Amos 3:9-15 — An Oracle of Divine Punishment, Part 2

February 28, 2013

The second major section of Amos (chapters 3-5) contains three oracles describing the punishment, sin and lament of the northern kingdom of Israel. Each begins with “Hear this word!” (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). In many ways, this is the heart of Amos’s work as it lays out Yahweh’s case against Israel. We might even imagine Amos as a prosecutor who presses the case against Israel as a defendant.

The first oracle is titled by a superscription (3:1) followed by the divine announcement of punish exactly because they are God’s elect nation (3:2). The rest of the oracle describes the nature and rationale for this divine punishment (3:3-15).

Superscription: Yahweh Addresses Redeemed Israel (3:1).

Premise:  Yahweh punishes Israel because they are elect (3:2).

1.  Yahweh is responsible for the coming disaster (3:3-8).

2.  The nations will witness Israel’s destruction (3:9-12).

3.  Israels economic and religious centers will topple (3:13-15).

In the first post on this oracle, Amos–compelled by the voice of God–announces that the coming disaster is from Yahweh. God has decided to “visit” (or punish) Israel in judgment rather than grace (Amos 3:3-8). God intends disaster rather than blessing. Amos is a roaring lion that warns Israel that God is coming.

The second movement in this oracle announces that the nations will witness and execute God’s plan against Israel (3:9-12). The nations are first called to assemble and “see.” Specifically,

Proclaim
to the strongholds in Ashdod
 to the strongholds in Egypt

say [to them], “Assemble on the ridges of Samaria and
     see the great tumults in her,
     see the oppressed in her.”

Why are Ashdod (Philistia) and Egypt specified? Egypt is missing from the previous list of nations in Amos 1-2. There is probably something about them that remind Israel of their history. Perhaps it is the memory of slavery in Egypt (already noted in Amos 3:1) and the idolatrous reputation of Ashdod (1 Samuel 5:1-6). Perhaps, as Harold Shank suggests in his NIV College Press Commentary, their reputations for cruelty are in play. Yahweh summons barbarous nations to see the ruthlessness of Israel. These malicious nations will testify to the presence of evil within Israel. As Shank notes, “Amos pictures the Hitlers and Stalins of the ancient world shaking their heads at the atrocities in Samaria” (p. 233).

What do they see? They see confusion (“unrest”) and oppression within Israel. The term “unrest” or “tumults” is a Hebrew term that denotes panic or terror that is the opposite of shalom (cf. 2 Chronicles 15:5). Israel is filled with fear; they are terrorized. The term “oppression” describes the burdens about which humans cry out and desperately seek help (cf. Job 35:9). Given that Amos plays out these themes of fear and oppression later in this work, the picture portrays a city whose poor are filled with fear and cry out for relief (cf. Amos 6:3-6; 8:4-6).

The nature of this fear and oppression is partly explained by Yahweh’s comment on the situation in Amos 3:10.  ”Violence and robbery” (NRSV) or “violence and extortion” (NJB) characterize Samaria, according to Yahweh. “They do not know how to do right.” Instead of justice (cf.Isaiah 59:14), they treasure up the spoils of their violence in their citadels so that they might live in splendor and ease. Their only concern is for themselves; they have no mercy for the poor and needy.

Yet, what they have stored up will be “plundered” (Amos 3:12). Because they have not pursued justice but have looted the poor, an unidentified hostile nation will plunder their strongholds. Egypt and Ashdod will bear witness to this. Israel will not be able to resist the onslaught of the adversary that will come to loot and dispossess it. Israel will face divine judgment because it did “not know how to do right,” that is, it did not practice justice.

The destruction will be so thorough that it is compared to a shepherd who returns from the fields with the evidence that a sheep was eaten by an animal rather than stolen by a human. The lion–the national adversary–will completely devour its prey–Israel–so that there is little left. The latter part of Amos 3:12 contains a translation difficulty that involves how to point the Hebrew text (the vowels supplied to the Hebrew consonants) among other matters. This need not detain us but the difference is evident when one reads the NIV (“Damascus”) compared with the  NRSV (“bed”). Whatever the case, the rhetorical significance is clear: only a marginal part of those who “sit” or “dwell” in Samaria will be rescued from the lion that will devour the nation. The nation itself will not survive.

The third movement of this first oracle identifies the primary culprits of this inability to “do right” in the land (Amos 3:13-15). They are those who worship at the “altars of Bethel” and live in the “great houses” of Israel. The idolators and powerful enjoy their wealth while the poor languish in oppression.

The courtroom metaphor is explicit here. Amos is to “testify” against Israel. This is a legal attestation (cf. Isaiah 8:2; Jeremiah 32:10, 25; Malachi 2:14; Psalm 50:7). It functions as a legal warning. Devastation awaits Israel.

Their religious centers will disappear. The “horns of the altar,” which are a last place of refuge, will be “cut off” and thrown to the ground. To cut the horns off an altar is to desecrate it so that it became useless for religious purposes. Bethel–the religious center which Jeroboam, the first king of Israel, erected–will cease to exist. [The image pictures a reconstruction of the altar that was found at Beersheba.] The altar was also a place where people would seek refuge (Exodus 21:13-14; 1 Kings 1:50; 2:28). With their altars destroyed, there will be no refuge for Israel.Horns of the altar

Not only will the religious centers fall, but the “great houses” will fall. Such houses are described as “large and beautiful” (cf. Isaiah 5:9). They are filled with luxury, including ivory. They are not merely the homes needed for shelter and warmth, but they are the homes of the wealthy. The have “winter” and “summer” houses. The poor experienced fear and oppression through violence and extortion that the wealthy might live comfortably in their multiple homes and worship at their idolatrous altars.

These are the sins for which God will “visit” Israel in judgment. God will bring disaster upon the nation. He will punish rather than bless.

The call to “hear” the word of the Lord rings as true today as it did then. God still loves the poor and “visits” oppressors.

O people of God, “hear the word of the Lord.”

3 Comments | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Amos 3:1-8 — An Oracle of Divine Punishment, Part I

February 20, 2013

The first two chapters of Amos set Israel’s sins within an international context.  As they heard Amos condemn one after another of their regional neighbors they were no doubt alarmed that Israel was included in the list and received the most attention. Israel is the focus of Amos’s concern.

The second major section of Amos (chapters 3-5) contains three oracles describing the punishment, sin and lament of the northern kingdom of Israel. Each begins with “Hear this word!” (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). In many ways, this is the heart of Amos’s work as it lays out Yahweh’s case against Israel.

The first oracle is titled by a superscription (3:1) followed by the divine announcement of punish exactly because they are God’s elect nation (3:2). The rest of the oracle describes the nature and rationale for this divine punishment (3:3-15).

Superscription: Yahweh Addresses Redeemed Israel (3:1).

Premise:  Yahweh punishes Israel because they are elect (3:2).

1.  Yahweh is responsible for the coming disaster (3:3-8).

2.  The nations will witness Israel’s destruction (3:9-12).

3.  Israels economic and religious centers will topple (3:13-15).

The opening address–the most extensive opening of the three oracles–reminds Israel that their identity was formed by the Exodus. God had “brought them up out of the land of Egypt” (cf. Exodus 32:7; 33:1; Amos 9:7). The superscription locates Israel as the recipient of divine grace. They are a redeemed people and yet God now must say something “against” (used twice) them.

Yahweh is not originally hostile to Israel. Quite the opposite! Israel, as a redeemed people, is the only “family” among all the “families of the earth” that God has “known.” God “knew” Israel so that “all the families of the earth” would be blessed (Genesis 12:3 uses the same Hebrew phrase that Amos uses here). This knowledge is not the same as the term “elect” or “chosen,” but is a more intimate or relational term. Yahweh had become intimate with Israel; Yahweh had revealed the divine presence to Israel. Yahweh communed with them. They shared life together.

It is precisely because God knew Israel that God determines to punish them. Their blessed identity as God’s family–the one whom God has known out of all the families of the earth–entails deep responsibility.  Their identity (people redeemed through the Exodus) and intimacy (God knows them) means that God holds them responsible for their way of life. Instead of becoming a light to the nations and blessing them, they followed the nations by embracing their values of wealth and power. Amos will point out some of these particulars in the second oracle (Amos 4).

The verb “punish” is typically translated in the older translations as “visit.”  God visits  Israel. Here, however, God comes (visits) in judgment.  The verb is also used twice in Amos 3:14. This divine visitation is equivalent to punishment, a judgment against the sins of Israel. Though elect, Israel is not immune to the historical processes of divine judgment.

Amos leaves no doubt that Yahweh is responsible for the disaster that is coming upon Israel. It is, in fact, a result of cause and effect.  But it is not a mechanical cause and effect as if it is impersonal and mechanistic in its outworking. Rather, it is a divine response to the sins of Israel. Israel has sinned and now Yahweh responds. The one who “knows” Israel now “visits” her in judgment.

Amos uses a series of six images to lead us to the climactic point of the seventh. Each is a matter of cause and effect, or perhaps better, it is ground and response.

Two walk together because they have agreed to meet.
The lion roars because it has caught its dinner.
The young cub cries because something has been taken from it.
A bird is entrapped because a snare has been set.
A snare has sprung because something has been taken.
The people are afraid because the trumpet has sounded.

Point: Disaster came to a city because Yahweh did it (3:6b).

Disaster (ra’ah) is a common word in the Hebrew Scriptures which is variously translated evil, trouble or disaster. It may refer to moral evil (Jeremiah 3:5; 23:10) or it may refer to destruction (Jeremiah 4:6; 11:29). As disaster or destruction, it is “evil” in terms of the trouble and devastation effected. As Amos later writes, divine punishment (the captivity, see Amos 9:10) is intended for “evil (ra’ah) and not for good” (Amos 9:4). It is intended to destroy rather than bless. In this sense, God can bring “evil” upon a sinful people; he can curse rather than bless.

Amos clarifies the origin of the disaster so that Israel will not mistake what is happening. Yahweh does not want Israel to misinterpret the coming calamity. Israel might think of the disaster as unlucky, accidental or ill-fated.  But, says Yahweh, it is purposeful. God sends a messenger–Amos the prophet–to interpret the misfortune for them and reveal the divine purpose (secret or counsel). The prophets, including Amos, have stood in the divine council and received the interpretation of God’s visitation (cf. the use of the same Hebrew term in Jeremiah 23:18, 22). Through the prophets, Yahweh describes what he is doing, why he is doing and what the significance is for Israel. This is, in essence, the function of the text of Amos.

Just as the disaster is a divine response to Israel’s sins, so the prophet’s words are a response to the voice of God. Just as people are afraid when they hear a lion roar, so the prophets must speak when they hear the voice of God. Amos, then, is compelled to speak the message and announce God’s “visitation” upon Israel. Amos interprets the divine “visitation.”

A text like this causes us to wonder whether God is still engaged in such activity today.  It is not unique to Israel since such judgment is also announced against the nations surrounding Israel in chapters 1-2. Further, it seems that such judgments are still active in the Apocalypse (Revelation) where divine visitations still fall upon nations and fell upon Jerusalem itself in 70 C.E.

Might such disasters continue into the present by the hand of God? It is certainly possible, perhaps even probable. Maybe certain. But the problem is that we have no prophetic voices like Amos who have stood in the council of God to interpret those events for us. Without a sure and certain prophetic word, who can interpret the nature of a disaster that hits a city? I think must live with the ambiguity rather than project our own agenda onto the disaster.

Whatever the origin of a disaster and whatever its meaning, what we can hear in Amos is that the sort of sins with which God is displeased might lead to a divine visitation…whether upon Edom, or Israel, or the United States.

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

Job 8: Bildad Takes a Stab at Job

September 16, 2011

Whatever God does is just. God destroyed your life. Therefore, you deserved it.  That is a summary of Bildad’s response to Job’s harrowing lament and plea for wisdom as well as sympathy from his friends in Job 6-7. The hidden premise is that God only destroys the life of the wicked. Somebody, somewhere sinned.

With shocking pastoral insensitivity Bildad blames Job’s children for their own demise (8:4).

When your children sinned against him, he gave them over to the penalty of their sin.

Bildad applies the doctrine of retribution to Job’s children (8:2-7). As readers we know that the sins of the children had nothing–in terms of the Prologue–to do with their deaths. Even more Job had religiously sacrificed for their sins, but–in Bildad’s mind–to no effect. Bildad clearly sees the “justice” of God (8:3). It has to make sense to him; there must be a just, rational explanation for the death of children. That round peg has to fit into the square hole Bildad has been given it.

Bildad extends Eliphaz’s theme, the datum of his visionary experience (4:17).  Can a person be more righteous/pure than God?  God does not pervert righteousness/justice (8:3) and if Job will turn again to righteousness/purity, then God will make his ending better than his beginning (8:5).

Bildad, therefore, like Eliphaz before him, holds out some hope for Job.

If….if….if…you will do better, Job; if you will become more righteous; if you will repent; “if you will look to God and plead with the Almighty,” “if you are pure and upright,” then God, “even now,” will “restore you to your rightful place.” “Your beginnings,” Bildad promises, “will seem humble, so prosperous will your future be” (Job 8:5-7).  Job could possibly expect–if he repents–”laughter” and “joy” once again while the “tents of the wicked” disappear (Job 8:20-22).

Between the two exhortations to repent (8:5-7 and 8:20-22), our friendly theologian–based on the wisdom of the ages–points to the fragility of those who “forget God” (8:13). They are fragile because they trust in what is fragile. They wither and die like rootless plants or blow away like houses built by spiders. They have no hope (8:13).

Bildad’s closing “wisdom” is particularly problematic from Job’s standpoint.  According to Bildad, God does not “reject a blameless person or strengthen the hands of evildoers” (8:20). How ironic!  Job is “blameless”, at least according to the Prologue (1:1,8; 2:3), which uses the same Hebrew word. And it was God who put Job into the satan’s hands as well (1:12; 2:6). God, in fact, did strengthen the hands of the one who attacked Job.

So, there are two choices; there are only two scenarios in Bildad’s mind. Bildad confirms God’s quid pro quo arrangement with humanity and encourages Job to embrace the profit of righteous living. Life is about equity and fairness–God will treat us just as we deserve. If we sin, he will condemn us. If we are pure, he will bless us. It’s that simple, right?

Job does not think so.

Moreover, in the framework of this poetic drama, if Job follows Bildad’s wisdom, then the satan was right after all–human beings are only interested in profit. Job will repent to get back his life even when he thinks he is innocent.

But Job won’t do that.

1 Comment | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Jesus’ Eyes: Do You Know “the Look”?

October 30, 2008

One of the most vivid scenes in Luke is Peter’s 3x denial, particularly “the look.”

         ”The Lord turned around and looked straight at Peter” (Luke 22:61, GNB).

The verbs are intensive, descriptive, and full of significance.  “Turned around,” which is actually a participle in the Greek text, involves twisting or reversing; it is turning the back 180% degrees. Jesus turned around–he “converted” as the term is sometimes translated–to look at Peter. But it was no mere glance; it was an intense gaze. Jesus looked at Peter with piercing, discerning eyes.

         Turning his body toward Peter, the Lord’s eyes rested on Peter (JMH amplified).

The next verbs in Luke 22:61-62 describe Peter’s actions.  He “remembered” what Jesus had predicted about the denial….he went and wept bitterly.” Confronted with his betrayal, Peter “remembered.”  He then escaped; he ran away. And then he wailed violently–a visible, audible, wrenching sob. Peter, faced with his denial and memory, was a totally broken man. Remembering Jesus’ prediction–and, no doubt, his own insistence that it would never happen–he burst into tears.

What  did Peter see in the eyes of Jesus that pierced his heart?  What did those eyes tell him?

I think how we answer that question will probably say more about our own vision of God than it would Peter’s.  We can’t get inside of Peter’s head, but we can examine our own.  Our root image of God–perhaps one we learned in childhood, one that is at the core of our inner being–will probably shape how we “feel” this text.

We can easily imagine what Peter felt.  No doubt he felt shame and guilt.  We have all felt the same when confronted with our sins. That shame and guilt taps into something deep within us, and our core understanding of God will shape how we deal with it.

For some the eyes of Jesus may be primarily condemning. Peter sinned; he did not measure up. He did not keep the law; he betrayed a friend. The law condemns him, and Jesus condemns him. At the root of this perception is an angry God, a judge who strictly administers the law without mercy. Jesus, with these eyes, is insulted and offended.  “How dare Peter deny me!  I thought he was my friend!   Didn’t he say he would go to the death with me! He deserves whatever he gets!” This God is the Zeus who sits on the throne ready to cast his lightning bolts to earth on those who deserve his vengeance. These eyes convey no hope, no redemption. Unfortunately, they are the eyes that many have lived with for years, even when intellectually they know the story of grace much better than their guts will let them feel. It is what some got from their parents–a series of spankings, condemnations. They heard the message that they were bad kids and deserved punishment. Are these the eyes that met Peter’s eyes?

For others the eyes of Jesus may be primarily filled with disappointment. Peter disappointed Jesus; he had hoped for better.  Peter knew better; he knew he should not deny his Lord, but he did nevertheless. Peter had expectations of himself. Even if everyone else ran away, he would not.  He would die with Jesus if necessary. The disappointed eyes are the opposite of what Peter wanted. He wanted approval, praise, and honor. To feel Jesus’ disappointment means he was seeking Jesus’ commendation. It is what we often seek from parents as children; we don’t want to disappoint our parents. Some parents, when disappointed, shame their children.  “I knew you couldn’t do it.  Why can’t you be like Johnny? When will you ever learn?  Do I have to do everything myself? I can’t trust you with anything. I’ll have to finish what you could not complete.”  We tend to project this onto God so that he becomes like the shaming parent who voices disapproval, disappointment, and dissatisfaction. Are these the eyes that met Peter’s eyes?

At my core, my childhood images–images that I learned but surely few, if any, ever intentionally taught me–tend to see the eyes of an angry, disappointed God. My sin gave me a toxic shame that meant that I was worthless, a mistake, a screwup. I needed to get God’s approval, to get on his good side. I wanted God to like me and certainly not punish me. So, I needed to work harder, better, even faster…to do more, to do enough.

Intellectually, I know that last paragraph is bogus. Emotionally, however, it has been a different story. And so when I worked my way to a hellacious screwup (read: sin)–working for what I thought God wanted but actually working myself to death, even a spiritual death–I immediately felt God’s disappointment.  “John Mark, you should’ve known better.”  Or, “John Mark, how could you?!”  Or, “John Mark, what were you thinking?”

This week I have been meditating on these eyes–the eyes that pierced Peter’s heart.  I am Peter. What did Peter see?

I don’t think he saw condemning, judgmental eyes.  Neither do I think he saw disappointed eyes.  I think he saw sadness, a compassionate and hopeful sadness.  Jesus grieved for Peter. His eyes expressed sympathy and caring. They were redemptive eyes. Jesus is more interested in relationship with Peter than excluding, punishing or shaming Peter. Jesus reveals the divine loving parent who grieves over the failures of his children but does not give up on them. Peter saw in Jesus’ eyes his ongoing compassionate, forgiving, loving prayer that Peter would be strengthened by this experience and the hope in his eyes was the assurance that indeed Peter would.

In our betrayals, our sins, our denials, what do we see in the eyes of Jesus? With Peter we will remember and weep bitterly. That is understandable and healthy.  But also with Peter we may gain strength through the compassionate hope in those eyes.

In The Shack, Mack asked Papa: “honestly, don’t you enjoy punishing those who disappoint you?”  Papa “turned toward Mack” and with “deep sadness in her eyes,” said:  “I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it” (pp. 119-120).

I think Paul Young got that just about right. Intellectually, I understand it.  Emotionally, well, I’m learning.

Jesus’ eyes, though sad, anticipated the joy of redemption for Peter….and for me…for all of us.

16 Comments | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 942 other followers

%d bloggers like this: