BIG IDEA:
RIGHTEOUSNESS BEFORE RITUAL — GOD DESIRES JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS RATHER THAN VAIN RELIGIOUS SHOW
INTRODUCTION:
Gary Smith: This section is divided into three paragraphs:
- 5:18–20 addresses the sad state of Israel’s deceptive theology concerning the Day of the Lord,
- 5:21–24 undermines the people’s false hopes in their unacceptable worship,
- and 5:25–27 predicts their exile because some Israelites worship false gods.
These sections question the people’s basic beliefs about their relationship to God. This questioning does not raise doubts concerning the Israelites’ knowledge of temple worship or eschatological events but inquires about their deceptive approach to these topics. They have turned worship into something worthless and eschatology into escapism. It is a tragedy to hear that someone is tricked into believing in a baseless illusion, but it is especially regrettable to find out that religious people, who know biblical traditions and participate in religious services, have deceived themselves by constructing a theological perspective that twists God’s truth into a nonexistent mirage.
Allen Guenther: How could Israel have deluded itself so severely? What could have given rise to this separation of judicial integrity and religious ritual?
Three reasons may be proposed, with some tentativeness. First, they have separated moral responsibility from election privilege. Their defective concept of what it means to be the covenant people has far-reaching social consequences (cf. Amos 3:1-2).
Second, it appears that the monarchy has introduced some separation of the royal and religious courts. Presumably that would reflect a difference in the type of issues addressed by each. . .
Third, if the circumstance of eighth-century Judah resembled those of the Northern Kingdom, then taxation and property laws were being passed which favored the rich and disadvantaged the poor and the peasant landholders. Isaiah pronounces judgment on the legislators who established discriminatory laws and on the justices who favored the causes of the rich (Isa. 10:1-2). Dearman notes that these administrators were not accused of being derelict in their duty. Instead, they took “advantage of their positions to plunder the helpless for their own personal gain” (80). He argues, further, that the pattern of oppression condemned in Amos and Hosea mirrors Isaiah’s pronouncements.
Realists know that archaic laws and religious fervor are no match for pragmatism and decisive action. Furthermore, the priesthood of the Northern Kingdom had, from its first appointments by Jeroboam I, served the interests of the state. Only meddlers like Elijah dared oppose national policies. They had been silenced by royal decree…
In 5:18-27, Amos addresses the issues of national priorities and moral posture. He announces the primacy of fairness, compassion, and virtue over worship. Sacrifices, prayers, celebrations – all these mean little unless they are expressions of one’s love and obedience. That love and obedience can be felt, seen, and heard in maintaining integrity and community, in compassion and justice for the weak and the poor among the governed. God’s people can exist without the elaborate trappings and rituals of worship. They cannot survive the drought of justice and righteousness. The Lord refuses to receive the prayers and sacrifices of uplifted hands when those very hands are stained by the mixed blood of cattle and covenant partners.
Thomas Constable: This lament also has a chiastic structure. It centers on a call for individual repentance [from unacceptable worship].
A A description of inevitable judgment vv. 18-20
B An accusation of religious hypocrisy vv. 21-22
C A call for individual repentance vv. 23-24
B’ An accusation of religious hypocrisy vv. 25-26
A’ A description of inevitable judgment v. 27
M. Daniel Carroll R.: I propose that a thematic chiasm spans the entire ten verses. This is a heuristic suggestion that can be helpful in following the flow of the passage.
A The day of Yahweh: unfounded longing (vv. 18–20)
B The despised cult: unacceptable rituals (vv. 21–23)
C The divine demand for justice (v. 24)
B′ The despised cult: unlike the past (v. 25)
A′ The future reality: exile (vv. 26–27)
I. (:18-20) THE DAY OF THE LORD WILL BE A TIME OF EXTREME DARKNESS
A. (:18) Attacking Misconceptions of the Day of the Lord –
Irony of Longing for Something Disastrous
“Alas, you who are longing for the day of the LORD,
For what purpose will the day of the LORD be to you?
It will be darkness and not light;”
Allen Guenther: The cry Woe or Alas is rooted in mourning (1 Kings 13:30; Jer. 22:18b; Janzen). It marks the presence of death. The nature of that death has been anticipated in verse 17— I will pass through the midst of you, says the Lord. The phrase echoes the description of the final plague brought against Egypt (Exod. 12:12, 23). God will now be to Israel as he once was to Egypt. He will engage in a holy war against his own people. Consequently, the wailing of the Egyptians for their firstborn shall become the mourning cry of God’s firstborn, Israel.
Gary Smith: Amos describes his audience as people longing for or yearning for the coming Day of the Lord (5:18). At first this sounds positive because this was seen as the day when God would vindicate himself and destroy his enemies. Why would the Israelites not long to see that day? Amos’s audience views this day as the time when they will have a guaranteed victory over their enemies. They also have great expectations concerning what God will do for them when he establishes his divine kingdom on earth on that day.
When Amos, however, laments over those who want this day to come, many of his listeners probably wonder what is wrong with this crazy prophet. Why would anyone not look forward to the time when God will bless his people and defeat their enemies? Amos’s answer to his rhetorical “why” question in Amos 5:18b reveals that he has a different conception of this day. He reverses his audience’s understanding because he sees it as a day of darkness for Israel. Israel will suffer God’s judgment with the ungodly because they are a sinful people, just like the foreign nations. They will experience the gloom and darkness of political defeat. Darkness symbolizes danger, hidden things that one cannot see, an absence of safety, and no divine protection (Job 18:6; Ps. 27:1; Isa. 9:1–2; Lam. 3:2; Joel 2:10). This must have seemed like a heretical statement. Will God judge his own people?
Lloyd Ogilvie: Amos spoke to Israel at a time when the people were seeking to escape God. As we have seen, they lacked evidence of justice and righteousness in their national life and in their daily living. They longed for the day of the Lord, thinking it would be an intervention of God to save them from their enemies. While trying to escape from the covenant claim of God on their national and personal lives, they took for granted the blessings of God. Amos warned them not to be so cocky about the day of the Lord.
Gary Cohen: Keil seems to have a better explanation, namely, that many in Israel knew the prophecy of Joel 3, which had spoken sixty years before of the Lord’s coming to deliver Judah and Israel and to judge the nations that oppressed them. They looked upon God, much as Israel did in Jesus’ time, as the one who would deliver the Jews automatically, as a racial right. They forgot the concomitant requirement that those who wished to be delivered had to call upon the Lord in repentance (Joel 2: 32).
Thomas McComiskey: The day of the Lord refers to the complex of events surrounding the coming of the Lord in judgment to conquer his foes and to establish his sovereign rule over the world. The people were looking forward to that day. Apparently they understood it as the time when Yahweh would act on their behalf to conquer their foes and establish Israel as his people forever. They regarded their election as the guarantee of the Lord’s favor. But their moral vision is blurred. They fail to see the day of the Lord as the time when God will judge all sin—even theirs. They name the name of Yahweh but do not obey his precepts. For these people, Amos says, that coming day will be one of darkness.
B. (:19) Illustrating the Unavoidable Disastrous Consequences of the Day of the Lord – False Security Exposed
Gary Smith: To help persuade his listeners of their misunderstanding, Amos illustrates the danger of this day with a rural example showing that the disastrous consequences of this day are inevitable (Amos 5:19). A person fleeing from one danger (a lion) will run into another (a bear). Those who finally reach the safety of home will not escape either, because something there will get them when they least expect it (a snake will bite them as they relax, leaning against a wall). There will be, in other words, no place to run or hide.
- Illustration #1 – Devoured by a Ferocious Bear after Escaping Attack
“As when a man flees from a lion,
And a bear meets him,”
From the frying pan into the fire!
Reaching a place that seems safe but is still vulnerable to attack.
- Illustration #2 – Bitten by a Poisonous Snake after Escaping Attack
“Or goes home, leans his hand against the wall,
And a snake bites him.”
Thomas McComiskey: But like the false security of the one who thinks he has escaped the lion and the one who is falsely secure in his home, the faithless Israelites will find that day to be a time of judgment for them. As a matter of fact, there is no hope for them in that day, for the day of the Lord will bring not one ray of light (v.20).
Jorg Jeremias: The two interwoven similes from the life sphere of a shepherd in v. 19 are supposed to document this; each begins with the fortunate rescue of someone from the most extreme mortal danger (escape, return home to the protection of one’s own house) and ends in the unexpected, deadly actions of an animal. Together, they state that despite any previous experiences of deliverance—experiences with which Amos is just as familiar as are his self-confident listeners—only one thing is certain for Israel on the “day of Yahweh”: sudden death, however it might occur. (Concerning the inescapability of death, compare 2:14–16 and 9:2–4.)
Hubbard: The illustrative parable makes it clear that darkness and light do not speak here of wickedness and righteousness but of disaster and safety.
C. (:20) Characterizing the Impact of the Day of the Lord as Darkness
“Will not the day of the LORD be darkness instead of light,
Even gloom with no brightness in it?”
Billy Smith: A constant danger for God’s people is false presumption of how God’s revelation relates to them. Often they see themselves as God’s friends when in reality they are God’s enemies (cf. v. 14). Enthusiastic proclaimers of the Lord’s return must be careful to identify correctly their relationship to God.
Tchavdar Hadjiev: The narrative seeks to unsettle the prophet’s audience by undermining their illusions of security. Its message is that the calm of the present is deceptive, and past deliverance is no guarantee of future safety.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The emphatic nature of the critique in vv. 18–20 is underscored by extending the contrast between darkness and light further with another pair of descriptors: gloom and no brightness. The four descriptors in this verse appear in Isa 59:9. Darkness and gloom occur together prominently in the ninth plague in Egypt (Exod 10:22) and also in Joel 2:2 and Zeph 1:15—all contexts announcing disaster from the hand of God. In contrast, light and brightness can describe the powerful presence of God, often in connection with his actions in defense or restoration of his people (e.g., nōgah in Ps 18:12 [MT 18:13]; Isa 4:5; Hab 3:4, 11; cf. Isa 9:2 [MT 9:1]). The nation has chosen poorly by believing a lie (Isa 50:10).
II. (:21-24) TRUE JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS MUST REPLACE HYPOCRITICAL WORSHIP
A. (:21-23) Rejection of Hypocritical Worship
Gary Smith: Although God asked the people to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, and fellowship (peace) offerings in Leviticus 1–4 and exhorted them to sing his praises (Ps. 92:1; 95:1–2; 96:1; 98:1, 4–6; 100:1–2), he does not accept mechanical offerings and rote songs that do not come from a heart of love and a commitment to act in righteousness.
- (:21) Rejection of Hypocritical Worship via Special Celebrations
“I hate, I reject your festivals,
Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies.”
Thomas McComiskey: The routine observance of the Levitical ritual is empty because the people lack the love, concern, and humble obedience to God that marks sincere profession of faith. Their religiosity is a mockery of true religion. Every aspect of their ritual is an act of disobedience because it ignores the heart of the Law—love for God and concern for others.
- (:22) Rejection of Hypocritical Worship via Different Types of Offerings
“Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings,
I will not accept them;
And I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings.”
Billy Smith: “Burnt offerings” were sacrifices in which the entire animal was consumed on the altar and arose to God in smoke. “Grain offerings” could also be used of various sacrifices brought as a gift. “Fellowship offerings” were those in which part of the animal was consumed on the altar and part of it was eaten by the worshiper, thus symbolizing communion between the worshiper and God.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Citing three kinds of offerings conveys the completeness of Yahweh’s dismissal of Israel’s rituals, even as the preceding verse denounced Israel’s religious gatherings. It may be significant that in this verse, no sacrifices for sin appear (ḥaṭṭāʾt, ʾāšām), although the aforementioned rituals had a variety of functions. If the omission is deliberate, then it reinforces the self-serving nature of the nation’s worship (cf. 4:4–5).
- (:23) Rejection of Hypocritical Worship in Music
“Take away from Me the noise of your songs;
I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.”
Billy Smith: But the Lord’s rejection of this religious activity could not have been expressed more strongly: “I hate, I despise,” “I cannot stand,” “I will not accept,” “I will have no regard,” and “I will not listen.” God rejected every aspect of Israel’s worship. They were inundating him with rivers of religiosity when he wanted rivers of righteousness and justice (v. 24).
Allen Guenther: No wonder God bursts upon the scene with such vehement words. The trappings of worship are all present: the best animals and vegetables, the instruments, the singing. But they revolt the Lord. Where are the just and righteous relationships? Where is the care for the needy? Whose eye catches the plight of the weak? Which ear is attuned to the cries of the forgotten and neglected of society? Justice has dried up, righteousness has evaporated. The stream bed of mutual care is empty of compassion and covenant fidelity. It is littered with smug piety, celebrative worship experiences, and generous offerings. Yet they are offensive to God.
John Goldingay: The combination of reference to sacrifice and song presupposes that Leviticus and Psalms belong together in Israel’s worship. There would be no sacrifice without sung praise and prayer, and there would be no sung praise and prayer without sacrifice; with Amos’s critique, which links the two, compare Isa. 1:11–15.
B. (:24) Demand for True Justice and Righteousness
“But let justice roll down like waters
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
Gary Smith: Verse 24 exhorts the people to pay close attention to the implications of what it means to worship God. If you worship him, you must walk in his ways. If worship does not further the development of spiritual character, it may just be empty emotions. When worshipers offered sacrifices to God, they were supposed to confess their sins as they put their hands on the head of the animal being sacrificed (Lev. 1–4), turn away from their past failures, and commit themselves to keep his guidelines for daily behavior. Since the Israelites are not doing these things, their sacrifices have no value. What should be a sweet-smelling aroma to God (3:5, 16) is becoming a putrid stench he cannot stand. The beautiful harmony of their singing and the trumpet blasts of their music are turned into obnoxious noises. Their sin separates them from God (Isa. 59:1–2).
Justice among individuals should have been a hallmark distinguishing Israel from her neighbors, but God does not see this moral value in the lives of many Israelites. Amos exhorts the people to let righteousness and justice characterize all their activities. Justice should flow continually like a year-round river, not like an undependable wadi that has water in it only when it rains. Justice is not an optional trait that one can choose to practice; it is a key value that must characterize the behavior patterns of those who claim to love and follow God. If these people would let justice govern their action, God would look at their worship in a different way. They are not deceiving him with their meaningless worship; rather, they are only fooling themselves.
Alec Motyer: Broadly, therefore, justice is correct moral practice in daily personal and social life, and righteousness is the cultivation of correct moral principle (both for self and for society); justice is mainly outward, righteousness inward. Of course, for the Bible righteousness always has the connotation ‘right with God’, ‘what God thinks right’, and therefore when the Lord desires that the outflow of religion should be justice and righteousness, He is calling for the establishment of principles and practices of daily living which conform to His word and law.
Tchavdar Hadjiev: This verse explains the reasons for the Lord’s disgust. The explanation is indirect, implying that justice and righteousness are not present in Israel’s midst and it is precisely their absence that makes the cult odious to God. The comparison to an ever-flowing stream – that is, a river that does not dry up during the hot summer months – emphasizes the purifying and life-giving quality of social justice. Conversely, the absence of justice is like a deadly drought (see further, Introduction).
III. (:25-27) HISTORICAL TRANSGRESSIONS PAVE THE WAY FOR JUDGMENT VIA EXILE
A. (:25-26) Indictment of Past History of Unacceptable Worship
- (:25) Failure to Present Adequate Sacrifices and Grain Offerings
“Did you present Me with sacrifices and grain offerings in the wilderness
for forty years, O house of Israel?”
Gary Cohen: “In the wilderness for forty years . . . Sikkuth . . . Kiyyun, your images, the star” (vv. 25-26). Here the argument is that the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom were repeating the same sins that had been characteristic of that rebellious generation in the wilderness. While those people had worshiped God at the Tabernacle, they had also secretly worshiped the pagan images they had brought along from Egypt. That comparison aptly fits the Northern Kingdom’s confusion of worshiping the true God and the calf images at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12: 28-29). . .
The message is clear. Israel was mixing oppression and the breaking of God’s law with a worship that blended a large cup of paganism with the true worship of the Lord. God would not accept this kind of religion. He did not accept it in the forty years of wilderness wanderings, and He would not accept it from Samaria in Amos’s day.
Alternative View:
Gary Smith: Amos is probably asking whether the central aspect of Israel’s relationship to God is based only on their sacrificing. The assumed response to this questions is negative. In other words, Amos is hinting that the people’s relationship with God is not primarily based on sacrifices, but on their covenant love with God. This is supposed to be the central feature of their relationship (Deut. 6:5), and it is missing.
Billy Smith: There is reason to believe, however, that sacrifices and offerings were severely limited during the wilderness years. Following Israel’s rebellion and God’s judgment at Kadesh in Numbers 13-14, certain regulations for worship are given but are introduced by “after you enter the land I am giving you as a home” (Num 15:2). D. Stuart explains that neither “slaughtered sacrifices” nor “grain offerings” were “usually” given while Israel was in the wilderness. “The sacrificial system was essentially predesigned for a coming era of normal food production…in a landed, settled situation.” Though inaugurated at Sinai, “sacrificing and its association with the three yearly festivals became regular only after the conquest.” Amos’s point in this case would be that in the absence of a regular sacrificial system, God still maintained a relationship with his people and blessed and cared for them. Therefore the sacrificial system alone is clearly not sufficient to gain God’s favor.
Allen Guenther: The rhetorical question of Amos 5:25 invites Israel to recognize the secondary role of worship rituals. The question implies that during the years of wilderness wandering, the laws requiring sacrifice by individuals and the general population were not yet in force or were temporarily suspended (Num. 15:1-3, 17-19). Even the Passover was celebrated only twice before entering Canaan (Exod. 12:21-28; 13:5; Num. 9:1-5; Josh. 5:10). The festivals marking the harvest year would not have had meaning for Israel in the desert because they would not have harvested grains or vegetables. Amos utilizes the Northern Israelite tradition to argue against Israel’s overemphasis on the place of sacrifice and cultic ritual (cf. 2:10) [Israelite Religion, p. 385]. His argument: At the time of Israel’s greatest intimacy with God, during the wilderness years, the people were not sacrificing. Yet God accepted them. Therefore, ritual sacrifice is not essential to maintaining a dependent and faithful relationship with God.
- (:26) Failure to Abandon Idolatry
“You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images,
the star of your gods which you made for yourselves.”
Billy Smith: Most scholars consider Amos 5:26 as referring to Mesopotamian astral deities. The phrase translated here “the shrine of your king” is more commonly, and probably more correctly, “Sikkut, your king.” The Assyrian war god Adar also was called Sakkut. Likewise, the following phrase translated “the pedestal of your idols” is better (and more literally) rendered “and Kiyyun, your idols.” The Assyrians worshiped an astral deity they called Kaiwan, otherwise known as Saturn. “The star of your god [or gods]” apparently refers to the latter. The spelling of these names as Sikkut and Kiyyun probably is the result of substituting the vowels of the Hebrew word , “abomination,” in the names of the two astral deities. This was the prophet’s way of ridiculing these pagan gods. The folly of carrying about such images is that Israel “made” them. Homemade gods regularly disappoint the ones who fashion them (cf. Isa 40:18-20; 41:21-24; 44:12-20; Jer 10:1-16; Hos 8:6). “Therefore” in v. 27 indicates that v. 26 speaks of idolatry during Amos’s time. But v. 25 would suggest that idolatry also was a problem in the wilderness. This seems to be a point of comparison, then, between the wilderness generation and Amos’s Israel.
Lloyd Ogilvie: Trying to buy time in her uneasy relationships with Assyria, Israel had placed at Bethel an image of Sikkuth, from the Assyrian tabernacle of Molach. Chiun, the star god of the Assyrians, was placed in Israel’s constellation of gods along with Yahweh. And added to all that petulant polytheism was the ever present syncretism with Baal worship.
Allen Guenther: Translations vary on Amos 5:26. The NIV takes the text a describing the royal chaise and the home-crafted deities, resulting in the picture of king and gods going into exile. It is doubtful, however, that a captive king was ever carried into exile in royal style. The text may be referring to Assyrian astral deities worshiped in Israel: Sakkuth = Moloch/Molech, the Canaanite god, and Kaiwan = the planet Saturn (cf. 2 Kings 17:16; Acts 7:42-43). Sakkuth and Kaiwan may be a name and an epithet of the planet Saturn, taken as a star-god (ABD, 5:904). On this interpretation, Israel is still probably on favorable terms with Assyria, and the text is heavy with irony: Israel will carry into exile the very gods of those people (the Assyrians) who are ravaging and deporting them.
Another possibility commends itself to this interpreter. Some 170 years earlier, jeroboam I had led the ten Northern tribes in secession from Judah and the leadership of the Davidic monarchical family line. He astutely identified with the wilderness tradition and with the symbols of the kingship of El Shaddai and Yahwe, the two manifestations of Israel’s God, by the images of the bull calf. The text would translate as: And you will take along Sikkuth (Heb.) your king, and Kiyyun, the star (heavenly representation) of your gods, which you have crafted for yourselves. That is, when the time of judgment overtakes the nation, they will carry with them these symbols of their god. How useless, since he was unable to rescue the nation from the invading Assyrians! [Bull Calves, P. 375]
B (:27) Promise of Judgment Via Exile
“’Therefore, I will make you go into exile beyond Damascus,’
says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts.”
James Mays: ‘Exile’ is a word with implications of horror which outrun the ruin and pain of defeat and capture by an enemy. For Israel it meant being removed from the land promised to the fathers, displacement from the geographical locus of the unfolding history of election, and so was in effect a kind of excommunication.
J. Vernon McGee: Israel is to be punished in the future. They will go into captivity “beyond Damascus” (that is, beyond Syria), and beyond Damascus was Nineveh. God is telling Israel that the Assyrian would take them into captivity.