Deeper Commentary

Amos 7:1 Thus the Lord Yahweh showed me: and behold, He formed locusts in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and behold, it was the latter growth after the king’s harvest- GNB "Just after the king's share of the hay had been cut and the grass was starting to grow again". Am. 4:6-9 has explained that this was at a time of famine. The strong took away what little food the poor had, just in order to continue their own opulent living, as explained on Am. 5:11. The king was chief in this offence. The punishment was therefore that locusts would eat up the harvest of the wealthy. However "the shooting up" may refer to the temporary revival of prosperity under Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25) after it had as it were been mown down by the incursions of Hazael and Benhadad (2 Kings 13:3,22).

 

 It could be argued that the timing of the judgment reflects God's grace- the first harvest had already happened, the King taking the best of the hay. Note how Uzziah, the King in Amos' time, Am. 1:1, "loved husbandry", 2 Chron. 26:10; like us, he was tested at his weakest point. The grasshoppers [Heb. locusts] were prepared to destroy the secondary harvest which was not so crucial to survival. It could be that the locusts ate the grass but hadn't moved on to the crops. God's grace is seen in the midst of His judgments; He could have judged Israel far more severely, by destroying the primary harvest. The creation of a locust plague by God naturally alludes to the plague of locusts upon Egypt - which was ended by Moses' mediation for Egypt just as Amos now interceded for Israel; see on :3. This is one of many examples of where God's apostate people are treated as and spoken of in the language of Egypt / the world; the ultimate punishment for the rejected will be to be sent back into the world, the Egypt which they had preferred in their day of opportunity, and share their destiny. Hence Paul writes of being "condemned with the world". See on :4.

Note that God consciously "forms" locusts... He sends His rain on the earth, there's a consciousness about every movement in the natural creation, a conscious expenditure of His energy and Spirit.

The LXX of Amos 7:1 is interesting: "Behold, a swarm of locusts coming from the east; and, behold, one caterpillar, king Gog". Yet Amos intercedes: "Repent, O Lord, for this. And this shall not be, says the Lord". This would suggest that the Gog invasion was conditional and was forestalled by the intercession of Amos; thus not only Ezekiel 40-48 would be conditional prophecy, but Ezekiel 38 and 39 also.

Amos 7:2 It happened that when they made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, Lord Yahweh, forgive, I beseech You! How could Jacob stand? For he is so small- The only other time we read of Jacob being "small" is when the same Hebrew word is used about Jacob being the "younger" son (Gen. 27:15,42). God delights to work through the weak, the younger sons, the spiritually weak, the sinners... and Amos appeals to God's grace, to continue working through the weak Israel. For how else shall Jacob "arise"- and the same Hebrew words are used of the historical Jacob 'arising' and being saved by God's grace from a just destruction for his sins (Gen. 31:17; 35:1). We can use these ideas to comfort those who feel they have fallen so far into sin that God has stopped working with them. His style is quite the opposite- to use such desperate situations to bring men and women to be His truest servants.

The historical fulfilment of this may be in that the incursions of Hazael and Benhadad into Israel could have destroyed them; but it was the prayer of Amos which saved those "locusts" from totally destroying the kingdom. There was still some space for repentance; hence the intensity of Amos' appeal. And in the time allotted, Jeroboam II did restore much land to Israel (see on :1), but still there was no repentance.

The idea of prophets was well known in the world around ancient Israel. The idea of a prophet was that a person was caught up in some kind of ecstasy, transported into some ‘other’ world, and leaving behind their humanity. The true prophets were different. Their inspiration was about being attuned to the mind of God, they remained very much in the flesh and in the world, and the subjects of their prophecy related to very real, human things- injustice, a guy building an extension on his house without paying the labourers. Not flashing lights and ethereal coasting through space. The pagan prophets (e.g. the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:26-29) worked themselves into a frenzy in order to reach a state of depersonalization and loss of consciousness, in the hope that then they would be filled with Divine consciousness. True prophets like Amos were absolutely different; the inspiration process required them to be fully in touch with their own consciousness and personality, and it was exactly through their humanity that the personality of God came through in the inspired words they spake and wrote. Amos perceived the Lord’s word, and then ‘butted in’ as it were, in full consciousness: “O Lord God, forgive, I beseech Thee! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” (Am. 7:2). This is the very opposite of the pagan prophets losing touch with their human senses and reasoning.

 

The relatively small amount  of human repentance needed to make the Angel repent is shown here in Amos 7. Amos sees visions of the impending judgements on Israel. After each he prays for Jacob to be forgiven; and the answer comes: Yahweh repented for this. It shall not be, says the Lord". He repented for the sake of one intense prayer! Notice too Amos asking "Who shall stand for Jacob?". Michael the Angel stands for Israel in the court of Heaven (as the Angel 'God of Jacob'; Dan. 12:1), and thus it appears Amos is pointing out that if Israel is condemned and punished they will have no Angel with them- and so the Angel / God changes His mind.

Although the prophets were on God’s side as it were, sharing His spirit, speaking His words, they were also men, and they were largely Jews, members of the nation upon whom He was announcing His wrath. At times, they reason with God. Amos delivered God’s judgment against his people, and then pleaded with God about them, and He changed His mind. Other examples in Is. 6:11; Jer. 4:14; Ps. 74:10. This was how well the prophets knew God; and yet again, it shows that they weren’t merely impersonally reproducing a message from God. They were involved in it and highly sensitive to it.

Amos 7:3 Yahweh relented concerning this. It shall not be, says Yahweh- There really were intended Divine judgments upon Israel at this time which didn't happen thanks to a subsistence farmer praying to God to change His mind... Note the huge implications of the two words "for this" [NEV "concerning this"]. For those few words of Amos, Almighty God changed His mind. What's amazing is that Amos had opened his prophecy by relaying the statement that God would not repent of His judgment of Israel. God is not the stone faced, unchanging Allah of Islam, nor the emotionless deity of the Greeks. He changes, just as He did over Nineveh. The only thing that is unchanging in Him is grace, whereby the sons of Jacob are not ultimately consumed when they ought to have been (Mal. 3:6 cp. Jer. 10:25).

 

Amos 7:4 Thus the Lord Yahweh showed me and behold, the Lord Yahweh called for judgment by fire; and it dried up the great deep, and would have devoured the land- "Called" raises the question 'to whom?'. Maybe to the Angels in the court of Heaven? "Contend by fire" (AV) suggests a reference to Elijah calling God to contend by fire against an apostate Israel.

Israel are likened to the sea, being burnt up by the heat of God's wrath. But the sea is usually a symbol of the Gentile world- as in the notes on 7:1, apostate Israel are being likened to the Gentiles. God at that time would've burnt up all Israel- had not Amos interceded. This is exactly what happened with Moses. The idea of "part" of God's land and people being burnt up by judgment is common in Revelation- the implication of the allusions back here to Amos could be that all God's land / people aren't destroyed in the last days because of intercession by third parties- ourselves?

Destruction by fire is more radical and total than a locust swarm. As explained on :2, the locust swarm was stopped from totally destroying the kingdom by Amos' intercession. But still Israel didn't repent, and so destruction by fire was promised. But Amos again interceded and even this was delayed- explaining how all the more desperately intense was Amos' appeal for repentance.

Amos 7:5 Then I said, Lord Yahweh, cease, I beg You! How could Jacob stand? For he is small- God is open to changing His stated plan due to the mediation of others. It would even appear that Amos believed God could forgive the sins of others because of his prayers rather than their repentance. For Amos doesn't merely ask God not to execute His judgments, but to actually forgive Israel. There's an obvious similarity with the intercession of Moses; the only other person to pray "Forgive, I beseech You" is Moses- the same Hebrew words are found on his lips twice (Ex. 34:9; Num. 14:19). Moses' amazing example had been meditated upon by Amos as he did his agricultural work- and he rose up to the same level. He prayed the same prayer. We too should be motivated in our prayer lives by Biblical examples, even using the same words. So many Biblical prayers use the words of previous Scripture. God leads us to see the similarities between our situations and those of Biblical figures- e.g. by giving Amos a vision of judgment upon Israel in terms of a locust plague, which was intended to lead Amos to see Israel as Egypt and himself as Moses in making intercession to end the plague. Amos gets into the spirit of Moses by asking God to "cease", using the same word used to describe how the plagues "ceased" as a result of Moses' intercession (Ex. 9:29,33,34). Amos the humble herdsman rose up to the spirit of Moses, the figure set within Judaism as it were in stained glass as unapproachable and beyond imitation, to be revered but not copied. And we can rise up in the same way.

Amos 7:6 Yahweh relented concerning this. This also shall not be, says the Lord Yahweh- Amos pronounced what the Lord had shown him: that the land would be destroyed by grasshoppers, and then by fire. But each time he begged Yahweh to relent. And “the Lord repented for this: It shall not be, saith the Lord” (AV). Israel’s salvation was to some degree dependent on the love and prayer of Amos. God may have prepared great things potentially, which are only ‘released’ by our prayer for them.  James reasons that because we have seen “the end intended by the Lord” (James 5:11 NKJ) we ought therefore to do the maximum of our ability in prayer for others, and as Job praying for his friends, we can really influence the outcomes for third parties (see on Mk. 2:5).

Amos 7:7 Thus he showed me: Behold, the Lord stood beside a wall made by a plumb line, with a plumb line in His hand- Measuring was an idiom for preparation for judgment, and like all prophecy, this will have its ultimate application in the last days (see on Rev. 11:2). The idea may be that God had built the wall perpendicular, but Israel had built further upon it, and now He would assess precisely how far they had strayed. Every sin and failure led to others, just as building a wall with slight errors to begin with leads to the wall becoming more grossly out of shape as the building proceeds. This is the problem with considering that there are small sins, some 'out of line' stuff in our lives that we shall just let be.

Amos 7:8 Yahweh said to me, Amos, what do you see? I said, A plumb line. Then the Lord said, Behold, I will set a plumb line in the midst of My people Israel. I will not again change My mind about punishing them- God is aware that He has changed His mind... elsewhere He warns that this time, His threatened punishment of Israel will not be as another echo in the mountains (Ez. 7:7). But... He still doesn't destroy them fully. Hos. 11:8 describes His unbearable tension: "How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together" (Hos. 11:8). This is the God whose word is ultimately firm still being open to changing it- such is the extent of His love for Israel; and us.

Amos 7:9 The high places of Isaac will be desolate, the sanctuaries of Israel will be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword- We never read of Isaac having any idolatrous "high places", but all the patriarchs were amazingly weak at times and so it doesn't surprise us. The point could be that the secret sins of God's people, e.g. those of Isaac which by grace aren't recorded in the Biblical record, will be revealed in the time of judgment. Hence the reference in 7:16 to "the house of Isaac". But Isaac had a vision from God at Beersheba and likely built an altar there (Gen. 26:23,24). The apostacy of God's people was in continually seeking to justify their idolatry by daubing it with references to true Yahweh worship; and Beersheba was one of the idol shrines (Am. 5:5).

 

Amos 7:10 Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, Amos has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel. The land is not able to bear all his words- This was his commentary upon Amos preaching the word of :9, that the house of Jeroboam was to be destroyed. It would seem that Amos announced this word at Bethel, not Samaria. Perhaps he stationed himself there at the idol shrine and warned the people daily. As always happens, the words of the faithful are twisted; Amaziah implied that Amos was taking into his own hands to fulfil the prophecy against Jeroboam, and was plotting to murder him. "Conspired" is literally "banded", as if Amos had built up a group of followers; perhaps indeed a minority did repent. And indeed the word of God could not be abided by Israel when it finally came to fulfilment; the same words are used in Joel 2:11.

Amos 7:11 For Amos says, ‘Jeroboam will die by the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of his land’- The implication is that Amos kept on saying this; and that although he was appealing for repentance, he recognized that the captivity was going to happen. To keep on giving an unpopular message is difficult; it's one thing to whisper something once, but to keep warning is bound to make us unpopular. Amos is really an example to us.

Amos 7:12 Amaziah also said to Amos, You prophet, go, flee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there- "Eat bread" may be an idiom to imply that he would be sponsored there, implying that Amos was just saying what his financial supporters wanted him to say. This would explain why his response is that he is not a professional prophet as they understood a prophet, i.e. a man just saying things for the sake of those who employed him (as in Ez. 13:19); but rather was he just a humble herdsman and fig gatherer (:14).

Amos 7:13 But don’t prophesy again any more at Bethel; for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a royal house!- This is typical of how money controls spirituality in apostate religion. Jeroboam had funded the sanctuary, it was his [and not Yahweh's]; therefore Amos shouldn't be condemning the king in the king's sanctuary. The record is making the point that Bethel, the house of God, was no longer the house of God but the king's house. Israel had hijacked God's house, just as the Lord's table has so often been hijacked by those who act as if it is their table, and decide who may or may not enter the Lord's house / family. Telling the prophets not to prophesy was the sin of God's people in Am. 2:12. Reading or hearing God's word but not letting it bite us is just the same.

Amos 7:14 Then Amos answered Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was a herdsman, and a gatherer of sycamore figs- This was Amos' answer to the implication he was a career prophet just saying what those who paid him wanted to hear (:12). He was not even the son of a prophet, probably referring to the "sons of the prophets" who had attended the schools of the prophets (2 Kings 4:1,2). Amos was for whatever reason not within the mainstream and not apparently associated with the schools of the prophets. He was as he says, just a humble labourer. This is evidence enough that one can teach God's word without any pedigree or theological education. Indeed it seems God prefers to work through outsiders such as Amos. He was poor- a herdsman who also gathered sycamore fruit, which was plentiful in Israel but inferior to figs.

When asked who he was, John’s reply was simply: “a voice”. Amos, in the same way, was told not to keep on prophesying; but he replies: “I am no prophet…the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy” (Am. 1:14,15 RV). It’s almost contradictory: ‘I’m not a prophet… I am a prophet’. He was truly selfless, like, John, just a voice for God. Samuel also spoke of himself at a distance from himself when he told Israel: “The Lord sent Jerubbaal… and Samuel… and delivered you” (1 Sam. 12:11).

Amos stresses that speaking forth God's word wasn't at all what he wished to do or was cut out for. Likewise Paul says that because preaching God's word was against his natural inclination, therefore a calling to preach the Gospel had indeed been given to him (1 Cor. 9:17). Paul was sent to the Gentiles and not the Jews as he might naturally have preferred; the disciples were unlearned and ignorant men called to preach to the Jewish intelligentsia; women weren't accepted as legal witnesses and yet the Lord asks women to be the first witnesses of His resurrection; always in the preaching of His word does God use those who humanly aren't qualified to do so. He doesn't use slick presentation, but rather human weakness in order to convert others. Amos doubtless alludes to himself in Am. 3:8 where he says that a prophet cannot but speak out God's word- and this is alluded to by the apostles when they say they cannot but speak out what they have seen and heard of Christ.

Amos doesn't actually answer the serious false allegation against him personally, but gets on with speaking forth God's word. This is rather like Peter, who when forbidden to preach just continues to do so. Paul also was forbidden by the Jews to teach the Gentiles (1 Thess. 2:16). Both Paul and Peter must have recalled Amos going through the same. Situations repeat within the lives of God's children who are contemporary with each other, and also between our situations and those of Bible characters. This is the basis in practice for the unity of the Spirit. We are given real life examples of others who have walked this path before.

Amos 7:15 And Yahweh took me from following the flock, and Yahweh said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to My people Israel’- The context is responding to the idea that he was only saying what men had paid him to say (see on :12). Amos seems to purposefully use the language used about David who was likewise taken from the flock to do God's work (2 Sam. 7:8; Ps. 78:70,71). David and Moses were seen as untouchable founding fathers of the Israelite culture and religion; for a humble labourer to act like Moses in mediating for Israel (as in :1-5), and now to see himself as David, was significant spiritual ambition. We too can rise up to these patterns rather than just admire them. The low status of Amos is therefore emphasized; he was a "herdman" (Am. 1:1), a noqeed because he shepherded naaqaad, a stunted and ugly breed, leading to the proverb "viler than a naaqaad". Likewise he gathered not figs, but sycamore fruit, the cheapest, commonest and least tasty fruit (:14).

Amos 7:16 Now therefore listen to the word of Yahweh: ‘You say, Don’t prophesy against Israel, and don’t preach against the house of Isaac’- To forbid the teaching of God's word led to the serious condemnation of :17. And church politics today often lead to a similar forbidding of preachers, especially those considered to be outsiders like Amos. The same situation is criticized in Mic. 2:6, where the command to stop others preaching was because those who forbad it didn't want to "take shame". We can claim belief in an inspired Bible and yet refuse to be shamed by what we read, and effectively we are thereby shutting down God's word. This shows that 'belief in an inspired Bible' can never remain a mere theological tenet; it demands so much of us, and one can so easily deny it in practice despite giving lipservice to the theory.

The Israelites considered themselves the house / family of Isaac because they had transformed his shrine to Yahweh at Beersheba into an idol shrine, through which they claimed to worship Yahweh; see on :9. They thought their much proclaimed connection with Isaac somehow justified their sin, just as multi generational Christian believers can assume that their pedigree justifies their apostacy.

Amos 7:17 Therefore thus says Yahweh: ‘Your wife shall be a prostitute in the city, and your sons and your daughters shall fall by the sword- Imagine the nervous tone of voice in which Amos likely said those words, just as we imagine Joseph and Daniel summoning the courage to speak forth God's word. We likely know that feeling. To call a man's wife a prostitute was serious indeed. Presumably she would become such in order to placate the invaders, or because she simply needed to somehow get food in the desperate situation which was to come.

And your land shall be divided by line- Such division is characteristic of how God judges people (Lam. 4:16; Ez. 5:1 s.w.). Those who divide themselves within God's kingdom or people are thereby living out their own condemnation.

And you yourself shall die in a land that is unclean, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of his land’- The Israelites considered Gentile lands "unclean", and yet they had made their own land unclean by their sins (Is. 24:5; Jer. 2:7). It was therefore appropriate that they be taken away to die in an unclean Gentile land. Clearly it was the hypocrisy of Israel in considering other lands "unclean" which was so obnoxious to God. And the people of God must ever struggle with the temptation to be no better in essence than those they claim to be separate from.