James Interprets Amos 9:11-12 (Acts 15:13-18)

May 10, 2013

The previous post explored the meaning of the only fundamentally positive text in Amos–its ending, Amos 9:11-15. The text of Amos envisions a future time when Yahweh would rebuild the “tent of David” with the result that Israel would “possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called” by Yahweh’s “name.” This would involve permanently replanting Israel in the land God gave them and blessing them with prosperity.

At least four significant questions emerge from Amos 9:11-15. First, what is the “tent of David”? Second, what is the meaning of “possess” (militaristic or inheritance) in relation to the nations? Third, what is the meaning of the land promise? Fourth, when did or will this happen?

One might imagine that this was fulfilled when Judah returned from exile. But Amos seems to include Israel in this promise (rather than just Judah), and the post-exilic community never experienced the prosperity or the security that Amos envisioned. This is one reason Second Temple Judaism sometimes thought of themselves as still in exile.

In Acts 15:13-18 elder James applies Amos 9:11-12 to the situation of the early Christian community. Is his application a fulfillment? Does Amos 9:11-15 find its terminus in the reality of the Christian movement in Jerusalem? This is where I want to focus this post.

If one compares Acts 15:116-18 with Amos 9:11-12 several significant differences are apparent (highlighted in italics).

Amos 9:11-12

Acts 15:16-17
In that day After this
I will return
I will raise up and I will rebuild
the tent of David the tent of David
that is fallen that has fallen
and repair its breaches
and raise up its ruins I will rebuild its ruins
and rebuild it and I will restore it
as in the days of old
That they may possess the remnant of Edom That the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord
and all the nations who are called by my name and all the Gentiles who are called by my name
declares the Lord says the Lord
who does this who makes these things
known from of old

While there are several differences between the Hebrew text of Amos and James’s citation (which is primarily from the Septuagint), the most significant is found in Acts 15:17.  Whereas Amos announces that “they may possess the remnant of Edom,” the LXX reads “the remnant of humanity may seek the Lord.” Whereas one understanding of Amos is that Israel will possess the land of Edom, James announces that the remnant of humanity will seek the Lord. While Amos may intend the possession of the land of Palestine (including Edom and other nations contiguous with it), James connects the text with the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Christian community.

What happened? How does one move from the Hebrew text of Amos 9 to this Christian text in Acts 15? This is an instructive question as it illuminates the hermeneutical method of the early church as well as early Judaism (see W. Edward Glenny, BBR [2012] 1-26).

At one level, it is possible that James is not simply thinking about Amos though this is the substance of his quotation. James endorses Peter’s testimony about Cornelius as God’s gracious “visitation” upon the Gentiles so as to include them among the people of God. The “words of the prophets,” James says, “agree” with this (Acts 15:15). The quotation is not an exact reproduction of the LXX as we know it (neither is it an exact quotation of the Hebrew Amos 9:11-12). Rather, James–as Luke records it–may conflate several prophets in order to focus his point.

Glenny suggests that Acts 15:16-18 evidence the influence of other prophet texts, including:

  • “After this” is from Hosea 3:5 with a reference to Israel’s return to Yahweh and the Davidic king
  • “I will return” is from Zechariah 8:3 or Jeremiah 12:15 in which context the nations will learn the ways of God.
  • “will seek” may reflect Zechariah 8:22-23 where nations seek Yahweh in Jerusalem
  • Zechariah 2:14-17 lies in the background with the emphasis on the “nations” who become the people of God.
  • “makes these things” may come from Isaiah 45:21 which also alludes to the inclusion of the nations.

These connections reveal that Luke’s summary of James’s speech reflects a wide-ranging interpretation of the prophets regarding the nations–using a word connections that was part of Jewish hermeneutics of the time (called gezerah shavah).  The point (and the quotation) is not solely dependent upon Amos 9. James argues that the Scriptures–the prophets–agree with the witness of Paul, Barnabas, and Peter.

Theologically, experience is insufficient for the early Christian community. Rather, James argues that the prophets agree with said experience and thus confirms its truth of the experience. Scripture must “agree” with the experience of the church if she is to pursue God’s mission instead of our imagination.

At another level, the LXX version of Amos 9 is reflected in the text of Acts 15 which is rather different from standard English translations of Amos. How does the LXX get “remnant of humanity” from “remnant of Edom” as well as changing “possess” to “seek”? In both cases it may be a simple revocalization of the Hebrew text, that is, supplying different vowels to the Hebrew consonants. Edom is close to Adam, for example. Further, Edom may function as a metaphor for hostile nations that are now included among the people of God. “Possess” has the similar consonants as “seek.” The Greek translators, for whatever reason (perhaps a different Hebrew reading or a deliberate hermeneutical strategy like what is evidenced at Qumran; cf. Richard Bauckham, “Jews and Gentiles [Acts 15:13-21]” in History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts), substitute “seek” for “possess.”  Whatever the case the LXX makes clear that some Jewish readers of Amos understood the text to mean the inclusion of the Gentiles rather than a “possession” (militaristic) of the nations. Even the original reading of “possess” may have included a sense of inclusion as evidenced that the nations would be called by the name of Yahweh. Either way, James’s point stands: the inclusion of the Gentiles is something with which “the prophets agree”.

How, then, does James (within the context of Luke-Acts) understand the “tent of David”? He appears to understand it as already restored and rebuilt in the context of the inclusion of the Gentiles. So, what is the “tent of David”?

Many interpreters link it to the Davidic kingdom or dynasty, specifically in the exalted reign of the resurrected Lord Jesus. Whatever the “tent of David” is it is effected before the inclusion of the Gentiles. God rebuilds the “tent” with the result or for the purpose of including the nations. In other words, God renews the Davidic dynasty in the reign of Jesus the Messiah who inaugurates the Gentile mission in order to include them among the people of God (Israel). The prominence of “David” in the sermons in Acts is an important clue (cf. Acts 2:24-36; 13:22-23, 34-35) to this meaning. In those “sermons” Peter and then Paul directly connect the promise of David with the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as the promised Davidic king.

But does this do justice to the “tent of David”? Elsewhere in Acts, the term “tent” refers to worship sanctuaries such as the temple or tabernacle (cf. Acts 7:43, 44, 46). The term is consistently used of the tabernacle in the LXX.  Does James use this language in order to recall the temple or sanctuary? Perhaps we might best understand this, with G. K. Beale does (The Temple and the Church’s Mission), as the resurrected Messiah has erected a new temple (sanctuary). In some ways this may be identified with the church, but in other ways it may anticipate the eschatological temple of God which is the heavenly temple which descends as the new Jerusalem upon the new heaven and new earth.

In one sense, James identifies Amos 9 with the inclusion of the Gentiles and thus the reality of the rebuilt “tent of David.” A new temple has been built and/or the Davidic dynasty has been restored. So, is this the fulfillment of Amos 9:11-15? Or, does Amos 9:11-12 simply “agree ” (in harmony with) with the development or progress of redemption? Does Amos 9:11-15 find its terminus in  the establishment of the church (Jew & Gentile) through the reign of exalted Lord? And what of the land promise?

I think we will need yet another post to address those last questions.

4 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Amos 8:1-14 — The Pride and Greed of Jacob

April 19, 2013

The dialogue between Amos and Amaziah (7:10-17), which interprets the third vision (7:7-9), is followed by a fourth vision (8:1-3) with a further interpretative comment (8:4-14). Ripe for judgment, Yahweh reminds Israel exactly why they will face eventual calamity. God judges them for their economic practices and the greatest calamity they will experience is divine silence.

In the third vision Amos sees a basket of ripened summer fruit ready to eat (or sell). The fruit must be sold or eaten soon. The time for waiting has passed.

The “end” (the extremity, the end of the road) has arrived. Their sins have brought them to this point and God “will never again pass by them.” There is no more recourse; there will be no more delay. The decision has been made. Their festive temple songs will now become howls of distress and hurt as the dead bodies pile around them and are strewn over the land.

What is the appropriate human response in the midst of such horror? When the  ”end” arrives, the prophet calls for “stillness” or “silence.” “Hush,” says the prophet. Perhaps the silence is a reverence for God, maybe even an avoidance. Perhaps it is shock as people look at the devastation around them. Whatever the case, horror begets silence as there is literally nothing to say in the face of such tragic circumstances. It is over; there is nothing more to say.

But Amos does not want to leave Israel without a rationale or some idea of what to expect. The third vision is interpreted by a chiastic oracle (“Hear this,” 8:4).

Rationale for Judgment (8:4-6): Economic Injustice

Description of Judgment (8:7-8): Land Trembles.

From Feasting to Mourning (8:9-10):  Lament

Description of Judgment (8:11-12): Divine Silence

Rationale for Judgment (8:13-14): Idolatry

Two rationales for judgment, seemingly always present in Amos, resurface in this interpretation.  One is economic injustice and the other is idolatry.

Amos complains that Israel’s economic practices oppressed the poor. The prophet identifies the specific practice of lightening the ephah (which measures grain) and weighting the shekel (which measures silver). When merchants use unfair weights and measures, they buy and sell to their own interests. Archeological remains in Tirzah demonstrate that sometimes merchants used two different weights–one for selling and one for buying (cf. Mays, Amos, 144). Prohibitions in the Torah, as well as in Ancient Near Eastern codes, demonstrate that this was a common practice (cf. Leviticus 19:35-36; Deuteronomy 25:13-16).

With such economic advantages, merchants did not like to close their shops on New Moons or Sabbaths. They were more interested in economic gain than they were worship or devotion. Indeed, they targeted the poor and needy as the object of their greed. As Shank (pp. 282-3) points out in his College Press commentary, the merchants short-changed the poor, charged excessive prices, cheated with false measures and weights, forced the poor into slavery who could not pay their debts, and sold inferior quality goods (even the “sweepings” along with the grain). This is called the “pride of Jacob” (Amos 8:7).

“I will never forget their deeds.” I wonder if this should not give the American economic system, or any economic system, pause for introspection.  If God will never forget how the poor and needy were oppressed, cheated, and sold inferior goods for the sake of profit or gain, Americana–including global economics–should “hear this word” of the Lord. If economic practices bring judgment–and this is what Amos specifies rather than sexual immorality–American Evangelicals should heed the warning as they protest the demise of “Christian America” while the poor are caught in the middle of the American economic machine.

Amos, however, does identify a further sin other than economic injustice. The bottom of the chiasm references idolatry. As the people thirst for water due to the judgment of God (ironic in that the judgment is pictured as a flood), the people who swear by the gods (“Guilt”) of Samaria from Dan to Beersheba will know the terror of the Lord. Idolaters will fall, “and never rise again.” Dan in the north and Beersheba in the south (Amos 5:5) were idolatrous worship centers much like Bethel (located in the middle of Palestine). Divine judgment will cleanse Israel of its idolatry. Those who swear by these false gods may look to them, but they will receive no help…either from them or from Yahweh who is now silent.

Amos uses two metaphors to describe the judgment. First, the land will tremble as it is flooded with judgment. Just as the Nile rises and falls every year in Egypt, so the flood of judgment will pour over the land of Israel. The result will be mourning and lamentation.

The second metaphor Amos uses is a famine, but this is not a lack of bread  or water. Rather, it is the silence of God. Israel will get its wish. Just as Amaziah told Amos to leave as they had no interest in his message, so Yahweh will no longer send prophets among the people to warn them of the coming judgment. The flood of judgment will be accompanied by the silence of God. They will want to hear from God and they will seek a word, but God has already spoken and will speak no more to Israel in the context of this judgment.

The middle of the chiasm is striking. Judgment day is a day of mourning. The day is catastrophic–darkness will envelop the land at noon and their festive celebrations will turn into mourning. Everyone will wear the sackcloth of lamentation and shave their heads as they weep. The mourning will be so great it will be as if everyone in the nation is mourning the death of an only son. Lament and bitterness will fill the day; nothing will alleviate the pain and hurt. Israel, which should have mourned for its sins, will now mourn its dead.

The northern kingdom’s sins–unjust economic practices and idolatry–spelled its doom as a national entity. Those categories are important to God–it is about the poor and justice as well as about loyalty and allegiance. “I will never forget any of their deeds” should ring in our ears as a warning to all nations that economic justice and allegiance to the kingdom of God are primary concerns for God.

The Christian Faith, instead of absorbing the cultural values of its context, should embrace the message of Amos and speak prophetically to a culture for whom economics and allegiance are more about self and the nation than about the poor and God.

2 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Amos 7:1-6 — Intercession and Divine Relenting

April 4, 2013

This text begins the fourth major section of Amos which contains five visions (Amos 7:1-9:10). While the structure of this part of Amos is variously understood, the five visions form the heart of its message:

1. Locust (7:1-3)
2. Fire (7:4-6)
3. Plumb Line (7:7-9).
4. Summer Fruit (8:1-3).
5. Pillars (9:1).

Amos “sees” the future, intercedes for Israel, and Yahweh responds. The vision of the future Yahweh gives Amos is negative, filled with loss, and destruction. Amos pleads for Israel in the hope that Yahweh may yet relent.

As a result this section of Amos is dialogical and autobiographical. Amos exercises the covenant privilege of intercession. Yahweh honors that faithful address. Yahweh listens, considers, and responds. A major point of this last section, then, hears Amos’s fervent pleas for Israel as Amos laments the future and seeks to intercede for Israel. This last part of Amos, therefore, evidences the relational nature of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel as one of Yahweh’s prophets represents Israel rather than prosecuting them. While previously Amos was Yahweh’s prosecutor as Amos indicted them for their sins and announced their judgment, now Amos pleads with Yahweh for mercy on Israel’s behalf. The prophet mediates the relationship between Yahweh and Israel.

In these first two visions Yahweh responds positively to Amos’s intercession. Yahweh relents and decides to forego the implementation of the visions he showed Amos. Yahweh opens the future to Amos and reveals what the Lord of the covenant is about to do. In both cases Amos pleads for forgiveness and Yahweh relents. Yahweh changes the future.

In the first vision Amos sees a swarm of locust devour the spring crop just as the king has been given the first fruits. Locust (grasshoppers) eat the crops that were intended for humans and they appear at the most hopeful moment–the king has his share (to support the state and military) and the people are about to receive their portion. At this point Amos sees the arrival of an army of locust to devastate the land. A famine will ensue as their is no crop and no grass for the livestock.

In the second vision Amos sees a fiery judgment that consumes the land. “Fire” was a common judgment metaphor in Amos 1-2 and here it probably refers to a heat wave that will dry up the water in the land. In other words, this is not a Sodom and Gomorrah event, but rather than drought that will thoroughly dry up life in the land.

In response to both visions Amos pleads, “Yahweh God, please forgive (or cease)” because Jacob is too “small.” Jacob will not survive such an onslaught.    “Small” is an interesting word has it has a semantic range of young or insignificant as well as referring to size. Probably size is the main reference such that an extensive famine or drought would totally annihilate the population of Israel.  Does not the God of Israel want Israel to survive? Implicitly, there may be an allusion to the covenant promises of God.

The intercession makes a case, as did Moses in Exodus 32. Israel will not survive because it is too small. God, don’t you want Israel to survive? Do you intend to totally annihilate your people, the remnant of the house of Israel? The intercession pleads for another way, and God chooses another option which yet might leave a remnant in the land. He chooses to send Assyria rather than a famine or drought (as Amos 1-6 testifies).

In response to both intercessions Yahweh “relented,” declaring that what Amos saw will not happen. The future will be different from what Yahweh showed Amos. The future is open in some sense as Yahweh shows Amos two possible ways in which the Lord might judge Israel. Amos’s intercession moves God to go a different route.

“Relented” (7:3, 6) is an important word in the Hebrew Scriptures. It describes Yahweh’s grief over the sinfulness of the antediluvian world (Genesis 6:6-7; cf. 1 Samuel 15:35), part of Moses’s intercession that God would adjust the end that was decided for Israel (Exodus 32:14; cf. Jeremiah 26:3, 19; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2), that Yahweh would have compassion on Israel (Deuteronomy 32:36; cf. Judges 21:15; Psalm 135:14), that Yahweh decided against an earlier intent to destroy Jerusalem (2  Samuel 24:16; 1 Chronicles 21:15), that Yahweh would show pity by adjusting the present predicament (Psalm 90:13), and that Yahweh does not change the determination made (1 Samuel 15:11; Psalm 110:4; Ezekiel 24:14).

The Hebrew term basically means “change.” The context must determine the nature of the change or the kind of change. For example, God changed from delighting in the good creation to grieving the sinful Noahic world (Genesis 6:6-7). God changed from a determination to destroy Israel and renew it through Moses in response to the prayer of Moses (Exodus 32:14). God changed from anger to compassion (Deuteronomy 32:36). And sometimes Yahweh remains committed to a previous intent and the Lord will not change or choose a different course (1 Samuel 15:11).

The intercessions of Amos presume that, as far as Amos is concerned and as far as we can see from our limited and finite perspective, Yahweh listens and that Yahweh might relent (change). The vision was not determinative, but a possibility.  Yahweh showed Amos the future, but then Yahweh changed the future. Yahweh was going to do one thing but now, in response to prayer, Yahweh does something different.

Whatever our theories about the divine nature, we pray like Amos prays. We intercede in the hope that God might act in certain ways. We pray in the hope that God might listen and respond to our prayers. We pray with the real possibility that God might say, “Yes.” We make our case in prayer and leave it in the hands of God, trusting that God will work out the divine purpose in whatever happens.

But does not God always know what is best? Should we not simply pray, “your will be done” and accept whatever comes? That is certainly possible, but it does not appear to be the way God made the world or us. This Amos text indicates the prayer (intercession) has meaning and power. It can change God’s mind.

Maybe it is better to think of this covenantal relationship in the context of God’s creative intent. God created us as partners (junior partners, to be sure) in the world. We co-rule with God; we co-create with God. We create the future with God. The relational nature of this journey is cooperative though we always acknowledge God as the sovereign Lord (as Amos does).

Prayer is one of the ways history moves forward; it is one of the ways we create the future with God. This is part of the honor and glory God has given to humanity as we represent (image) God within the creation.

7 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Amos 5:18-27: The First Woe

March 21, 2013

This text begins the third major section of Amos. In the first section (Amos 1-2) the prophet addressed eight nations and climaxed his message with an extended application to Israel. In the second section (Amos 3:1-5:17) the prophet declares the word of the Lord in three brief speeches (“hear this word” in 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1) as he focused on the coming divine visitation, its rationale, and lament. Now, in this third section, Amos offers two prophetic woes against Israel. The first is found in Amos 5:18-27 and the second in Amos 6:1-14.

Each Woe oracle contains two components.  Each begins with the Woe itself and is then followed by a further pronouncement. The first Woe (5:18-20) is followed by an indictment (5:21-27) while the second Woe (6:1-7) is followed by a judgment proclamation (6:8-14).

Woe oracles function as either curses, warnings, or both. Woes pronounce judgment but at the same time warn about participation in the community to which the Woe is addressed.  Woes, then, are both exhortations and imprecations.

The Woe (5:18-20).  The first Woe declares the nature of the “day of Yahweh.” Apparently many are hoping and yearning for that day. They are under the illusion that the day will be good for them. Perhaps they believe that the “day of Yahweh” will be the day when God defeats the nations that surround them or that day will secure their safety, wealth, or power. Whatever they imagined that day to be or its circumstances, they believed its arrival would be in their own self-interest. But they are mistaken and deluded.

For Israel the “day of Yahweh” is darkness rather than light. It will not be redemption but judgment. It will not be a day of light as in the day of creation when everything is new or renewed. Rather, it will be a day of darkness, a day of chaos, death and destruction. This is uncreation, the reversal of creation itself. Though God created Israel, he will now uncreate them.

Further, the effects of the day, like the day itself, will be unavoidable. One might think they could run from it like they might run from a lion, but they will only meet a bear instead. They may even arrive home and think the danger has passed only to be bitten by a snake in the security of their own home. There is no escape. Yahweh’s day will come and it will complete its work despite all human attempts to avoid, flee, or escape it.

The Indictment (5:21-27). The structure of the indictment is: “I hate this…but I want this!” God hates their festive celebrations of divine grace through the sacrificial system, but he wants justice and righteousness to flow over the nation like an everlasting life-giving stream of water.

What does God hate? We must be careful that we do not miss the rhetorical intent here. We could literalize this in such a way that God hates all (1) assemblies, (2) sacrifices, and (3) music. Of course, God does not hate any of these per se. Each of these are present in the life of Israel as prescribed responses to God’s grace in their lives. The Torah directs Israel  to assemble (Leviticus 23:26) and sacrifice (Leviticus 1-7). The use of music–both singing and playing–was present at least from the time of David forward (2 Chronicles 7:6; Amos 6:5) and is part of the Psalter (Psalm 150). God did not literally hate or despise these; indeed, God enjoyed them as Israel assembled in the presence of God (Deuteronomy 27:6-7).

So, what does God hate? The contrast answers the question. God hates assemblies that lack justice. He hates Israel’s assemblies because they approach  God with hands stained with injustice. God refuses sacrifices from those who do not practice righteousness. God stops his ears to music played by a community that neglects or oppresses the poor. God desires assemblies, sacrifices and music, but they must flow from a people who practice justice and righteousness.

But what is “justice” and “righteousness” in this context? This is the language of Amos 5:7. The words are primarily focused on how the community treats the poor and needy among them. The larger meaning is ethical. Justice has a broad sense of practicing the ethical intent of the Torah while righteousness has the sense of doing what is right (ethical). In general, God desires a people whose ethic reflects God’s own and the practical effects of that lived ethic flows like water through a thirsty community.

The practice of injustice subverts true religion and invalidates religiosity . Assemblies, sacrifices and music offered by those who fail to practice righteousness are rejected.

The rhetorical question of Amos 5:25 solidifies the point. The expected answer to the question is “No.” Amos believes that during the forty years of wilderness wandering Israel offered no sacrifices. It appears the sacrificial system was designed for living in the land of promise and not for the wilderness experience. Whatever the history, Amos’s point is rather obvious. God’s covenantal relationship with Israel did not depend on their assemblies, sacrifices and music. Rather, it is expressed through covenant faithfulness to justice and righteousness.

Indeed, Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness is not only about injustice and unrighteousness but also their idolatry. Whether Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:42-43), in the present, in the future exile “beyond Damascus” (Assyria) worshipped the Babylonian gods Sikkuth and Kaiwan, they will be exiled because of their covenant unfaithfulness. They did not honor the name of Yahweh who is the God of the armies of heaven. Yahweh is the Creator God who rules the nations. To worship any other god is to break covenant.

This Woe oracle speaks to the heart of worship. God delights in assemblies, sacrifices of praise, and music, but these are expressions of worship rather than its heart. The heart of worship is the practice of justice and righteousness; it is a sacrificed life devoted to good works. God delights in praise and sacrifices of assembled practitioners of justice, but despises those who assemble before him with spoils gained from the neglect or the oppression of the poor.

Let whoever has an ear to hear, listen to the word of the Lord.

Leave a Comment » | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Amos 5:1-17: Admonition and Lament for Israel

March 14, 2013

This is the third of Amos’s three prophetic speeches against Israel. They each begin with “Hear this word” (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). The first announced God’s coming visit in judgment against Israel. The second highlighted divine patience and persistence in seeking to turn Israel from its sins. The third is a divine admonition and lament for Israel.

Harold Shank (College Press NIV Commentary), adapting a chiastic outline from Waard in Vetus Testamentum (1997) 170-177, suggests this structure for Amos’s oracle:

First Lament (1-3)

First Admonition (4-6)

First Accusation (7)

Hymn (8a)

Yahweh is the Name (8b)

Hymn (9)

Second Accusation (10-13)

Second Admonition (14-15)

Second Lament (16-17)

This chiastic structure climaxes in the announcement of the name of Israel’s God in 5:8b. This the centerpiece of the oracle. “Yahweh is his name!” In effect, this is a doxological battle cry. The language is exactly the same as in Exodus 15:3:  ”Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.” This is the God of the Exodus who delivered Israel from Egyptian slavery (cf. Amos 3:1). The Warrior God who fought to deliver Israel now warns Israel about the coming disaster.

Hymns. “Yahweh is his name” is also a doxological praise (cf. Amos 9:6). The exclamation is surrounded by hymnic lines that remind Israel that Yahweh creates both good and evil (disaster; cf. Isaiah 45:7; Amos 9:4). Yahweh made the constellations that appear in the heavens–Pleiades is part of the constellation Taurus and Orion (also known as “the hunter”) is a bright constellation. Both are visible to the naked eye (Job 9:9; 38:31). Yahweh also rules over the morning and night–God turns the darkness into morning and the day into night. God rules over good and evil (chaos), over light and darkness. Yahweh also rules over the chaos of the seas; indeed, Yahweh pours out the water upon the earth. God is sovereign over chaos. With chaos Yahweh destroys the strong, even those fortified behind their seemingly impregnable walls (fortresses). The chaos that will envelope Israel is no coincidence; it is the work of the Creator God who releases the forces of chaos against Israel.

Accusations.  Israel’s problem is “justice” and “righteousness.” Just as God “turns deep darkness into the morning” (5:8), so Israel “turns justice in wormwood” or bitterness (5:7)–the same Hebrew verb is used in both instances. Israel’s core problem is injustice; this is the accusation upon which their destruction turns. But what is the injustice? While the first accusation introduces the idea (5:7), the second accusation articulates the specifics (5:10-13).

The second Hebrew term in Amos 5:10 is the next to last Hebrew term in Amos 5:12–”gate.” Everything Amos notes between those two terms happens at the “gate.” The city gate is the place where the elders and other leaders met to consider issues of justice and adjudicate legal problems (cf. Deuteronomy 21:19; 22:15; 25:7; Job 5:4; 31:21; Psalm 127:5). But justice does not prevail in the gates of Israel. Rather, they

hate whoever reproves them
abhor whoever speaks the truth
trample on the poor
exact portions [taxes?] on grain from the poor
afflict the righteous
turn aside the needy

The above six lines appear in three pairs. The first pair emphasizes the inability of the leaders to hear the truth; they cannot stand to be corrected. They are not interested in the truth but in profit. The second pair specifies a particular way in which the poor are mistreated. The leaders exact “portions” from the poor. In some way, they demand the poor make payments of grain in order to continue in their livelihood. This may be excessive rents on land owned, perhaps previously seized through unjust means, by the wealthy. It may be excessive taxation that hurts the poor. The third pair reminds the reader of Amos 2:7 where the poor are trampled and the afflicted are turned aside (same Hebrew verb as here in 5:12). The same pair of words–righteous and needy–also appear in Amos 2:6 and 8:6. “Needy” is a general synonym for poor (cf. Isaiah 14:30; Jeremiah 29:16). The city leaders are not willing to hear the plight of the poor and give them justice. Instead, they take bribes from the wealthy and dismiss the poor.

These conditions create societal chaos at many levels. One is specifically noted in Amos 5:13.  The prudent (or wise) will remain silent during such chaotic and unpredictable times. When justice does not prevail–when evil reigns–the wise will keep to themselves. It is too dangerous to speak and speaking is ineffective. This is a social consequence of pervasive injustice. This silence is not necessarily sanctioned, but it is acknowledged. This is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

The accusation includes consequences. Though they have built “hewn” stone houses and planted extravagant or desirable vineyards, they will never enjoy them. Their wealth and power enabled them to build houses out of “hewn” stone which assumes skilled labor. Such homes and vineyards were status symbols in ancient Israel. But, ultimately, their injustices will not pay out. Their sins will found them out.

Admonitions.  ”Seek” is the key word in the admonitions. It is used four times in Amos 5:4-6, 14. It is an aggressive term that reflects orientation and direction. What or whom will one seek? The choice is laid out for Israel:  seek Yahweh or seek Bethel (including its complements–Gilgal and Beersheba). The former leads to life, but the latter leads to exile, destruction, and death. The fire of destruction that characterized the consequences described in Amos 1-2 returns in Amos 5:6.

Life, however, is offered. The verb is used three times in Amos 5:4, 6, 14. While the nation has no hope, this does not translate into hopelessness. The Lord may yet be gracious in astounding ways, especially to the “remnant of Joseph.” Even as the Lord passes through Israel and leaves destruction in the wake, God’s grace will overflow to the remnant that seeks God. Amos once again reminds Israel of God’s faithfulness by using language that evokes memories of the Patriarchs. Just as God was present among them, so he will be “with” those who seek him (cf. Genesis 12:4; 17:3; 26:24; 39:3). This is the covenantal promise to which God is faithful.

Seeking Yahweh, however, is not merely avoiding idolatrous worship at Bethel. It is to love good and hate evil (Amos 5:15). Specifically, it is to “establish justice in the gate.” In other words, Israel must practice justice in its courts, uphold the rights of the poor, and serve the needy. One cannot seek Yahweh when they ignore or neglect the needs of the poor. Seeking Yahweh includes practicing social justice.

Laments. Israel will weep and mourn because, Yahweh declares, “I will pass through your midst” (5:17; cf. Amos 8:10). This is ominous language. In Israel’s past history, Yahweh “passed through the land of Egypt” in order to kill Egypt’s firstborn (Exodus 12:12, 23). Now Yahweh will pass through Israel with devastating effect. Every vineyard, farm, street and square (open spaces near the city gate) will be filled with lamentation.

But Amos himself, as the mouthpiece of Yahweh, begins the lament. The speech opens with God’s own lament over Israel. Even though Israel yet exists as a nation, the prophetic lament assumes its fall is a reality. Israel will not rise again as there is no one to help her. 90% of Israel–a metaphorical number–will disappear. Though they send out an army of 1000, only 100 will return. Israel is about to face a slaughter.

Yahweh does not deliver this message with a smile. God is not happy about these circumstances. Nevertheless, the God who loves righteousness must prosecute injustice in the land. God will act; God will set things right. Though patient and longsuffering, God ultimately does what is right.

God’s own lament evidences the divine pain as Yahweh grieves over Israel and, at the same time, Yahweh grieves for the poor and needy who have suffered at the hands of the powerful in Israel.

Amos calls us to grieve with him over both the sins and destruction of the wicked. The prophet calls us to social justice. “Seek good and hate evil” is to “seek” Yahweh.

Leave a Comment » | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 965 other followers

%d bloggers like this: