, and encouraged the people to worship in Israel. Contrary to the Law of Moses, the king also allowed the people to visit local shrines, where it was more convenient to worship whatever god they chose.

Amos announced that the Lord would destroy the royal chapel at Bethel (Amos 7:13), which indicated that Israel’s entire man-made religious system would be demolished. Nobody would be able to lay hold of the horns of the altar and claim protection (1 Kings 1:50-53), for the horns would be cut off.

Thomas Constable (3:15) God also promised to destroy the Israelites’ winter and summer homes. The fact that many Israelite families could afford two houses and yet were oppressing their poorer brethren proved that they lived in selfish luxury. They had embellished their great houses with expensive ivory decorations (cf. 1 Kings. 21:1, 18; 22:39; Ps. 45:8). The two great sins of the Israelites, false religion (v. 14) and misuse of wealth and power (v. 15), would be the objects of God’s judgment. Even some ancient kings did not possess two houses.

Trent Butler: Israel’s upper classes had so oppressed the poor that they could afford luxurious houses. These fancy houses apparently had an upper floor equipped to catch cool breezes for hot times and a lower story with a heating system to protect against the cold. Or the rich may have had what only kings could generally afford—a summer house in the hills and a winter house in the valleys. These mansions would feel the heat as God’s fire ruined them. No matter how much money and effort were put into importing ivory for decorative inlays, wealth and power could not protect the owners against God’s certain judgment.