This week’s lesson on Amos 1:3–2:16, elicits a number of questions, some more textual in nature, others more theoretical or theological. First, why did Amos promise punishment to Damascus (Aram), Gaza (Philistia), Tyre (the Phoenicians), Edom (descendants of Esau), the Ammonites, and the Moabites (both descendants of Lot)? Did he actually deliver these messages? If so, did he travel there in person or send the messages by courier? Second, what was his purpose in addressing these regions first, then Judah, and afterward, Israel? Finally, why does Amos rebuke people so much, and, even broader, why do prophets of the Old Testament in general rebuke people more, it seems, than they bless them or affirm them?

The regions mentioned are those in closest proximity to Israel. Damascus lay to the northwest, Gaza was along the southwest coastal end of Judah, Tyre stood to the west, with Edom, Ammon, and Moab situated to the cast. If one stood either in Jerusalem or Samaria and pointed out toward regions just beyond Judah and Israel, these would be the recipients of the gesture. One could make several conclusions from this observation:

1. God cared enough about all those regions to send them a warning.
2. Since these regions tended to cause problems for Judah and Israel, they deserved some divine discipline, and thus were singled out for rebuke.
3. These were regions that both Israelites and Judahites would likely scorn as enemies or at least as "more sinful" than themselves, and the prophet singles them out as a preface for what ultimately follows.

Of course, one must ask whether Amos actually sent out these messages. Though one cannot completely rule out the possibility that he did not, it seems likely that he sent them as letters because the length of each is about the usual size of ancient letters. One can also ask whether he wrote these messages specifically for these regions or for Israel.

The latter possibility makes very good sense if one considers that Israel (who was the chief target of Amos’s oracles) could point the finger in any direction (including south toward Judah) and declare that everyone else was sinful. Thus, why should Israel be singled out for rebuke? The prophet, then, begins with those farthest from Israel in terms of ethnic similarities and then moves closer and closer to home, ending with Judah (part of their original family) before stating final punch line: "And like all of these, I will punish you for the same number of sins."

The three-four numerical device is commonly used in Israelite and Canaanite poetry.1 A number of interpretations have been offered to explain this arrangement (aggregate number, completion, repeating decimal), and any one of them can be used to suggest that, theologically, Amos is sending home the message that the wickedness of each region is great enough to require divine intervention.

No doubt, as his message was read aloud before an assembly gathered in Samaria the Israelites smugly assented that, certainly, these nations were sinful; yes, indeed, they deserved punishment. By the time Amos reached Judah, they were probably quite comfortable even though standing. Then came the psychological blow—"For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment" (Amos 2:6 RSV). Wide awake, the assembly was ready to listen.

Why, though, did ancient prophets—from Elijah to John the Baptist—seem to play such an austere, doomsday role in the lives of God’s people? What a depressing mission! Did it make the people any more righteous to hear about their sins?

So much depends upon how we read the Old Testament, what baggage we bring with us, our formalized picture of God, and how we view sin. In some cultures (ancient ones included), rebuke is not considered totally unfriendly. Ancient Near Eastern schools were brutal in their discipline, beating students for not knowing their lessons, being late, or simply miscopying texts. Corporal punishment was fairly common, and it can be assumed that children were regularly disciplined in that manner. To rebuke someone might actually appear to be a sign of affection, whereas to ignore them and their behavior sent a message of alienation and anger.

The context of Amos is one of ease, prosperity, wealth—and oppression of the poor, widows, orphans, and anyone who stood in the way of personal gain. Patting such people on the back with a smile and saying, "God loves you," would be tantamount to reassuring them that their prosperity (and the means by which they attained it) was a sign of divine favor and that those they cheated deserved such injustice as divine punishment for their sins. Such stern rebukes must have seemed music to the ears of those ill treated by their brothers and sisters. At the same time, by humbling Israel to the level of "everyone else" (no better than the Philistines or Moabites), the prophet succeeded in dealing with their self-righteous, hypocritical piety.

Perhaps prophets have something in common with physicians. Before healing can take place, before a patient can be persuaded to take the appropriate remedies, there must first be a diagnosis. If the patient refuses treatment, then sometimes a prognosis is also necessary. Often the patient has lived a lifestyle that has resulted in the particular illness. This, too, must be pointed out for the patient to work toward recovery. No caring, conscientious physician would wave a terminally ill patient away with words of affirmation that they are doing "just fine." Were the Bible devoid of prophets with oracles of rebuke, the God pictured therein would deserve a malpractice suit.

Notes and References

1. Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A Translation with Introduction and Commentary AB 24A (New York: Doubleday).

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE