Amos: Theological and Ethical Dimensions

Amos as Counter-Echo

The book of Amos is one such counter-testimony. In this essay, I will assess what this minor prophet reveals about God and his people in its original and canonical contexts and for the modern church. Here we find God in active opposition to his chosen people. A ‘warrior-king’ who does not merely bring judgement and punishment in the form of famine, invasion, and exile (3:10) ² , but also actively participating in the destruction of Israel and its inhabitants (8:9–10, 9:1–6). ³ This certainly does not seem like the behavior expected of a Good Shepherd. By referring to Amos as counter-testimony, I do not mean to suggest that the depiction of God contradicts other portions of Scripture. Instead, I approach Amos in light of what Chloe Sun refers to as ‘echoes’ and ‘counterechoes in relation to the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures.’ ⁴ In her own discussion of Song of Songs and Esther, Sun makes a key observation that I appropriate here for examining the book of Amos: ‘As echoes, the motifs… resonate with other biblical texts; as counterechoes, they challenge, critique, and evaluate the normative motifs manifested in the rest of the canon.’ ⁵ Analyzing Amos in conversation with the rest of the canon allows readers to form a broader and multidimensional understanding of God and humanity as portrayed in Scripture.

I will utilize a canonical approach to my theological analysis of Amos. That is to say, I am interested in the voice Amos has when considered within the final form of the Hebrew canon. I agree with the assessment of Brevard Childs, that ‘a canonical approach to the scriptures of the Old Testament opens up a fruitful avenue along which to explore the theological dimensions of the biblical text.’ ⁶ I recognize a multiplicity of themes and trajectories within the Hebrew canon but assume the concursive inspiration of the Bible; that is, the cooperative work (or speech-act) of a single divine author and the multitude of inspired human authors, editors, redactors, and compilers. Thus, the contrasting themes identified do not signify competing views of God or divergent religious traditions, but a multi-dimensional understanding of God that emerges through various situations and contexts in which the Hebrew people find themselves as they relate to God.

Childs makes an insightful observation that shapes the approach I will employ below: ‘There is no one hermeneutical key for unlocking the biblical message, but the canon provides the arena in which the struggle for understanding takes place.’ ⁷ Rather than attempting to shoehorn one depiction of God into what we find in another portion of Scripture, Childs’s conception of an arena in which to struggle provides the space to wrestle with the tension we find in Scripture, while remaining sensitive to the theological boundaries that fix our attention on the ‘one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.’ However, I must briefly note my indebtedness to one Old Testament scholar often taken as conflicting with Childs, Walter Eichrodt. Eichrodt famously sought a comprehensive unifying theme through which one could understand the entirety of the Old Testament. According to Eichrodt, ‘The concept of the covenant was given this central position in the religious thinking of the OT so that, by working out from it, the structural unity of the OT message might be made more readily visible.’ ⁸ While Eichrodt was wrong to make covenant the one major theme of the Old Testament, he was correct in identifying that it was vitally important to Israel’s religion, and especially for the final form of the Hebrew canon. And while covenant does not organically reach into each portion of Old Testament scripture, we will see below that it does play a major role in the theology of Amos.

Theological Analysis of Amos

The structure of Amos can be loosely divided into three parts. Chapters 1–2 make up the introduction and the Lord’s judgement upon the nations, ending with Judah and Israel. Chapters 3–9:10 focus primarily on naming Israel’s sin, the Lord’s condemnation, and the coming judgement upon the kingdom. The final verses, 9:11–15, prophesy the restoration of Israel and a return to the land from which they are to be exiled. This three-part division is somewhat arbitrary and ignores the many asides and callbacks in each section. However, it serves as a starting point for analyzing Amos theologically.

Amos’s audience, at least the audience indicated in the canonical context, is the northern kingdom of Israel after the division with Judah and prior to the exile. In the opening section, Amos lays what K. Möller calls ‘a cleverly designed rhetorical trap…’ ⁹ He begins with a dramatic presentation of God roaring from Zion in response to the mourning atop mount Carmel, likely an allusion to YHWH’s defeat of the false god Baal and his prophets in 1 Kings 18. From there, Amos launches into a condemnation of Israel’s national enemies, the Arameans, Philistines, and Phoenicians. Their crimes include oppression (1:3), human trafficking (1:6), and betrayal of kin (1:9). The result of the Lord’s punishment will bring the complete destruction of these nations as retribution for their sins against God and neighbor. Next, Amos moves to the judgement of surrounding nations who are blood relatives of Israel, the Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites. Their crimes are similar, including the murder of kin (1:11) and oppression of women (1:13). The judgement of Moab includes an interesting reference to them burning the bones of the king of Edom (2:1). R.B. Chisholm Jr. notes that Amos assumes the nations are accountable to God, as the ‘Hebrew noun peša’, “rebellious act”, has a covenantal [flavor]…’ that suggests the violation of some unspecified formal agreement. ¹⁰

From here Amos moves to condemn Israel’s closest relative, the kingdom of Judah. They are given the vague charge of having rejected the Torah (2:4). Amos mentions no specific sin, but the mention of being led astray in the way of their fathers may indicate idolatry and other covenantal breaches.

The oracles of Amos would likely have been well received by his audience up to this point. God has arisen to judge their oppressors and rivals. Surely now Israel, God’s elect people and chosen kingdom, would enjoy peace and prosperity in the wake of the international calamity to come against their neighbors. It is at this point that Amos singles out the worst offenders and the primary target of God’s wrath, Israel itself. Israel’s sin and judgement becomes the focus of the rest of the book. The rhetorical move here is intensely powerful, evoking the anger of his audience and satisfaction at the divine punishment of their rivals, only to find themselves condemned for similar and even worse sins than those listed in the opening section. ¹¹ As Chisholm identifies, ‘Israel was the primary target of divine judgement because Israel had offended the Lord more than had all the other nations.’ ¹² Moreover, it was exactly the elect status of Israel as God’s people that makes them deserving of greater condemnation. As Möller points out, ‘In response to the Israelites’ reliance upon their status as the chosen people, Amos… stresses that this status, far from implying impunity from punishment, brings with it a greater level of responsibility (3:1–2).’ ¹³

Israel’s sins are numerous. The most frequently cited involve various forms of economic injustice and religious hypocrisy. They ‘trample the head of the poor’ (2:7, cf. 4:1, 8:4), ‘made the Nazirites drink wine’ (2:12) ¹⁴ , ‘turn justice to wormwood’ (5:7), ‘afflict the righteous’ and take bribes (5:12) ¹⁵ , offer empty religious gestures (5:21–24), and engage in human trafficking (8:6) ¹⁶ . Not without significance is the sexual sin of the Israelites (2:7) in violation of incest laws in Leviticus 18. These injustices had apparently been longstanding, as verses 4:6–13 recall the many attempts of God to warn Israel and bring them to repentance, only to repeat over and over again, ‘“yet you did not return to me,” declares the Lord.’ Thus YHWH finally proclaims, ‘prepare to meet your God, O Israel!’ This meeting will not be desirable for Israel. Far from the idea of a glorious beatific vision in the Christian imagination, this meeting will be their ruin. Echoing back to the roar of the Lord against the nations in 1:2, Amos writes, ‘The lion has roared, who will not fear?’ (3:8) In this case, the roar is directed against Israel. ‘The Lord would judge Israel for its socio-economic injustice, materialism and religious hypocrisy (3:9 - 4:5). The Lord had tried unsuccessfully to get Israel’s attention; now he was ready to confront them personally (4:6–13).’ ¹⁷

Chapter 5 is interspersed with further condemnations and calls to repentance. ‘Seek the Lord and live…’ (5:6). ‘Seek good, and not evil, that you may live…’ (5:14). These pleas are in vain, as will become evident in chapter 7. In chapter 6 Amos ‘paints a picture of wealth and luxury, damnable because it is obtained by taking from the poor and because of the want of concern for the poor.’ ¹⁸ Those who have enriched themselves at the expense of the poor receive their just reward of being the first to go into exile (6:7). In chapters 7 through 9, Amos records a series of visions, the most important of which is that of the plumb line (7:7–9). A plumb line is an architectural tool made simply of a weight attached to a string that would be hung over a wall. When freely suspended, the weight would indicate if the wall stood vertically or if it is leaning in one direction. If leaning, the wall was poorly constructed and would eventually collapse. The Lord sets a plumb line to measure his people, to see if they are morally upright or skewed by sin. The assumption is that the plumb line finds them out of alignment, and as a result ‘the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste’ (7:8).

The visions are interrupted by a section that may initially seem out of place. Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, enters into a discourse with Amos (7:10–17). The discourse appears to disrupt the flow of Amos’s argument, but it is in fact a powerful illustration of the plumb line imagery and builds upon the case he has made against Israel. Amaziah does not attempt to refute Amos or defend Israel’s behavior. Instead, he merely seeks to silence Amos, demanding that he flee to Judah ‘and prophesy there, but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary…’ (7:12–14). Chisholm notes that Israel’s sin and complacency is ‘vividly illustrated by Amaziah the priest…’ ¹⁹ Like Israel, Amaziah shuts his ears to prophecy. He too appeals to the kingdom and temple as false confirmations of God’s favor. Rather than examining the sin of Israel, Amaziah instructs Amos to prophesy against the rival kingdom of Judah (which Amos has already shown is less guilty than Israel). For this conversation to be prefaced by the plumb line vision is instructive. A plumb line is an incredibly easy architectural tool to use, as anyone can immediately tell if the wall is leaning by looking at the weight. By joining this to the Amaziah discourse, Amos communicates that Amaziah, as a representative of Israel as a whole, is either too ignorant to see the problem or morally apathetic as he continues to depend upon a wall that is destined to collapse.

The final section prophesies God’s restoration of Israel. Though the kingdom will be destroyed, and the sinners annihilated, YHWH will remember his covenant, spare the righteous, and reestablish his people. Here Amos picks up on the promises in the Pentateuch of a return from exile (Lev. 26:44–45; Deut. 4:29–31). ²⁰ Not only will the Davidic kingdom be installed once again, but Israel will possess ‘all the nations who are called by my name…’ (9:11–12). Upon returning from exile God ‘will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them…’ (9:14). This restored kingdom will be better than the first, as ‘they shall never again be uprooted’ (9:15). For God to make such a promise, his people must be recreated in a state that would never again require punishment like what has been described in the previous chapters. In this way, Amos alludes to a redeemed and perfected people like that prophesied by Jeremiah in the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31–34).

Theological Assessment

What does Amos reveal to us about God? As previously noted, this picture of God reacting to a wicked Israel has both echoes and counterechoes to what is revealed elsewhere in the Hebrew canon.

The counterechoes are more obvious. Rarely do we find such striking language about God in opposition to his people. ²¹ Motyer identifies that

The encircling foe speaks to the enmity of their Lion-God… the wording is direct: I punish… I will punish… I will smite… The vengeance of the covenant is a reality, and we would do well to ponder what it is which alienates God from His people and renders them helpless before their foes. ²²

This goes hand-in-hand with Amos’s appropriation of the ‘day of the Lord’ (5:18, cf. 8:9, 9:11) as a negative idea rather than an eschatological hope. Throughout the Old Testament, the day of the Lord includes judgement and is something to be feared. But in most cases, it relates to God’s judgement of Israel’s enemies and serves to encourage the Israelites to persevere in obedience (Isa. 13:9; Jer. 46:10; Oba. 1:15). Amos is (probably) the earliest Old Testament reference to the day of the Lord, but the idea does not originate with him. Rather, Amos picks up on a popular tradition that anticipates the day of the Lord as something that will vindicate Israel. ²³

Amos does not reject the idea, but he demolishes it as a basis for any hope or security; he interprets it… as something they should fear rather than long for… Those who share in the Lord’s justice can hope to share in its triumph. But there is nothing automatic about Israel’s privilege; Israel in its present condition will find itself among the Lord’s enemies. ²⁴

This idea is picked up by later prophets, who envision Israel and Judah being afflicted on the day of the Lord alongside the other nations (Ezek. 13:5; Joel 2:1; Zeph. 1:7).

Despite these troubling ideas, the prophet’s view of God resonates deeply in echoing the witness of the whole Hebrew canon. There is a strong emphasis on God as the creator of the world, the sovereign ruler of the nations, and the enforcer of covenant law. The imagery of God forming the mountains and creating the wind (4:13), making the stars and constellations (5:8), and controlling the heavens and the rain (9:6) reflects the creation story of Genesis 1 and flood narrative of Genesis 6, God’s description of his creation and providence to Job 38, and the creation hymn in Psalm 104. God’s status as creator reminds the reader that God possesses the power and authority to judge the nations and Israel. ²⁵

Beyond the idea of God as creator, Amos also envisions YHWH as the enforcer of his covenant. This is abundantly clear when Amos cites crimes that directly violate the Mosaic law, as discussed above. He presupposes the stipulations of the Torah, finds Israel to be out of compliance, and prophecies God’s execution of the covenant curses in response. ²⁶ God’s covenantal enforcement extends beyond Israel alone. Chisholm identifies a link between the oracles of Amos and the Noahic covenant to which all nations are accountable. As noted above, the noun peśa’ suggests a covenantal aspect to the sins of the nations. The covenant God made with Noah, who serves as a new Adam from which all nations descend (Gen. 10), includes moral precepts to which all people are bound, with a particular emphasis on the imago dei as the supreme ethical principle (Gen. 8:20–9:17). ‘The atrocities mentioned in the oracles – excessive cruelty, slave trade, kidnapping, wholesale slaughter of women and children, and the desecration of an ancestral tomb – were, at least in principle, violations of the Noahic mandate.’ ²⁷ All people are expected and bound by the covenant to respect the image of God in humanity. By engaging in oppression, chattel slavery, abuse of women, sexual immorality, murder, and unjust warfare, the nations and Israel violate the Noahic covenant and are called to account by the prophet.

Is the theology of God consistent with the rest of the canon? There is no doubt that Amos resonates with other adversarial depictions of God found in the prophets. But does this alert us to divergent religious trajectories in the Old Testament? ²⁸ Do the prophets and their communities of faith construct an angry and vengeful God in contrast with the earlier Jewish tradition? Such thinking is mistaken. As Jensen rightly points out, ‘God… is not cruel or merciless; quite the contrary. If Amos threatens a punishment that amounts to destruction, it is an indication of how grave he saw the sins of the people.’ ²⁹ In Leviticus 19:2, the Lord says to Moses, ‘Speak to the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.’ When we come to the time at which Amos writes, the holiness of God has remained unchanged, whereas the holiness of Israel has diminished. The consistency of God’s character is essential to Amos’s argument. Jensen makes a profound observation when he writes that

in bringing Israel into the land, YHWH had championed Israel, then weak and needy, against the powerful inhabitants… YHWH continues to champion the weak and needy, but now the oppressors are found among his own people… The catalog of what YHWH has done for Israel, given now as a basis for condemnation, means that they were expected to learn how to behave from the divine example. ³⁰

It is the consistency of God’s character that makes the final section of Amos conceivable. ‘When the smoke of judgement cleared, the Lord would restore his people to their land, revive the Davidic dynasty and bless he nation with unprecedented prosperity (9:11–15).’ ³¹ God would be faithful in fulfilling his covenantal promises to Israel, just as he would be faithful in punishing their sins and healing their wickedness.

This picture of the faithfulness of God extends into the New Testament’s use of Amos, particularly in the book of Acts. In Acts 15, the famous ‘Jerusalem Council’ addresses the debate over Gentile inclusion in the church and observance of the Mosaic law. After Barnabas and Paul recount the ‘signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles’ (15:12), James speaks to the council, appropriating the prophecy of Amos 9:11–12 LXX. ³² The foretold restoration of the ‘tent of David’ and ‘the remnant of mankind’ is interpreted as the Gentiles being brought into the family of God and made co-heirs of the covenant. ³³

The prophecy of Amos, understood in its time as looking toward a restoration of the earthly kingdom of Israel and possession of rival nations, takes on a deeper significance in light of Christ’s revelation. The result is that the inclusion of Gentiles into the church is taken to be a fulfillment of God’s plan from the beginning, and the multi-ethnic church is understood to be God’s reestablished kingdom. The council then makes the decision not to burden the Gentile Christians with strict adherence to the law, though they are to be instructed against idolatry, sexual immorality, and consuming blood (Acts 15:19–20). As Peter states in the preceding verses, ‘God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith’ (Acts 15:8–9). In keeping with the message of Amos, God’s favor is granted in the exercise of genuine faith rather than vain acts of external piety. Though the inclusion of the Gentiles does not excuse them from ethical living, it demonstrates that their inclusion is conditioned on God’s election and the Spirit’s cleansing.

Ethical Implications

Perhaps the most obvious theological lesson we can glean from Amos today is that our election and religious zeal will never be an excuse to neglect God’s ethical precepts or offer a buffer against divine judgement. ‘With the neatest possible touch Amos exposes the wholesale failure of… religion as a protection against disaster.’ ³⁴ Israel’s covenant relationship with the Lord, the cultic symbols of their religion (temple and priesthood), and external signs of piety ‘did not insulate it from judgement, but rather made the nation more responsible to follow the Lord’s demands. When Israel failed to live up to the Lord’s standard, it became more culpable in his sight than others who had not received as much revelatory light (3:1–2).’ ³⁵

The same is true for the church today, and especially in the western world. Our misguided assurance in divine favor, coupled with an apathy to the sins of the church in the abuse of women, economic injustice, racism, and political idolatry, are symbolized well by Amaziah’s foolishness in response to Amos. God owes us nothing, and we cannot expect God to sustain the prosperity of the western church in light of our collective wickedness and failure to repent. ³⁶ Motyer poignantly identifies the lesson here: ‘We have forgotten that our God can turn and become our enemy (Isa. 63:10) and with all our talk of taking care not to fall into the power of Satan we have become blind to the much more dangerous possibility of falling out of the power of God.’ ³⁷

Lest we slip into the heinous theology of antinomianism, we must realize that our election, while freeing us from the law by grace, paradoxically places Christians in greater accountability to the moral demands of God. The Apostle James speaks to us in the same spirit as Amos. He implores us to see that the revelation we received and the regeneration of our souls make us more, not less, accountable to the law. ‘But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves… the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doings’ (James 1:22, 25). It is hard not to see the connection between James’s warning against the rich and those who discriminate against the impoverished (James 2:1–7) and the wealthy Israelites who enriched themselves at the expense of the poor (Amos 6). We can imagine James in conversation with Amaziah when he writes ‘You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone’ (James 2:24).

When churches cover up sexual assault and persecute victims, we ‘turn justice to wormwood’ (Amos 5:7). When churches do business with corporations that turn a profit by engaging in unethical economic and ecological practices, we participate with those who ‘trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth’ (4:1). When our seminaries burden students with crushing debt as a means to attaining the theological education required for pastoral ministry, we are like those who enrich themselves at the expense of the poor and desperate (6:1–8). The Lord still stands with a plumb line (Amos 7:7–9). When he sets it against the wall of the church, will it find us upright or skewed?