John Mark Hicks

This is the second 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 while the third will voice lament. The second highlights divine patience and persistence in seeking to turn Israel from its sins.

While this second speech remembers Yahweh’s incessant attempts to hinder Israel’s sins, it also boldly announces that God’s patience has reached a limit. Even as Yahweh, through the prophet Amos, runs through a series of divine acts (4:6-11) intended to produce repentance, Yahweh sarcastically encourages Israel to continue its opulent lifestyle and idolatrous worship (4:1-5). God has had enough. The time for repentance is finished. Judgment is coming (4:12-13).

Yahweh Addresses Israel’s Wealthy Elite (4:1-5).

Amos begins where his last sermon ended–at Bethel and in the summer/winter homes (3:14-15)–but in reverse order. The connection between the end of the previous oracle and the beginning of the present one forms a B-A-A’-B’ structure. Amos moves from Bethel to “winter/summer homes” and then from “Bashan/Samaria” to Bethel. The allusions of 3:14-15 are explicit in 4:1-5.

Wealthy women who live in their winter and summer homes are like “cows of Bashan.” They are well-fed and lounging in luxury where their husbands or servants are pictured as wait on them. It is a life of ease in their “great houses” filled with ivory. But this wealth was acquired through the cruel oppression of the poor and needy. They have much because they have taken from those who have little (cf. Amos 2:7).

Amos mocks their religious observances. Bethel (Jeroboam I’s new worship center where he erected a golden calf) and Gilgal (apparently a worship center at the very place where Israel first camped in Canaan; Joshua 5:9) are places where Israel assembled to worship Yahweh though in idolatrous fashion. They practiced Torah. In fact, they practiced Torah in hyper-fashion.

Animal sacrifices were not required every morning, but they brought them every day. Tithes were only required every three years but they brought some every third day (Deuteronomy 14:28). They even burned leavened bread for their Thanksgiving sacrifices when only unleavened was required (Leviticus 2:11; 7:12-15). They publicly announced their Freewill offerings when that was not required (Leviticus 22:18-25). Whether Israel actually practiced this hyper-“obedience” is immaterial or whether Amos is mocking their devotion, Amos’s description ridicules their motive.

Israel worships Yahweh in this manner only to display their wealth. Yahweh rejects their worship, at least in part, because they gained their wealth by oppressing the poor. Their worship–even hyper-worship–had become a form of rebellion (transgression). They feigned the love of God while at the same time they failed to love their neighbor (poor).

Consequently, the women who now luxuriously recline in their great houses will be taken by fishhooks into captivity through openings in Samaria’s breached wall (4:2-3). Assyrians were known for using hooks in the noses of their captives to lead them into exile (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:11). The metaphor, however, is even more chilling. These women will be dragged out their great houses like fish out of the sea. They will be “cast out into Harmon” (Amos 4:3). Harmon is apparently some distant and unwelcome place, but contemporary scholarship has not been able to identify it. Some, however, think the name is a version of “Hermon” which would then refer to the peak that overlooks the fields of Bashan. It might mean that the women who, metaphorically, grazed Bashan in peace and splendor are now removed to the desolate peak of Hermon.

Yahweh Remembers the Warnings (4:6-11).

Five times Amos repeats the formulaic phrase: “yet you did not return to me, declares the Lord” (Amos 4:6, 8, 9, 10, 11). It is the final two lines in each of the descriptions of God’s interaction with Israel as Yahweh attempted to turn Israel from their sins. But Israel would not return to God.

Yahweh used famine (4:6), drought (4:7-8), crop devastation (4:9), disease and war (4:10), and tragic disasters (4:11) to persuade Israel. Each of these events originated in the will of God. “I gave” (4:6), “I withheld” (4:7), “I struck” (4:9), “I sent” (4:10), and “I overthrew” (4:11) clarify that God is responsible for these “evils” (cf. Amos 3:6).

While Yahweh intended them as warnings, Israel did not heed them. Perhaps they did not even recognize them as such. Israel failed to see the hand of God in these disasters and discern their meaning. The “evils,” however, should have reminded them of God’s past dealings with the nations in their own history. Such disasters should have become occasions for self-evaluation and introspection. Instead, they look elsewhere for their meaning.

Famine, drought, locust, pestilence like in Egypt and disasters like Sodom and Gomorrah are signals for how God has previously engaged nations as their own history recounts. The memories of Egypt and Sodom underscore God’s acts. Israel should have known but failed to listen to the voice of God in these moments.

God acted in Israel, as Yahweh had among the nations at various times, in order to lead them to repentance. The Apocalypse reminds us that God still moves among the nations for similar purposes (cf. Revelation 9:20-21; 16:9-11). Though we are unable to discern without prophetic insight the nature of God’s actions in the world, moments of pain and hurt are always appropriate for prayer, fasting and introspection. Being with God or returning to God are redemptive responses to “evils” in our lives.

Yahweh Announces Judgment (4:12-13).

As if to relieve all doubt, Yahweh announces that this is a divine judgment. “I will do this to you,” says the Lord. The coming disaster is no mere coincidence or freak of nature. It is an act of God.

The time for repentance , however, is now over. When the Lord says “prepare to meet your God, O Israel,” this is no invitation to repentance or even covenant renewal. Rather, as Paul notes in the Hermeneia series (p. 151), this is “a summons to a final battle.” Every previous attempt by Yahweh to turn Israel and renew the covenant with them was ineffective. This final encounter is not redemptive but punitive. When Israel meets God in this moment there will be no parley, no truce, and no delay. Judgment is imminent.

The successive uses of the “declares Yahweh” followed by the summons to meet God issues in a doxology (Amos 4:13).  The praise articulates the majesty and power of God. Yahweh is the Creator who formed the mountains and the winds. Yahweh is the most high God who walks upon the hills. Yahweh created them and reigns upon them.

The concluding reference to the one who “treads upon the hills” is a metaphor for a conquering king. God moves along the ridge line of the greatest heights and  watches the battle. The Creator God has summoned Israel to battle and God will see it to its final end. The God who created the mountains will turn morning into darkness for the nation of Israel. [Some translations read the dawn breaks the darkness.

Yahweh did not hide this from Israel. Over and over again, Yahweh warned Israel about her fate. But she did not listen. Now the prophet, speaking for Yahweh, announces what Yahweh intends to do.

The Creator God who formed Israel, her covenant God Yahweh, will now destroy her.

Her destruction is a warning to Judah…and to us.

Daniel Sommer, the leader of northern conservatives within the Stone-Campbell Movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century, shared his mentor’s (Benjamin Franklin) perspective on the rebaptism questin within the Restoration Movement. He regarded the rebaptists as divisive and sectarian, and their position he judges as “unscriptural” and “inconsistent.” In 1904 he wrote that he began openly opposing this “extreme” view in 1887 (“Bro. Hutson’s Wonder,” Octographic Review 47.9 [1 March 1904] 1).

As early as 1891 Sommer published a tract defending the following proposition:  “Single immersion performed in the name of the Godhead even by a sectarian and even in connection with certain sectarian errors is valid baptism when rendered for the purpose of obeying Christ.” He published it because the FF was intent on “working division in the brotherhood” and consequently he permitted “no discussion of the rebaptism question” in Octographic Review (“Let Patience Have Her Perfect Work,” Octographic Review 40 (29 June 1897) 1, 8.

Since a reader has requested more about Sommer’s position, here are some representative statements.

Daniel Sommer, “Items of Interest,” Octographic Review 40 (23 March 1897) 1.

“Why I am Not an Apologist for Sect Baptism” is the title of a tract now on our table. Such a title assumes that such a something as ‘sect baptism’ exists. But neither the author of that title nor any one else on that side of the question, so far as we have learned, has ever had the courage to define that so-called “sect baptism” and affirm his definition for debate. Those who denounce what they call “sect baptism” and assume that to be validly baptized one must understand what they call “the design of baptism” have been fully tested, and we have not found one of them who will affirm his position and meet a well informed opponent in debate. After having fully tested them we have offered on e of their champions this proposition: “Those who preach that single immersion received in the name of the God-head, and in connection with certain sectarian errors is ‘sect baptism,’ and who preach that valid baptism requires that each person when baptized shall understand ‘the design of baptism’ and yet who refuse thus to affirm in debate occupy a position which is illogical, unscriptural, inconsistent and cowardly.” But this proposition was refused by the author of the tract now before us when it was offered to him in private correspondence. In refusing to affirm for debate what he preaches, and in refusing to deny a proposition which charges him with occupying a position which is “illogical, unscriptural, inconsistent and cowardly” the author of the mentioned tract shows himself less honorable than many of the sectarians whom he denounces. As for the mentioned trace, its foundation statement is that the expression “for the remission of sins” in  Acts 2:38 “is part of THE COMMAND.” If this could be so then “for the remission of sins” is no longer a promise, of it cannot be both a command and a promise at the same time and in the same sentence. Moreover, then the expression “that your sins may be blotted out” in Acts 3:19, is “a part” of the command, “Repent ye therefore and be converted.” But the absurity [sic] of this is evident as soon as stated to every one except those who oppose sectism so extremely and unreasonably that they place themselves in the position of sectarians. As the fundamental proposition of the tract before us is an absurdity it follows that the trat itself is a blunder.”

Daniel Sommer, “Nineteenth Century Efforts to Restore the Bible to Mankind,” Octographic Review 44 (10 September 1901) 1.

“But all rebaptism hobbyists, wherever found among disciples show more or less of his disposition. In their zeal against sectism they become sectarians, and in principle take the identical position of those Baptists who insist on rebaptism of those baptized believers who wish to unite with them after having been immersed by others than preachers of that particular Baptist society [see my blog on this point, JMH]….on account of their valid baptism ideas they are, to say the least, a very disturbing element in the disciple brotherhood. They have done much toward dividing and destroying churches, but have seldom been known to build up a church.”

Daniel Sommer, “A Letter with Comments,” Octographic Review 47 (2 Feb 1904) 1-2.

“I further say, if rebaptism extremists were right in every other particular, nevertheless they do enough false reasoning in behalf of that one extreme to endanger themselves in the judgment, unless I have misread my Bible in regard to truth and honesty. I also state this: I have yet to find a rebaptism extremist who does not hate what he regards as error more than he loves truth. Again, I have yet to find one of that class who does not hate what he calls “sect baptism” more than he loves the oneness of those who profess to be apostolic disciples….Finally, all rebaptism extremists adopt the sectarian plan of sitting in judgment on the fitness of persons for baptism. The only difference between them and genuine sectarians is that a sectarian sits in judgment on fitness for baptism BEFORE candidates are baptized, while the hater of what he calls “sect baptism” sits in judgment on their fitness for baptism AFTER they have been baptized!!”

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.

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.”

The Slanderer (Diabolos) knows his target well. He has some understanding of the mission to which Jesus has been called. He knows why Jesus is here.

The key terms are kingdoms, authority and glory. The Slanderer offers Jesus what he seeks; he offers Jesus a similar vision but a different mission. The price? A new allegiance.

Kingdom is at the heart of Jesus’s ministry. Jesus was sent into the world to herald the good news of the kingdom of God which subverts the kingdoms of the world and bring the whole earth under his reign of God.

Authority is an issue in the ministry of Jesus. He has authority to cast our demons, forgive sin, and to heal diseases. His authority subverts the authorities of the world that oppose his mission. It is a contest between the “power (authority) of darkness” and the kingdom of God (Luke 22:53).

Glory is the high stake of this contest. Jesus anticipates the glory of the Son of Man when he comes again which was pictured for him in the glory of the transfiguration. But it is a glory that only comes after first suffering (Luke 24:26).

Kingdom, authority and glory. The Slanderer offers what the ministry of Jesus will achieve. The key, however, is that the Slanderer offers it without suffering. His only condition is worship. If Jesus would only bow down before the Slanderer, then he could have all he desires–everything his accomplished mission would achieve for him–without suffering. Jesus could be king without a cross.

Worship is about allegiance. Switch allegiances, and you can have your heart’s desire without carrying a cross. The Slanderer will give it without cost, without pain, without struggle.

Ambitions can turn our allegiance. The easier path often seems like the better one. Forks in the road demand a choice, and Jesus has the choice to secure his reign through a pledge of allegiance to the Slanderer or fulfill the mission given by God.

Lent reminds us that the mission is more important than the cost.

God tests Jesus in the wilderness and Satan tempts him to satisfy his desires by inappropriate means.

One need is hunger. It would seem that satisfying hunger should not be characterized as inappropriate. Food is a created good to be enjoyed.

The Slanderer (Diabolos) suggests that Jesus should create his own food. If he really is the Son of God then he should provide his own bread. He should satisfy his hunger. There is nothing that prevents him from doing this if he really is the Son of God.

Jesus does not respond by saying, “I could make bread from these stones if I wanted to.” Rather, he addresses the Slanderer’s presumption about what the purpose of his wilderness experience is. While the Slanderer wanted to minimize the wilderness experience by reducing it to physical hunger, Jesus reminds him about its real purpose.

The purpose of the wilderness is not a physical endurance test as if acetic practices are about how much a human being can physically endure. Rather, the wilderness is about a hunger for God; it is about depending on God for strength for the soul. Jesus is in the wilderness to clarify his mission and deepen his dependence on the Father.

The wilderness reminds us that we can’t live on bread alone. Our material ambitions–from food to clothing to housing to video games–cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human soul. When we live at this level we ultimately feel empty and this emptiness will kill our souls. When we live at this level, the mission of God takes a back seat.

In the wilderness we hunger and thirst for God. Fasting reminds us that the fullness of life is not found through pizza and beer, but eating the bread of God. Authentic life feasts on communion with God and embraces, by God’s strength, the mission of God.

Fasting leads to feasting. When we fast from the idolatry of  instant gratification, we learn to feast on God for true life.

Led by the Spirit Jesus follows Israel into the wilderness for a period of testing and humbling. It is time to prepare for ministry.

Confronted by the Diabolos (Devil) Jesus is tested/tempted three times. God tests Jesus, but the Diabolos tempts him. While God tests the Son’s obedience, the Devil preys on Jesus’s desires and needs.

The Diabolos (Devil) is a slanderer. Diabolos is derived from the verb “to slander” (diaballo). His intent is subversive. He seeks to sabotage a submissive life. He defames God’s people through subterfuge.

God may lead us into circumstances where we are tested just as he led Jesus into the wilderness, but temptation arises from within us as our desires conceive a way to satisfy themselves in disobedient ways.

The Diabolos dangles a carrot in front of Jesus that targets his distressed situation. Jesus is tempted because there is the potential for immediate gratification of his desires. These are real temptations as the desires and needs are real and Jesus had the option to satisfy them in sinful ways.

God tests us to refine us. The Diabolos tempts us to destroy us.

Lent is a time of testing but it also opens us to the potential for self-destruction. Any test can become a temptation.

Warning! Lent can make you or break you.

Only Luke says that Jesus “returned” to the wilderness. Returned? That is something about which I would like to know more.

Perhaps Jesus went into the wilderness to contemplate his future, to reflect on his decision to be baptized, or to decide whether to embrace the mission into which God had called him. The wilderness, perhaps, is where Jesus decided to go into the water and embrace the ministry of the kingdom.

Coming up out of the water, he returns to the wilderness. He goes there to prepare for ministry. But he does not go there as an autonomous act of his will. Rather, he is led there by the Holy Spirit with whom Jesus had been anointed at his baptism.

“Full of the Holy Spirit,” Jesus follows the lead of the Spirit to experience the wilderness.

Jesus re-enacts Israel’s experience. Just as Israel was brought through the water into the wilderness for forty years of testing, so Jesus is led out of the water into the wilderness for forty days of testing. For “forty years in the wilderness” God humbled Israel in order to “test” them that he might “know what was in [their] heart” (Deuteronomy 8:2).

God tested Israel. So, now God, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, leads Jesus into a period of testing.

Following Jesus into the wilderness during the 40 days of Lent, we, too, open ourselves to a period of testing. It is a time for introspection, devotion and humbling.

The 40 days of Lent are an intentional entrance into the wilderness. Here we have a renewed opportunity to reprioritize our needs, remove our presumptions about God, and evaluate our ambitions in the light of the mission of God.

During Lent we follow Jesus into a time of testing.

In obedience to the Father, Jesus went down into the water to pray.

Jesus followed sinners into the water as they repented and confessed their sins. Jesus identified with sinners by sharing this water ritual with them. He underwent a ritual designed for sinners!

In response the Father anointed the Messiah with the Holy Spirit, affirmed his son, and declared his delight in his son.

This is our experience as well.

Through baptism we join other sinners in the water, confess our sins and pray for divine forgiveness. In response, the Father anoints us with the Holy Spirit, affirms our adoption, and declares his delight in us.

Our baptisms are moments when we follow Jesus into the water in obedience to the Father.

Our baptisms are moments when the Father says over us, “You are my child in whom I delight.”

Our baptisms are moments when the Father sends the Spirit into our hearts so that we, along with Jesus, might cry, “Abba, Father.”

Our baptisms are moments when we follow Jesus out of the water committed to the ministry of the kingdom.

We follow Jesus, led by the Spirit, from the water into the wilderness. During Lent, we sit with Jesus in the wilderness for forty days.

May our 40 days of Lent enrich our relationship with God.

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.

Joshua, my son, you would have been 30 today.  I miss you, and yearn to hold you again.  One day….yes, one day.  Till then, rest peacefully. [I have republished this in honor of the anniversary of his birth on Feb. 17.]

Joshua died  at the age of sixteen. I offer this chapter out of my book on The Shack and spiritual recovery in his honor.

********

Oh, the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

Romans 11:33-34 (NIV)

The death of a child, especially the brutal murder of Missy, raises passionate questions about God’s handling of the world. Mack’s “last comment” to the Triune God around the breakfast table on that first morning was something we have all thought at one time or another: “I just can’t imagine any final outcome that would justify all this” (p. 127).

There it is. Bold. In God’s face. It is almost a gauntlet challenging God’s own imagination, his own resources—his wisdom and knowledge. Can anything justify the evil in the world?

This is the problem of theodicy, that is, the justification of God. Why does God create a world in which evil is so pervasive, strong and unruly? Why does he give evil this space to grow? When a cyclone kills over 130,000 in Myanmar, an earthquake snuffs out the lives of 80,000 more in China, and a tsunami kills about 20,000 in Japan, I have little interest in defending or justifying God.

When my son dies of a genetic disorder after watching him slowly degenerate over ten years and I learn of the tragic death of a friend’s son (John Robert Dobbs)—both dying on the same date, May 21—I have little interest in defending or justifying God.

How could I possibly defend any of that? I suppose I could remove God from responsibility by disconnecting him from his creation but I would then still have a God who decided to be a Deist. That’s no comfort—it renders God malevolent or at least disinterested. I prefer to say God is involved and he decides to permit (even cause–though I would have no way of knowing which is the case in any particular circumstance) suffering. I would prefer to hold God responsible for the world he created and how the world proceeds.

I’m tired of defending him. Does God really need my feeble, finite, and fallible arguments in his defense? Perhaps some need to hear a defense—maybe it would help, but I also know it is woefully inadequate at many levels. God does not need my defense as much as God needs to encounter people in their crises. My arguments will not make the difference; only God’s presence will.

I know the theodices and I have attempted them myself. Young utilizes a few of them. A free-will theodicy that roots evil in the free choices of human beings does not help me with earthquakes, genetics and cyclones. It certainly does not explain why God does not answer the prayers of his people with compassionate protection from such. A soul-making theodicy that says God permits evil to develop our characters does not explain the quantity and quality of suffering in the world. Suffering sometimes breaks souls rather than making them. There are other theodicies and combinations, but I find them all pastorally inadequate and rationally unsatisfying.

My rationalizations have all shipwrecked on the rocks of experience in a hurting and painful world. The way I most often approach God in the midst of suffering is now protest, a form of lament.

Does God have a good reason for the pervasive and seemingly gratuitous nature of suffering in the world? I hope he does—I even believe he does, but I don’t know what the reasons are nor do I know anyone who does. My hope is not the conclusion of a well-reasoned, solid inductive/deductive argument but is rather the desperate cry of the sufferer who trusts that the Creator has good intentions and purposes for his creation. I believe there is a Grand Purpose that overcomes the Great Sadness.

Lament is not exactly a theodicy, but it is my response to suffering. It contains my complaint that God is not doing more (Psalm 74:11), my questions about “how long?” (Psalm 13:1), my demand to have my “Why?” questions answered (Psalm 44:24), and my disillusionment with God’s handling of the world (Job 21, 23-24). It is what I feel; it is my only “rational” response to suffering.

I realize that I am a lowly creature whose limitations should relativize my protest (as when God came to Job). But, as with Job and the Psalmists, I continue to lament—I continue because I have divine permission to do so! Of all “people,” I must be honest with God, right? I recognize that my feeble laments cannot grasp the transcendent glory of the one who created the world and I realize that were God to speak he would say to me something of what he told Job. But until he speaks….until he comforts…until he transforms the world, I will continue to speak, lament and protest.

But that response is itself insufficient. I protest, but I must also act.

As one who believes the story of Jesus, I trust that God intends to redeem, heal and renew this world. As a disciple of Jesus, I am committed to imitate his compassion for the hurting, participate in the healing, and sacrifice for redemption. I am, however, at this point an impatient disciple.

Does this mean that there are no comforting “words” for the sufferer? No, I think the story itself is a comfort; we have a story to tell but we must tell it without rationalizing or minimizing creation’s pain. We have a story to tell about God, Israel and Jesus. God loves us despite the seeming evidence to the contrary. God listens to our protests despite our anger and disillusionment. God empathizes with our suffering through the incarnation despite our sense that no one has suffered like we have. God reigns over his world despite the seeming chaos. God will defeat suffering and renew his creation despite its current tragic condition. The story carries hope in its bosom and it is with hope that we grieve.

Mack could not “imagine any final outcome that would justify” all the evil in the world. This is something that Mack says before he sits on the judgment seat before Sophia, but it is a function of the judgment seat to decide what would justify evil and would not. If humans can’t imagine it, then it can’t be possible, right? And that is the crux of the problem—human imagination has become the norm rather than trusting God’s wisdom and knowledge that is beyond searching out, plotting or understanding.

Human imagination or trust in divine wisdom? Which shall we choose? The former, as a criterion, excludes the latter. The latter is patient with the former’s limitations.

But trust is the fundamental problem. At the root of distrust is the suspicion, as Papa tells Mack, “that you don’t think that I am good” (p. 126). We humans tend to trust our own imagination (or rationality) more than we trust God’s goodness. We doubt that “everything—the means, the ends, and all the processes of individual lives—is all covered by [God’s] goodness” (p. 126).

In one of the most powerful scenes in The Shack Papa acknowledges that he could “have prevented what happened to Missy.” He “could have chosen to actively interfere in her circumstance,” but he decided not to do it (p. 222). Only love enabled Mack to trust God with that decision.

We can’t imagine what could possibly justify evil? But, at one level, that is the wrong question. God’s purpose is not to justify it, but to redeem it (p. 127).

My favorite scene in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ is when Jesus, carrying the cross, falls to his knees under its weight. His mother runs to him and their eyes lock. With blood streaming down his cheeks and holding the symbol of Roman power and violence, Jesus says, “Behold, mother, I make all things new.”

This is the promise of God—a new creation, new heavens and a new earth in a new Jerusalem. There the old order will pass away and the voice of God will declare: “I am making everything new” (Revelation 21:5a).

A day is coming when there will be “no more curse” (Revelation 22:3). There will be no more darkness–the glory of God will fill the earth with light. There will be no more violence–the nations will receive healing and walk by its light. There will be no more death, mourning or tears–the Tree of Life and the Water of Life will nourish the people of God forever.

That renewal, however, is not simply future but is already present. Hope saves us even now. As the Father pours out his love into our hearts by his Spirit, includes us in the Triune fellowship at his breakfast table, and walks with us in our suffering, we can experience the joy of relationship, the peace of love and the hope of renewal.

Mack discovered it when he learned to trust. We will too.