John Mark Hicks

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.

In a previous blog I copied a 1933 article by J. D. Tant in which he honored the work of the Firm Foundation over its first fifty years. He believed the FF had served the church well in winning the battle over rebaptism among other issues.

Fanning Yater Tant, J. D.’s son, wrote a similar article in 1957.  He believd that the FF was instrumental in the battle over rebaptism and that “sect baptism” was defeated because the “truth” was rather obvious. Below is his article (Fanning Yater Tant, “‘Pride, Prejudice, and Papers’,” Gospel Guardian 9.11 [18 July 1957] 4):

Elsewhere in this issue, and under the above caption, will be found an editorial from the Firm Foundation of May 28, 1957. This is the kind of writing that made this great paper a bulwark of strength in days gone by; it is the kind of Christian journalism that is all too rare in our generation. Brother Reuel Lemmons, editor of the paper, has sounded an appeal to truth, common sense, and straight thinking that ought to challenge every Christian in the land.

It should be remembered that the Firm Foundation was born for this very thing. Old brother “Aus” McGary became convinced that Brother David Lipscomb and brethren east of the river generally were in error in their teaching and practice in the matter of “sect” baptism. While the pages of the Gospel Advocate were open to McGary to refute this teaching, he nevertheless felt that a more effective campaign for truth could be waged if he had his own medium. In the heat of controversy, the Firm Foundaiton had her “baptism” into the realms of Christian journalism. (This editor has some reason to know about that battle: His maternal grandmother, Fannie Mills Yater, living at Hartsville, Tennessee, was an ardent admirer of David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning, even naming one of her sons Tolbert Fanning Yater. The family moved to Bosque County, Texas in 1878, just when the “sect baptism” issue was beginning to get hot. When the Firm Foundation began, Grandmother Yater read every issue of it, as well as continuing to read the Gospel Advocate. She became convinced, totally and forever, that A. McGary had the better of the argument with Lipscomb — and persuaded the brethren in the little congregation where she worshipped to get a preacher named J. D. Tant, who shared McGary’s views on “sect” baptism, to hold a meeting. He came, met Nannie Yater, married her a couple of years later, and raised a family — of whom this editor is one of which.)

That battle over “sect baptism” raged for years — through the papers, in public and private debates, in gospel meetings, and just about everywhere else that brethren got together for any length of time. And out of controversy — came TRUTH! As a matter of fact, the extreme elements in both groups gave a little. The Gospel Advocate brethren gradually got away from their insistence that “the vast majority” of people who had been immersed had been scripturally baptized; and the brethren who were with Brother McGary little by little, began to concede that in some rare, isolated case it might conceivably be possible that an individual had understood God’s teaching on baptism, and had been scripturally baptized by a denominational preacher, if he could have found such a preacher with sufficient courage to defy denominational doctrine and practice.

But the Firm Foundation almost certainly saved the day in that battle. By her courageous stand for truth, and her insistence on free, open, and unfettered discussion of the issue, the church was finally brought to a general agreement and understanding as to Bible teaching on this vital matter. Let it be devoutly hoped that this editorial by Brother Lemmons will be the clarion call, sounding the opening of a new phase in current discussions; and that once again we will see this great, old paper stand like a bulwark against the threatening tidal wave of innovations and human organizations in the church which some are so ardently defending and promoting.

Three generations of Tants testify to the influence of the FF in the rebaptism question. Fannie Mills Yater, raised in the heartland of Tennessee, was convinced by the FF, J. D. Tant waged the battle through the FF, and Fanning Yater Tant observed its conclusion. What was a minority position in 1878 had become the majority position by 1957.

It seems to me, contrary to Fanning Yater Tant, that neither side (extremists on either end) gave very much ground. On the contested point–must one know that baptism is for the remission of sins for an acceptable immersion–neither gave ground.

While reading parts of the Firm Foundation for a research project, I rediscovered the following article by J. D. Tant (“Looking Back Fifty Years,” Firm Foundation 50.3 [17 January 1933] 2).

In this article he highlights how the Firm Foundation had served the church over the past fifty years. In his view, the periodical saved the church from extremes–the extreme of the “digressives” and also “sect baptism” as well as the extreme of those who oppose Sunday schools and multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper. He stresses opposition to digressives and sect baptism as the origins of the polemical advocacy of the Firm Foundation.

In his estimation, “[Austin] McGary was to Texas what D[avid] Lipscomb was to Tennessee when the society tried to capture Tennessee.”

It is an interesting brief analysis from one who lived through those first fifty years of the Firm Foundation. Here is the article:

I notice last issue of the Firm Foundation shows fifty years on the firing line.

Few of our gospel preachers today have any conception of the work and battles the pioneer preachers had fifty years ago.

I remember well the first issue of the Foundation. It was brought out in pamphlet form–five hundred copies by A. McGary, and after mailing out copies to all he cold think of he pushed the rest under his bed as he had no one to send them to.

The doctrine of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism created as much stir among my brethren as Campbell did among the denominations when he began to argue to drop all creeds and come back to the Bible.

For years and years my brethren had been teaching in Texas that man instead of God must be the judge of man’s baptism, and all who had been baptized by immersion and were satisfied were fit subjects for the kingdom of heaven.

When McGarvy began to teach that all laws, human or devine [sic], are predicated upon design, and for man to change the design God had placed upon his laws caused said law to cease to be a law of God, a cannon seemed turned loose.

About this time I. C. Stone of Indiana, A. J. MCarty, John S. Durst, J. W. Strode, “Weeping Joe” Harding, E. Hansbroough, Jack Larimore, J. W. Jackson, Brice Wilmeth, J. R.Will,A. J. Clark, William McIntire, D. Pennington, J. W. Denton and a host of other strong preachers took up the battle cry, and none on the side of sect baptism were able to meet their arguments. Later on, among the younger set, Joe S. Warlick (the ablest debater we ever had in the South) H. G. Oliver, J. W. Chism, W. L. Swiney, Will Stafford, U. G. Wilkerson, J. F. Grubbs, W. F. Ledlow, anda large number of younger men saw the consistancy [sic] of McGary’s position and fell into line. None of these the world could meet in debate.

As I had come into the church of Christ (as I thought) on my Methodist baptism I lined up with T. R. Burnett, D. Lipscomb, J. A. Harding, A. J. Bush, W. K. Homan and others to fight on the other side, trying to show that McGary was wrong.

When J. F. Grubbs showed me that I could not make a Bible argument in favor of sect baptism I then deserted those brethren who held to it and rode a Texas pony one hundred and twenty-seven miles to get John Durst to baptize me.

About this time the church of Christ was divided in Texas by the digressives pulling off at the state meeting in Austin in 1886. and starting to build up a sister church among other human churches where they could have hired pastors, missionary societies, instrumental music, and other human devices to pull disciples after them.

About that time Brother W. J. Rice, who had been excluded from the church at Covington, Indiana, so I heard, came to Texas and stared his “order of worship,” and pulled off many disciples.

Later on Brother J. P. Nall and Brother Ament started their “formal confession” faction which operated for a while, killed a few churches and then died.

N. L. Clark, one of the ablest Bible teachers in Texas, and Brother J. N. Cowen started their hobby about anti-Sunday school, and anti-class and anti-literature foolishness, divided many churches, did much harm, and no good.  But they have divided into the one cup and the two-cup, the grape juice, and the fermented-wine worshippers, and are kept so busy trying to straighten out the kinks in each other that it will be a few years until they will be forgotten and their baleful influence will be in the past.

Fifty years ago we had fewer than fifty preachers in Texas, including all the digressive preachers, and fewer than twenty thousand members, and not a located preacher among the loyal members. Many predicted that the Bible principles as advocated by these godly men would soon cease. When the digressive thought they would capture all the churches in Texas and pull them over to the society McGary and the other loyal preachers met them on all parts of the battle field [sic]. McGary was to Texas what D. Lipscomb was to Tennessee when the society tried to capture Tennessee.

But McGary, Jackson, Durst, McCarty, Dr. Herndon, and Handsborough have all crossed the divide and gone on, yet I am glad their work continues. With fifteen hundred churches of Christ in Texas today and almost a thousand loyal preachers I am impressed that their labors were not in vain and that God is on their side.

While I have been on the firing line fifty-one years, and am perhaps the only old-time preacher now living who fought side by side with those godly men, I do not think it amiss to remind the young men many of whom are hunting for located jobs, that you know nothing of hardships to be a gospel preacher as we “old timers” do. Many, many nights I have slept on the ground by the side of A. McGary, or Jack McCarty going to or from our appointments. I have had to swim the creek as many as seven times in order to reach my appointment to preach. I have traveled horseback forty miles a night, laid down my saddle blanket, slept two or three hours and wold get up and go on.

The first three years of my preaching life I was not paid one cent. The fourth year was paid $9.75, the fifty year $92.00 and the sixth year 0235 [sic], yet I continued to preach. Have held a number of meetings and pick as much as three hundred pounds of cotton every day, preach every night cut out cotton picking on Saturday afternoon to baptize all who had made the confession.Had to pick cotton and do all kinds of work to support my father and mother and sister. Yet I continued to preach. Have walked fifty miles to meet my appointment because I had nothing to ride, and gone hungry many times because I did not have twenty-five cents to buy my dinner. But through all these things God has preserved me wonderfully, and my physical health and my mental powers are a [sic] good as thirty years ago.

I hope my experience will be an inspiration to some young preacher, and help him to keep on against obstacles, knowing for whom he is laboring. Also hope our job hunting preachers many see that much good can be accomplished without a “located job.”

While David Lipscomb, editor the Gospel Advocate after the Civil War (beginning in 1866), opposed rebaptizing those who were immersed to obey God though they did not understand its design for the remission of sins, the original editors of the GA thought differently.  While reading through the 1855-1861 GA, I  ran across the following two statements from Tolbert Fanning (David Lipscomb’s mentor) and William Lipscomb (David Lipscomb’s older brother).

1. Fanning, “Immersion of Baptists,” Gospel Advocate 5 (November 1859) 346

Bro. N. W. Smith, of  Georgia, recently immersed some eleven Baptists into Christ. This he did because their first immersion was only intended to bring them into the Baptist church. Whilst we do not desire to debate the necessity of re-baptism, we have no doubt it is as fully the duty of persons who are baptized without understanding the truth, as it was for the twelve who were taught, and no doubt, baptized by Apollos, to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ after they heard Paul preach. We do not intimate that the candidate must understand every thing regarding the ordinance of baptism to render the act valid in the sight of heaven; but our position is, that he must know some scriptural statement of the matter in order to acceptable obedience. If he should not know baptism is in order to the remission of sins, it may answer to understand that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, or in being buried in Christ and rising again, we put off the old man and put on Christ; but he who is put into the water because he is pardoned, has got religion–been regenerated and made and heir of God, evidently does not honor Jesus Christ, or in any sense obey the gospel. No one in profound ignorance can walk in the light; but there is neither occasion of darkness or stumbling, if we follow the dictates of the Good Spirit.

2. William Lipscomb, “Re-Immersion,” Gospel Advocate 4 (June 1858) 187-188.

Asked whether one “baptised [sic] by a baptism in the baptist faith, in the full sense of the term” is also “baptised [sic] into Christ,” William Lipscomb–the brother of David Lipscomb and co-editor of the Gospel Advocate–replied:

Reply.–No service is acceptable to Heaven which is not performed with a full understanding of its purposes. No individual who goes through the form of immersion without understanding its meaning is in the least profitted [sic] thereby. While we are disposed to think that many who are under the various systems taught in our land are better than the systems themselves, and many are frequently immersed under them who do believe that immersion is for the remission of sins, yet the authority of Scripture is for re-immersion where the intention of  act was not clearly understood. It is for each individual to determine for him or herself whether the performance was in obedience to the word of God, or according to the theory of some human party.

This is fascinating on a couple points. First, though Fanning was quite aware of John Thomas’s controversy with Alexander Campbell over rebaptism in the 1830s–even noticing his visit to Nashville in the 1850s, he sided with Thomas on the rebaptism question. This was a minority position within the Stone-Campbell Movement at the time. Second, this highlights the fact that David Lipscomb did not simply uncritically inherit his position. It would seem his position was forged in an environment where his older brother and his mentor were on the opposite side of the question. Lipscomb’s position was no untested “denominational” hangover or lag. It was his considered conviction.

Ever since the emergence of open theism on the evangelical scene in the 1990s, there have been several attempts to saddle Arminianism with the theological interests of open theism. On the one hand, Reformed theologians find it to their advantage to identify Arminianism and open theism, if for no other reason than the slippery slope argument has a concrete example. Open theists, on the other hand, seek some historical legitimacy through identification with Arminianism if not also some kind of theological cover. As a result, whether one is seeking to delegitimize open theism (as Reformed theologians intend) or to legitimize it (as open theists intend), it is to the mutual benefit of Reformed theology and open theism to classify Arminianism and open theism together.

Arminius affirms with Reformed theology a “meticulous providence” where God has such sovereignty over evil such that no evil act is autonomous and uncircumscribed by God’s intent for good. God is so sovereign that God concurs with the act itself such that its effect has specific meaning and significance. This is a critical difference between classic Arminianism and open theism.

On the other hand, classic Arminianism and open thesim share a common conviction that human freedom is, in some sense, libertarian rather than compatibilist. God permits sin; God is not the primary cause of sin. In the permission of sin, according to Arminius, God does not concur in the efficacy of the act though God does concur in the ontology and capacity of the act. Here open theists and classic Arminians stand together.

Historically, there are at least three positions in this discussion with Classic Arminianism holding the “middle ground.” (1) The Sovereignty of the Divine Decrees where God has decreed from eternity what will happen within human history (Reformed scholasticism); (2) The Sovereignty of Divine Engagement where God is active, or concurs, in every event within human history such that every event has divine purpose and meaning though without divine decrees determining what will happen within human history (classic Arminianism); and (3) The Sovereignty of the Divine Project where God, for the sake of the divine project risks the effects and meaning of human history in such a way that it is beyond divine management for the greater good but does not endanger God’s ultimate goal or project (open theism).

These are some paragraphs taken from my article published last year as “Classical Arminianism and Open Theism: A Substantial Difference in Their Theologies of Providence,” Trinity Journal 33ns (2012) 3-18. The article is now available for reading through the above link.

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!!”

One of the more common “gotcha questions” in the late 19th century discussion of rebaptism in the Stone-Campbell Movement was something like this:

Is baptism administered to a person scripturally valid when he claims he is in Christ before he was baptized, and will contend that his sins were all forgiven him before he submitted to the institution of baptism, and will still further affirm that baptism is not essential in order to remission of sins of any person.

This is the question Benjamin Franklin is asked in the 1872 American Christian Review (15.26 [25 June 1872] 204). For those who advocate “rebaptizing” those who have previously been immersed without the knowledge that baptism was for the remission of sins this is the ultimate question. One who answers this question in the affirmative demonstrates that they don’t really believe baptism is for the remission of sins. It is the question that many advocates of rebaptism believe will sufficiently illuminate the discussion that no honest person could deny that rebaptism was necessary in this instance. That this was the point of the question is evident when one reads the literature of the controversy in the 1890s-1910s (including the 1914 McQuiddy-Durst Debate).

Benjamin Franklin (1812-1878), the great defender of Campbell’s agenda in the Christian Baptist, responds in a surprising way. At least it would alarm many rebaptists.

A man is “scripturally baptized” when he is baptized according to the Scriptures. A man who believes in Christ, repents and is immersed, is scripturally baptized. His misunderstanding about something else could not invalidate his baptism. The Lord says: “He who believes and is immersed shall be save.” Suppose the man misunderstood: thought he was in Christ before he was immersed; or that he was pardoned, would that make void the promise of God?  Surely not. He believed with all his heart and was immersed, and thus came to the promise of God, that he should be saved or pardoned. That promise can not fail because he did not understand when he was in Christ or pardoned. The work to do for that man is not enough to convince him that what he had done, and done rightly, is to be discarded and repudiated, but teach him “the way of the Lord more perfectly,” or, in other words, correct his understanding in the things  wherein he does not understand, and leave what he had done rightly unmolested. There are evils connected with an ultra course in the above matter that many brethren do not see.

Franklin is quite willing to accept the obedience of this person who, in his opinion, thoroughly misunderstands the timing of pardon. He obeyed. That is sufficient. God does the rest.

But the most interesting point to me is the last sentence. He warns the church that to do otherwise is to proceed down a path that leads to some severe consequences. I think Franklin recognized the sectarianism that was in play with rebaptists. This is something David Lipscomb, James A. Harding, and Daniel Sommer would also recognize.  It was a dire warning that eventually came true.

McGary thought it was a reason to divide or might lead to division since some recognize and accept people as Christians who are not really Christians.

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.