Amos 7

Five Visions of Judgment (Amos 7:1-17). “ Thus the Lord Jehovah showed me; and behold, he formed locust in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and lo it was after the king’ s mowings. And it came to pass that when they made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord Jehovah, forgive, 1 beseech thee; how shall Jacob stand? for he is small. Jehovah repented concerning this: it shall not be, saith Jehovah” (Amos 7:1-3). Amos stresses in each of these messages that “ the Lord showed me.” They were not tales or speculations of his own contrivance. The same is true of all the writers of scripture. David said “ The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was upon my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:2).

Paul wrote, “ which things we speak, not in words which man’ s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Corinthians 2:13). Then he reminded them that the things he wrote “ are the commandment of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37). In Peter’ s words, “ men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21) Faithfulness to God involves belief in the inspired, inerrant, authoritative Word of God. It is important to note that Amos relates to us a vision, not an historical event that had occurred. This is evident from verse three where God repented and said “ it shall not be.” Locust plagues were the scourge of the eastern people. Before the days of pesticides and crop dusting, the people were helpless against the invading horde. They would literally strip the land bare of vegetation, even barking the trees. The Lord “ formed” the locust. Clearly Amos had pointed their attention to God who formed the mountains (Amos 4:13) and the heavenly orbs (Amos 5:8).

Now he reminds them that even the tiny grasshopper is the product of God’ s power. Further all the works of his hand, exist to serve him. In the face of a God so awesome, with such inexhaustible resources, how can they expect to successfully ignore or resist him? He sees the hay fields. The first mowing had been completed. It went to the king as a tax or levy (See 1 Kings 4:27; 1 Kings 18:5). “ The latter growth” would be the second and last mowing before the long dry summer season set in. If this crop failed, the common people would be in great distress. Remember, locust eat not only hay but every green plant. Seeing this coming disaster, Amos cries out, “ O Lord Jehovah forgive, I beseech thee.” Intercession was part of a prophet’ s work. So did Moses (Numbers 14:19) and Samuel (1 Samuel 7:8) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 14:19-22). The prayer of a righteous man availeth much (James 5:16).

Jehovah heard and honored Amos’ prayer and “ repented concerning this.” He suspended the planned judgment. Infidels and skeptics pounce on this and similar verses, attempting to find a contradiction and discredit God. They cite, “ God is not a man that he should repent” (Numbers 23:19). The answer is simple. The holy and righteous God commits no sin for which he needs to repent. He does however, alter his course of action as a wise ruler. In this vision we see God’ s mercy in restraining judgment.

“ and behold, the Lord Jehovah called to contend by fire; and it devoured the great deep, and would have eaten up the land. Then said I, O Lord Jehovah, cease, I beseech thee; how shall Jacob stand? for he is small. Jehovah repented concerning this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord Jehovah” (Amos 7:4-6). The fire that devoured the great deep (large bodies of water) and would have eaten up the land, is an extended drought. Realizing the awful damage a prolonged drought would do and the suffering that would result therefrom, again the prophet successfully intercedes. Not only for nations, but for individuals should we intercede (1 John 5:16). Again, we remind our readers that this was a vision Amos saw, not a particular historical event. “ Thus he showed me; and behold, the Lord stood beside a wall made by a plumb-line, with a plumb-line in his hand. And Jehovah said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumb-line. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel; I will not again pass by them any more; and the high places of Isaac shall be desolate and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword” (Amos 7:7-9). Before, Amos saw locusts and drought as God’ s agents of destruction. In this vision, the Lord himself is seen inspecting the nation.

In his hand is a plumb-line, i.e., a string with a metal weight attached at one end which is used to measure and determine the vertical straightness of a wall. We call the metal weight a “ plumb-bob.” A wall that is standing properly is said to be plumb. Such measuring devises were used in erecting walls. They were also used to determine if a wall was leaning and therefore in need of demolition (See 2 Kings 21:13; Isaiah 34:11). The wall stands for the Northern Kingdom. The plumb-line represents God’ s, word his righteous standard of judgment.

The nation was out of plumb. God had confirmed it and would call for its demolition. Twice judgment had been deferred through the intercession of Amos. Now it must come. We are reminded of his earlier words “ for three transgressions of Israel, yea for four I will not turn away the punishment thereof’ (Amos 2:6).

“ The high places of Isaac” stand parallel to “ the sanctuaries of Israel.” He refers to their centers of idolatry. He likely calls them by Isaac’ s name for that patriarch had worshiped God faithfully in the very place, such as Beersheba, where they now worshiped idols (Compare Genesis 26:23-25; Amos 5:5; Amos 8:14). The house of Jeroboam suffered this violence when, Zechariah, was assassinated by Shallum (2 Kings 15:8-12). His death fulfilled yet another prophecy spoken to Jehu, founder of the dynasty, that his sons would reign to the fourth generation (2 Kings 10:30). This threat against the house of Jeroboam provoked an immediate response by the priestly guardian of Bethel’ s shrine. “ Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam the king of Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel; the land is not able to bear all his words. For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of his land” (Amos 7:10-11). Rankled at Amos’ preaching and concerned by the attention he was getting, Amaziah sends a message hurriedly to the king. He was seeking relief; perhaps an injunction prohibiting Amos’ preaching or better still his arrest. As is typical of corrupt professionals, Amaziah painted Amos’ preaching in the darkest colors, not hesitating to shade it to gain a favorable response. He falsely asserts that Amos was part of a conspiracy, which would involve others in some planned criminal activity.

He took Amos’ warning against the dynasty and said that Amos had threatened the king’ s life. He failed to note the basis of the prophet’ s threat of captivity and that it was conditional. National repentance could help their situation (5:14-15). He did not tell the king that God had said these things, only that Amos had done so. “ The land is not able to bear all his words” means “ we cannot afford to tolerate such preaching.” Opponents of reformation frequently protest that such change would be destructive to the society and government. “ Also Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go, flee thou away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there; but prophesy not again any more at Bethel; for it is the king’ s sanctuary, and it is a royal house” (7:12-13). It is noteworthy that Jeroboam evidently took no notice of Amaziah’ s urgent communique. Either he did not view Amos as a threat or he hesitated to challenge a prophet of God. Perhaps he recalled how a prophet from Judah had dealt with the first Jeroboam at that very place. (1 Kings 13:1-6). Such information would temper even a king’ s reaction. Not getting the desired results from the king, Amaziah proceeded to deal with the pesky prophet personally, “ flee thou away into the land of Judah” means literally, “ flee for thy profit” or as we would say, “ if you know what is good for you, you will get out of here.”

The word “sccr” from the Hebrew hozch is a word frequently used for prophets because they saw visions (1 Samuel 9:9; 2 Samuel 24:11). The pagan priest urged Amos to go back to Judah, his homeland where such preaching as his would be acceptable. He later told him that he was persona non grata in Bethel. He then added an insult by suggesting the Amos’ motivation was for “ bread,” i.e., food for his belly. Then as now, there were mercenary prophets in the land. Micah speaks of corrupt prophets that “ divine for money” (Micah 3:5-11). Being a priest who served for hire, Amaziah wrongly assumed Amos to be cut of the same cloth. Bethel was “ the king’ s sanctuary,” i.e., a sanctuary founded by and governed by the king as the principle seat of worship in his land. Amaziah spoke better than he knew. It surely was Jeroboam’ s and not Jehovah’ s sanctuary. God’ s house was at Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 23:25). That which is human in origin will forever remain human. It was “ a royal house” which means that the king had a residence there. While the chief seat of political power was at Samaria, the king had residences in other places for his enjoyment. Earlier, Amos had mentioned summer houses and winter houses (Amos 3:15). “ Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’ s son; but I was a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees; and Jehovah took me from following the flock, and Jehovah said unto me, Go prophecy unto my people Israel” (Amos 7:14-15). We thrill at the response of Amos to the threats, insults and prohibitions of the corrupt priest. Imagine the rustic shepherd, staff in hand, as he straightens himself and fastens his unblinking, piercing eyes on the gorgeously arrayed Amaziah. With firm measured tones his answers first his insult that he was preaching or prophesying for bread. He was not a prophet by profession or training. The rebellious kings of Israel kept a large band of time-serving prophets on payroll to preach the king’ s will to the people (1 Kings 18:19; 1 Kings 22:6).

This kind of prophet Amos was not. We should not conclude, as do some liberals, that Amos repudiates and indicts all prophets with these words, only those who are false. Such false prophets did their work in view of the financial reward it would bring them (See Jeremiah 6:13-14; Micah 3:5; Micah 3:11). “ A prophet’ s son” is a disciple or student of a school of the prophets. Such schools existed from the days of Samuel (1 Samuel 19:19-21; II King’ s 2:3-7). Doubtless, young men of spiritual inclination went to these schools to study at the feet of great prophets like Samuel, Elijah and Elisha. Amos had not gone to school to become a prophet. Jehovah had specially called him for his task and given him his message. As to Amaziah’ s assertion that he was looking for bread, Amos informs him that he had an honorable occupation as a shepherd and tender of sycamore fig trees.

Among the Hebrews, shepherds were common and respected. David had secured them a place of honor in the eyes of the people. His use of the word noked, rendered “ flock,” provides a clue for the variety of sheep he kept. Noked’ s are a small ugly sheep with a highly valued, superior coat of wool. The sycamore tree, of which he spoke, is the sycamore fig (not to be confused with our American sycamore). It is a large tree reaching up to fifty feet in height.

It has a fruit similar to the mulberry fig but of inferior quality and eaten only by the poor. The fruit was dressed by pinching or puncturing the end of the fruit to allow insects to escape and to hasten ripening. God had specifically commission this rugged man of the wilderness to “ Go prophesy unto my people Israel.” As the prophet responded directly to the corrupt priest, his words of bold confidence sent a shudder through the body of Amaziah. “ Now therefore hear thou the word of Jehovah; Thou saith Prophesy not against Israel and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac” (Amos 7:16). God had said, “ Go prophesy unto my people Israel.” Amaziah had said “ Prophesy not against Israel.” The unspoken question rings out, who should a prophet, obey? How dare a mortal man contradict the command of the living God? We can visualize Amos taking a step nearer to Amaziah, extending his finger to touch his chest and saying, “ therefore, thus saith Jehovah: Thy wife shall be a harlot in the city and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou thyself shalt die in a land unclean, and Israel shall be led away captive out of his land” (Amos 7:17). In the coming fall of the nation to the Assyrian invaders, his wife would be forced by the extremities and hardships to sell herself in order to survive. His children would perish in the battle. His property would be apportioned to foreigners whom the Assyrians would send to occupy the land. Amaziah would be led away captive to a foreign land from which he would never return. To the Hebrews every land beyond their own was unclean, polluted by the heathen population and their customs.

He ends his solemn pronouncement with the very words that Amaziah had reported to Jeroboam “ Israel shall surely be led away captive out of his land.” We can well imagine Amaziah standing there, thunderstruck and speechless. With a gulp, he slowly backs away and with trembling heart makes his way to his chamber. Like a mighty warrior, Amos emerges from the battle arena unscathed, the enemy humiliated and driven from the field. Amos Chapter SevenVerse 1 Here begins the final major section of Amos, consisting principally of five visions, three of which are found in this chapter: (1) that of the locusts (Amos 7:1-3); (2) that of the fire (Amos 7:4-6); and (3) that of the plumb-line (Amos 7:7-9). The balance of the chapter (Amos 7:10-14) has an exceedingly interesting and instructive narrative of the confrontation between God’s Prophet (Amos) and Jeroboam’s Priest. The appearance of this historical narrative in the midst of these visions has been seized upon by Biblical critics anxious to use it in some way as a basis for their attacks upon the validity of the prophecy However, this last section of the chapter (Amos 7:10-14) belongs exactly where it is. The pagan priest Amaziah quoted from the third vision in his report of Amos’ words to the king (Amos 7:9-11), and also referred to Amos as a “seer,” literally, one who sees visions (Amos 7:12), a word which McFadden discerningly translated “visionary."[1] Thus, it is impossible to deny that the first three of these visions actually provoked and led up to the dramatic confrontation between Amos and Amaziah. When this is discerned, the reason for the narrative’s appearance here (where and when it occurred) is evident. The form of the narrative is designated by some as a terse prose, contrasting with what they call the poetry of the rest of the chapter; and theRSV has followed this false allegation of incompatibility between the narrative and the rest of the chapter, printing the narrative in prose form and the rest as poetry. However, the truth is that the narrative is just as poetic as anything else in Amos. W. R. Harper discussed this extensively, giving six reasons why this narrative is poetry, noting especially, “the logical division into two parts (Amos 7:10-13, and Amos 7:14-17), and the use of regular trimeter in the first, and regular tetrameter in the second."[2] His conclusion was that: “The artistic skill which put the accusation (Amos 7:10-13) in a trimeter movement, and the strong and terrible reply (Amos 7:14-17) in the heavier and statelier tetrameter is characteristic of Amos. The symmetry is throughout extraordinary."[3]In the light of this, which can hardly be denied, it is deplorable that the RSV accommodated the critics by printing this chapter as a poem into which a prose narrative had been inserted. As a matter of obvious truth, the chapter is a unit, being composed by one of Amos’ extended public sermons at the shrine of Bethel, a sermon long enough for Amaziah to send a message to the king, and then attempt upon his own authority to expel the prophet. And what was the result of this interruption? Amos finished his sermon, including a special prophecy for Amaziah! The wild speculations to the effect that Amos was arrested and executed, or that, “He left under protest, for Judah,"[4]or that, “Amos appeared no more as a prophet in the Northern Kingdom,"[5] are unsupported by any evidence. The known sequel to this confrontation between God’s Prophet and the King’s Priest is that Amos went right on and gave the other two of the five visions that composed his sermon. Amos 7:1“Thus the Lord Jehovah showed me: and, behold, he formed locusts in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and lo it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings.“The thing to remember about the first two of the visions of threatened disasters against Israel is that they did not occur, but were averted through the prophet’s intercession. The evident reason why Amos included these first two sections in his sermon was that of showing to all the people that he in no manner desired the evil things to come to pass which it was his duty to prophecy, but that he actually stood before God as an advocate of the people and as a prayerful intercessor for their good. This angle of Amos’ prophecy was left out of Amaziah’s report to the king. “In the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth … after the king’s mowings …” It is not clear, exactly what custom is referred to in the second phrase here; and the scholars have no agreement about what is meant; but the meaning is clear enough: the threatened locust plague occurred at exactly the right time to have done the maximum damage. It is agreed by all that the language here is figurative, and that the locust plague stands for some terrible threatened disaster in the past which God had averted. It is certain that the visions do not stand for something that actually happened, but for that which appeared to be impending and did not occur. Nor do they refer to the ultimate judgment which would actually befall Israel, a fate strongly predicted by other words and other visions. As Harper said, “These visions are not premonitions of coming disaster."[6] In a sense, these first two visions are the prophet’s revelation that the abyss had yawned underneath Israel repeatedly during the course of the chosen people’s ceaseless rebellions against God, and that again, and again God’s mercy had spared the impending punishment, or rather deferred it; for it would yet occur anyway unless Israel repented. It may not be wise therefore to limit the application of the vision to some single instance of such a relenting; and yet it is doubtless true that there were historical instances of such a a thing known to all. Deane thought that, “The vision is thought to refer to the first invasion of the Assyrians, when Pul was bribed by Menahem to withdraw."[7] Certainly, such a view does no violence to the text. It was a very efficient and fruitful device to represent all such deliverances which had rescued Israel from threatened disasters in the past under the figure of a locust plague, which in Palestine, is a recurring phenomenon. Verse 2 “And it came to pass when they made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord Jehovah, forgive, I beseech thee: how shall Jacob stand? for he is small. Jehovah repented concerning this: It shall not be, saith Jehovah.“Foremost in this is the prayer of the prophet with the resulting deliverance of the people. It would appear to be obvious that the reason for the inclusion of these visions by Amos, visions which he had actually had, in his proclamations against Bethel, is that of disarming any suspicion that the people might have entertained to the effect that Amos hoped for, or desired, any calamity to befall them. On the other hand, he was the source of prayers which had actually averted disasters from them many times in the past. “Jehovah repented …” Such expressions in the scriptures do not imply any instability, fickleness, or indecision on the part of God, his repentance always meaning that some justifying change had occurred in the threatened people themselves. “When they made an end of eating the grass of the land …” This indicates that the disasters which had been averted through prayer were not totally avoided, but that they were interrupted and averted before fatal damage was inflicted. This would fit the interpretation of such things by Deane who cited one of them thus: “This refers to the retreat of the Assyrians under Pul, the usurping monarch who assumed the name of Tiglath-Peleser II (2 Kings 15:17 ff). Some commentators consider this judgment to be literally a plague of locusts; but this is not probable."[8]Verse 4 “Thus the Lord Jehovah showed me: and, behold, the Lord Jehovah called to contend by fire; and it devoured the great deep, and would have eaten up the land. Then said I, O Lord Jehovah, cease, I beseech thee: how shall Jacob stand? for he is small. Jehovah repented concerning this: This shall not be, saith the Lord Jehovah.“No matter how this vision is understood, the meaning of it is exactly that of the preceding vision, namely, great disasters threatening Israel, and yet being averted through the intercession of the prophet. Since it was a vision, it could have been a fire so great that it burned up the sea (the “great deep”),[9] and even the earth itself was threatened, carrying with it suggestions of the great and final Judgment Day itself. “This is not for Amos a naturalistic vision. This is the supernatural fire of the Lord’s judgment."[10] There is certainly nothing wrong with this interpretation. Some scholars, however perhaps overlooking the fact that this is a vision, have interpreted it naturalistically, making it, “A drought so intense that the great subterranean depths which supply the springs and streams with water dried up."[11] It really makes no difference at all which view is taken; the message is the same either way.

It would appear that the vision’s being that of a supernatural event is preferable. Keil understood the fire as, “not an earthly fire, but the fire of the wrath of God”;[12] and Barnes thought that the destruction of the sea by fire (in the vision) was a symbol of, “The fire of the Day of Judgment."[13] Schultz and others insist that it is “the summer heat."[14] Refer to the interpretation of the first vision, above, for the meaning here; for it is identical with this. Regarding some particular historical situation that may, along with others, be symbolized by this, Dean has: “The particular calamity alluded to is the second invasion of Tiglath-Pelese II, when he conquered Gilead and the northern part of the kingdom, and carried some of the people captive to Assyria (2 Kings 15:29)."[15]The spiritual overtones of the passage describing these two visions are definite and impressive; and the introduction of what appeared to be a threat of the final judgment itself is a strong suggestion that all of the great punitive judgments of God upon rebellious humanity are typical of the ultimate and final judgment that will be executed at the Last Day. Mankind should never forget that the entire race of Adam’s posterity are still living under the primeval sentence of death imposed in Genesis 2:17, a sentence which was never vacated or repealed, but only deferred, and is yet destined to be executed in its fullness upon humanity. There are surely overtones of that in the passage before us. Verse 7 “Thus he showed me: and, behold, the Lord stood beside a wall made by a plumb-line, with a plumb-line in his hand.“The proper understanding of this vision must include the recognition that the plumb-line was a symbol both of building and of destruction, the plumb-line symbolizing the testing required for the construction of a sound building, and for revealing those defects that required the destruction of a building. The figure elaborated in this vision, “represents the Lord himself as coming to examine the conduct of Israel, and finally deciding upon its entire ruin."[16] In this vision, “Amos makes no prayer, and Yahweh, on his part, confirms the meaning with an interpretative oracle."[17] It is significant that the same plumb-line used to build Israel was that which was used in their destruction. “By that law, that right, those Providential leadings, and that grace which we have received, by the same we are judged."[18]Verse 8 “And Jehovah said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumb-line. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel; I will not again pass by them any more.“The direct conversation which Amos here mentions as occurring between himself and the Lord was probably for the purpose of emphasizing the truth that Amaziah later ignored in his message to the king, namely, that the words of denunciation uttered by the prophet were not his words at all, but the words of the true God of Israel. “A plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel …” This was an ominous promise: “The plumb-line was used not only in building, but in destroying houses (2 Kings 21:13; Isaiah 28:17; Isaiah 34:11, and Lamentations 2:8). It denotes that God’s judgments are measured out by the most exact rules of justice."[19]“I will not again pass by them any more …” Again, the clear reference to the ancient Passover is evident; only, this time, he will not do a similar thing. As Smith said: “The word pass by' here and in <a href="/bible/parallel/AMO/5/17" class="green-link">Amos 5:17</a> was probably deliberately used by Amos (rather, by the Lord) to represent the reversal of the "passover" when God passed through Egypt in judgment, but delivered Israel (<a href="/bible/parallel/EXO/12/23" class="green-link">Exodus 12:23</a>)."[20]Through the passage of time, the word "passover" had come to have somewhat the same meaning as forgiveness. As Motyet noted, "The phrase "pass by", used again at <a href="/bible/parallel/AMO/8/2" class="green-link">Amos 8:2</a>, appears in <a href="/bible/parallel/MIC/7/18" class="green-link">Micah 7:18</a> in the meaning to forgive.’"[21]Before leaving this passage, it should be noted that some allegations commonly made regarding this passage should be rejected. “In spite of his plans to punish Israel, for Yahweh they will always remain his beloved and chosen people."[22] As regards the secular, fleshly descendants of Abraham, nothing could be further wrong that such a view, except in its unique application to the true Israel of God, the church of Jesus Christ. That the rebellious and grossly wicked children of Abraham in the fleshly sense whose notorious rebellions against God and all righteousness are the burden of the entire Old Testament, and who climaxed their unrighteousness by the murder of the Son of God Himself - that that people are, in some sense, still “the chosen people of God” is a monstrous error. Verse 9 “And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.““The high places of Isaac …” “Isaac” is here a title of Israel, as the parallel in the next line shows. It is not the religious conduct of the patriarch Isaac that is under indictment here, but that of the Northern Kingdom. The amazing notion current among many scholars to the effect that there was nothing wrong with those shrines which the rebellious people had built upon the very sites of the old pagan shrines that Once were there before Israel came into the land could not possibly be correct. Some of the patriarchs indeed had been associated with some of those places, through events that marked their lives; and, no doubt, the paganized priesthood of Jeroboam’s Israel had, from such premises, alleged the legitimacy of their shrines; it was, nevertheless, a deception. Harper’s opinion that, “Down to the days of Josiah, the nation worshipped Yahweh regularly and legitimately upon the so-called high places,"[23] cannot be allowed, the sole reason for the shrine of Bethel, for example, having been Jeroboam’s repudiation of God’s true religion and the institution of another, as a political device to establish his throne. “Even the priesthood which Jeroboam I appointed was absolutely illegitimate (1 Kings 12:31 f)."[24] This latter fact was one of the gross sins of Israel that would be exposed by God’s plumb-line, of which Thorogood gives this excellent definition: “First, He was using the Law which he had given to the Israelites long before, as the standard of their faith and conduct. Secondly, He was using the prophets, such as Amos … Their preaching was a standard by which the Israelites could judge their own lives."[25]One false idea which is almost invariably associated with these vigorous condemnations is expressed as follows, “Amos also taught that the most elaborate worship, if insincere, is but an insult to God.” This is true enough, except for the implication that, if the worship of the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom at the pagan shrines of Dan, Bethel and other high places had been “sincere” it would have been acceptable to God; and this is not the case at all. As Christ himself declared, “In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9). This applies pointedly to the very thing that characterized the worship in the Northern Kingdom; it was founded on practically nothing that God commanded, but was built altogether upon traditional, pagan and opportunistic practices. “The sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste …” This refers to the, “idol-temples at Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:29), at Gilgal (Amos 4:4), and perhaps in other places."[26] It was not merely the social indifference and oppression of the poor, and not merely a matter of their insincerity, but their whole rotten system of gross paganism, garnished and embellished with a few trappings from God’s true religion, that was marked for destruction here. Furthermore, not merely the overthrow of false religion would occur, but also the overthrow of the evil dynasty that had initiated it, and the whole people of that evil generation which had received and reveled in the false religion. “And I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword …” As Keil pointed out, this is a reference to the dynasty of Jeroboam I, “but not to be restricted to the overthrow of his dynasty, but an announcement of the destruction of the Israelitish monarchy."[27] Three things should be noted, no special king is mentioned here, but a dynasty, such being the meaning of “the house of Jeroboam”; secondly, this is something which God promised to do, not Amos; and in the third place, the name, or identity of any ruler to be killed by the sword was definitely not mentioned. Verse 10 “Then Amaziah, the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the land is not able to bear his words. For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of his land.““Amaziah …” Nothing has been seen any more astounding than the argument from this pagan priests’ name that he was a true priest of God! “His name (Yahweh is strong) is compounded with Yahweh and would indicate that the sanctuaries of Israel maintained the worship of Yahweh."[28] The same kind of argument would prove that the great New Testament preacher Apollos was a worshipper of Apollo. One can hardly understand the tenderness of so many commentators with regard to that utterly pagan and depraved worship of the Israelites. These two verses (Amos 7:10-11) are the first of a three-fold division of this last section of the chapter, and relates to Amaziah’s report to the king. The other two are: Amaziah’s taking matters into his own hands (Amos 7:12-13), and Amos’ answer to Amaziah (Amos 7:14-17). The whole passage is one of remarkable strength and effectiveness. Smith’s quotation from George Adam Smith is appropriate: “It `is one of the great scenes of history.’ It reports the conflict between a priest who spoke for and with the authority of a king, and a prophet who delivered the Word of God."[29]“Jeroboam shall die by the sword …” Incredibly, some have defended this slander upon the basis that, “it is basically correct."[30] Indeed no! On the contrary, it is a base and unprincipled lie. As the Catholic Bible puts it: “The prophet did not say this, but “that the Lord would rise up against the house of Jeroboam with the sword,” as was verified when Zacharias, son and successor of Jeroboam, was slain with the sword."[31]Amaziah’s report was false for these reasons:

1. It falsely reported who was to be killed.
2. It falsely attributed the prediction to Amos, instead of the Lord.
3. It is false in that it omitted any mention of the sins of Israel which were the reason for this prophecy.
4. It is false in that it made no mention of any call to repentance, or to the hope extended if they did repent. If this report is “basically correct,” it would be interesting to see one that was “basically in error!” Note particularly the point in Amos’ preaching at which this rude interruption by the pagan priest occurred. Neither of the first two visions occasioned any objection from Amaziah, for they were accounts of deliverances which God had extended to Israel; but this third vision, which was a bold and thundering prophecy of the immediate and impending doom of the whole nation, to be effected by the overthrow of the monarchy, the destruction of the sanctuaries, and the captivity of the whole nation, aroused the “high priest” of Bethel to action, which issued in his sending a hasty message to the king, and then, apparently not waiting for any authority, nevertheless took what action he could against Amos without any authority. It would appear that Amaziah had been listening to all that Amos said. Some have found it amazing that Jeroboam II is not represented here as taking any action whatever against Amos; and we believe that this is evidence enough that he took none, a conclusion that might seem incredible. However, this man, Jeroboam II, had evidently known personally the prophet Jonah, upon whose prophecies he had relied when he came to the throne, and in accordance with which he had won the great military triumphs which had led so disastrously to the sin and overconfidence of Israel. Jeroboam’s respect for the prophetic office must, therefore, have been very considerable. In this light, Jamieson’s conclusion is reasonable, “The king, however, did not give ear to Amaziah, probably from religious awe of the prophet of Jehovah."[32] Barnes was also of this opinion, pointing out that Jeroboam would also have had knowledge “of the true prophecies of Elisha with reference to the successes of his father, Jeroboam I."[33] The action of Amaziah in himself, taking the authority to forbid Amos to speak and ordering him to leave the country, does not nullify this; because it is exactly the kind of conduct one might have anticipated in a time-serving self-seeking pagan priest like Amaziah. The next sub-section of this episode presents Amaziah’s action against Amos. Verse 12 “Also Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go flee thou away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophecy there: but prophecy not again any more at Bethel; for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a royal house.““O seer, go flee thou away …” It is puzzling why so many find nothing contemptuous or patronizing in such a statement as this, for there would appear to be plenty of both. It is true, of course, that some have made “seer” in every way a synonym of prophet; but there were “seers” by the hundreds in antiquity who were of the devil. The word also carries the thought captured by McFadden’s paraphrase of it as, “Thou visionary,"[34] which, in the light of the visions Amaziah had just been hearing from Amos, would seem to be accurate. Dummelow was doubtless correct in his equating the words of Amaziah here with, “the proverbial saying, eat your pudding slave, and hold your tongue.'"[35]"Eat bread, and prophecy there ..." the implications of this are a gross reflection upon Amaziah himself, as many have pointed out. He did not recognize any such thing as a truly prophetic office; to him all prophets were concerned merely with what they could get out of it, this being a perfect reflection of his own character. The argument he makes, to the extent that there is any, is that Judah would pay more for prophecies against Israel than could be received for such prophecies being delivered in Israel itself! The expression "eat bread" means "make your living," "peddle your wares," or "do your thing" in Judah, and not at Bethel. "It is the king's sanctuary ..." "It was founded by the king (<a href="/bible/parallel/1KI/12/28" class="green-link">1 Kings 12:28</a>), and not by God; so, in truth, it had only an earthly sanction,"[36] although it may be doubted that Amaziah noticed the self-convicting admission of these words. There is a world of difference in God's sanctuary and the king's sanctuary. Barnes said that in three places only in the Old Testament is the alleged sanctuary of God called the sanctuary of Israel, here, and in <a href="/bible/parallel/LAM/1/10" class="green-link">Lamentations 1:10</a>, and <a href="/bible/parallel/LEV/26/31" class="green-link">Leviticus 26:31</a>.[37] Christ likewise designated the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (<a href="/bible/parallel/MAT/24/38" class="green-link">Matthew 24:38</a>), "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." The balance of this chapter is comprised of Amos' undaunted response to Amaziah's peevish and blasphemous efforts to thwart the prophet's holy mission, namely, that of turning Israel to repentance before it would be everlastingly too late. It appears that Amos was in no way intimidated or silenced by Amaziah's interruption. Verse 14 "Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees."This was leveled squarely at Amaziah's unjust charge, by implication, that Amos was a cheap "seer" picking up a little money where he might for prophesying against Israel, there being also some implications in Amos' reply, namely, that the regular line of prophets, especially those identified as "the sons of the prophets," those attending the prophetic schools and following the traditions that many of them followed, were indeed the same type of "seer" with whom Amaziah sneeringly sought to identify Amos. "I was no prophet ..." The past tense is vital to this verse, for in no sense whatever was it Amos' purpose here to deny his divine commission and calling as a true prophet of the Almighty God. We may only deplore the fact that both the RSV and the New English Bible, by rendering the verb here in the present, "I am no prophet, etc.," put in Amos' mouth a denial of the very thing he so emphatically affirmed in <a href="/bible/parallel/AMO/7/15" class="green-link">Amos 7:15</a> (next). To be sure, the passage could be rendered in either fashion. "The doubt about the tense arises because in Hebrew the verb is not expressed, but left to be understood."[38] Smith included this further explanation: "The Hebrew language often used nominal sentences without verbs. In such a case, the tense of the verb was usually supplied by adopting that of the previous verb. If that principle were followed in this case, the past tense would be required, I was no prophet.’"[39]Our own choice of the ASV for these studies is due to the fact of there being in it strong evidence of a much greater respect for considerations of this kind than is evident in other versions. Rowley’s paraphrase of these verses was given thus by Hammershaimb: “It is not money I prophecy for; I am a prophet by divine constraint. I had not chosen the calling of a prophet, or trained to be a prophet. God laid his hand upon me, and charged me with his word, and I have delivered it where he constrained me to deliver it."[40]“Dresser of sycamore trees …” “The phrase [~boles] [~shiqmim] may mean either one who plucks mulberry-figs for his own sustenance, or one who cultivates them for others."[41] Dean thought it was the latter in the case of Amos, and Keil believed it was the other. We do not know. In any event, it was a humble calling. Verse 15 “And Jehovah took me from following the flock, and Jehovah said unto me, Go prophesy unto my people Israel.“The acceptance of such a commission meant that Amos was no longer his own master, and that not even the words he was to deliver were to be his own, but the true Word of God. Thus it has ever been with the true prophet or apostle. (See Numbers 22:38; Jeremiah 20:9; and Acts 4:19-20.) Therefore, “Whoever sought to oppose the message of Amos opposed the Most High God."[42] Thus, Amaziah, in his opposition to Amos, had rebelled against God’s Word; and therefore, God, through Amos, spoke a prophecy of doom against Amaziah. We may not, therefore, interpret Amos’ rejoinder here as the mere “venting of his spite” against the priest of Bethel. Verse 16 “Now therefore hear thou the word of Jehovah: Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac.““Drop not thy word …” Dummelow seems to have captured the thought behind this second clause thus: “Don’t let it drip, drip, drip, in imbecile and wearisome fashion (Micah 2:6; Micah 2:11; and Ezekiel 21-2, 7)."[43] Harper, and others, rejected this view: “The word does not carry with it any contemptuous idea”;[44] but the idea, especially in English, is certainly there; furthermore, it fits the context perfectly. Before leaving this verse, the rendition of this in the Catholic Bible seems pertinent and is included. It has, “Thou shalt not drop thy word upon the house of the idol (instead of “the house of Isaac.”)."[45] Their authority for this rendition is not cited, and it certainly could be wrong; but, regardless of that, it properly identifies that “house” at Bethel! Verse 17 “Therefore thus saith Jehovah: Thy wife will be a harlot in the city, and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou thyself shalt die in a land that is unclean, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of his land.“This terrible prophecy against Amaziah was doubtless fulfilled exactly, as were all the other prophecies, the evident truth and divine origin of them being the primary reason that the prophecy of Amos has survived some 27 centuries of human history. It is a perpetual memorial to the grand truth that what God prophesies through his prophets will surely come to pass. “Thy wife will be a harlot …” Such a result as this would have been an inevitable consequence of the great military disaster that loomed upon the horizon of the doomed people: “Rape of women, slaying of youth, partition of property among the victors, and exile of the leaders were all part of the ordinary treatment of a conquered people by the victorious invaders."[46]It is not necessary to assume that Amaziah’s wife willingly became a harlot of the city, although some have assumed that she did. What seems more likely is that, violated by the soldiers of Assyria, and left behind with the residue of the people after the deportation, she could have had no other means of sustenance. “Thy sons and thy daughters …” That these were not mentioned as among those to be “carried away,” is likely because they were too young to have any value as slaves, or as objects of gratification; and they were therefore brutally slain by the heartless invaders. “Thy land shall be divided by line …” that is, parceled out as “booty” among those, including some of the soldiery, with whom the Assyrians repopulated the land. “Thou thyself shall die in a land that is unclean …” This referred to any land where God was not worshipped, and where paganism was established, here, meaning the land of the Assyrians; and here is powerful evidence that the “repentance” of Nineveh under the preaching of Jonah produced no lasting changes in the character of the fierce, sadistic, and bloodthirsty Assyrians. Behold in this terrible fate of Amaziah the utter worthlessness of a false religion. The trouble in Israel was not merely their “insincerity” in their worship, and not even their “oppression of the poor,” which is made out by most modern commentators to be the sum and substance of all that was wrong; but it was their total departure from the Word of God in (1) setting up shrines without divine authority; (2) commissioning priests who according to the Law of Moses were not legitimate; (3) installing idols, such as the golden calves of Jeroboam; (4) polluting their worship through the burning of “leavened bread” to produce an aromatic smell; (5) omitting all sin-offerings, as if they were not sinners; (6) introducing the unauthorized instruments of music “like David”; (7) committing fornication after the ancient pagan rites observed by the followers of Baal, and doing it in the very shrines and lying down by every altar (!) in Israel “upon the clothing” extorted from the poor; (8) drinking wine out of sacred vessels dedicated to God’s service, etc. The very suggestion that a tender regard for the poor and a deep sincerity on the part of the people could have sanctified and legitimatized such a bastard religion as that is an affront to all that is written in the Holy Scriptures. The religion by which men hope to receive and retain the favor of Almighty God must be something far more than a sensitive humanism with reference to the common needs and sufferings of mankind, and something far more than a “sincere” following of and participation in some traditional system of worship. Just as ancient Israel had a plumb-line, by which they could have measured, corrected, and constructed a proper and obedient faith, our own generation has the same privilege, that plumb-line, of course, being the teaching of the Word of God. Despite this, many, it would appear, are still making the same fatal mistake as that of the ancient Israelites. As Smith said: “Amaziah undoubtedly felt secure behind the defenses of Samaria and the religious observances at Bethel. He erred in considering the word of God to be just the word of a man and in failing to examine himself and his society (and may we add: and his religion) in light of the covenant privileges and responsibilities."[47]The word of the Lord endureth forever; and it is our humble prayer that the Lord’s followers may never forsake that holy word.

Amos Chapter SevenThere is a dramatic shift in the closing chapters of Amos’ prophecy. The final three chapters unveil five visions of judgment. Amos 7 contains the first three visions. The visions begin in verse 1 with the words, “ This is what the Lord God showed me.”

Vision #1 — Locusts (Amos 7:1-3)The first vision is an image of utter devastation. The timing of this plague is critical. The latter growth was the final harvest until the next season. The king has already taken his portion (likely as taxes) and so the harvest that is left is now reserved for the people. However, the judgment is a mass of locusts coming and wiping out the food for the people. Amos recognizes that this judgment is severe and that no one would survive.

The people will die from starvation if the final harvest is destroyed by the locusts. The use of locusts was one of God’ s tools of judgment as a warning for the nation of Israel if they broke the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:42). We have observed in our study of this prophecy the fiery nature of Amos’ words against the nation of Israel. But even at seeing this vision of judgment, Amos prays to God for his to not do this. Notice Amos’ words, “ O Lord, God, please forgive!” Amos is calling for an act of pure grace. The people have not repented.

There is no basis upon which Amos can make a plea to God because the people have not changed at all (which is the irony of this chapter as we will see as we progress through this chapter). Amos simply cries out, “ Forgive,” depending completely on God. There is no reason for God to act. But notice what God does: “ The Lord relented concerning this. ‘ It shall not be,’ said the Lord.”

Vision #2 — Fire (Amos 7:4-6)The second vision is similar to the first vision. The vision is of an all-encompassing, all-consuming fire upon the nation, devouring sea and land. Once again Amos surprisingly intercedes on behalf of the people of Israel, asking the Lord to relent. Once again there is no basis for God to relent of this judgment. There has been no change in the hearts of the people. Yet Amos begs for grace and the Lord relents of this judgment.

We must never underestimate the value of prayer and the intercessions of the righteous. As much as Amos is angry with these people for their sins, there is compassion for the souls of these people. His compassion for these people has led him to proclaim God’ s word to them and his compassion has led him to intercede on their behalf. Intercession requires a love for the souls of the people. We must learn the value of intercession on behalf of others. We should see the power of our prayers in the hands of our God.

God is influenced by our prayers. It is a truth that is difficult to see and perhaps even more difficult to accept. But the repeated message of the scriptures is that we have the ability to speak and influence the Almighty God. We can even ask for God to act graciously in the lives of others without basis or cause. What an amazing and compassionate God we serve! Israel was worthy of these judgments because of their sins.

Yet Amos begs mercy and grace, and the Lord, without cause, relents. God is long-suffering and surprisingly patient. We must appreciate this in how we pray and treat others. God has been gracious and compassionate toward our great sinfulness. On that basis we must cry out to God to act similarly toward others because we love God’ s creation and want their souls saved from the coming judgment.

Vision #3 — Plumb Line (Amos 7:7-9)The third vision is of a plumb line. A plumb line is a standard by which a wall’ s vertical trueness is tested. It determines if the wall is straight and in line, or if it is leaning. The plumb line is being set in Israel to determine its moral straightness. God exposes the true state of his people’ s character and faithfulness to his covenant with the plumb line. It is a call to the people to measure up.

God is going to test them for their moral uprightness. The plumb line is placed and God will not overlook or pass by the sins of the people any longer. God has overlooked the sins of Israel for hundreds of years. But this is no longer the case. It is time for judgment. The people have not measured up.

Therefore, the judgment is described in Amos 7:9. The places of their pagan sacrifices and sanctuaries will be destroyed. Further, the dynasty of Jeroboam will be brought to an end. Notice that this is a merciful change from the previous two visions. In the first two visions, all the people were going to die. Now the picture is of being taken into exile and the death of the royal family and the leadership (cf. 7:11).

Even in judgment, God is being compassionate toward the people.

Accusing Amos (Amos 7:10-17)In the middle of Amos revealing the visions that the Lord gave him, we have an interruption. You will notice that chapter 8 continues the rest of the visions Amos saw from the Lord. But Amos 7:10 records an interruption to Amos’ preaching. Amaziah is a priest at Bethel. Recall that Bethel is one of the locations were the first king of Israel, Jeroboam the son of Nebat, erect golden calves and sanctuaries for worship. This was an abomination to God.

Amaziah is a priest at this false temple and send a message to King Jeroboam (please note that this is a later Jeroboam, often called Jeroboam II, to differentiate him from Jeroboam the son of Nebat). The summary of Amos’ message is this: “ Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel must go into exile away from his land.” Amaziah cannot handle listening to Amos’ message against sin and the coming judgment for sins.

Amos is preaching a counter-cultural message. He is preaching a message that is not politically correct. We are in a society that rejects the message of God. We are in a society that only wants to hear what is acceptable and correct in our culture today. If you say anything against this acceptable message, then you will be rejected and labelled. We are called upon as Christians to preach counter-cultural messages.

We are given that task. That is exactly what it means to be lights shining into the midst of a crooked and perverse people (Philippians 2:15). It is shame and sad that all too often Christians are molded by the world rather than transforming the world with the message of the gospel. Christians too often are deeming what is acceptable or not acceptable by the definitions of the world, rather than the definitions of God’ s word. Only when the world says something is wrong do we then say that it is wrong. Sexual sins and marriage issues are classic examples.

Seventy years ago the church would stand up and say that sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, sex with anyone who is not your spouse, and the like are sinful. The church would say that divorce is sinful. The church would say that homosexuality and adultery are sinful. The church would say that remarriage is sinful. But the reason that was taught was not because that was God’ s word but because the world agreed. The proof is that the world has changed its thinking and Christians have changed their thinking also.

Now Christians do not have a problem with divorce and remarriage or do not have a problem with sex before marriage or adultery, and all the rest. Why? Why is it a problem now? The reason we have problems now with it is not because God’ s word changed or became more difficult, but because the world changed and we do not want to be counter-cultural. We make an enormous mistake and commit a grave sin when we examine God’ s law through the lens of our culture today.

Please notice how Amaziah frames the message of Amos to the king. “ For thus Amos has said” (Amos 7:11). Amos was saying, “ The Lord said to me.” But Amaziah does not see this as a message from God, but the words of a man. How many times people will do this with God’ s word! You will not believe how many times I will read a passage of scripture and the person I am studying with will say, “ Are you trying to say…?” Or “ So what you are saying is…” I always answer the same way: “ I am not saying anything. This is what God said.” This isn’ t my interpretation. This is not my words. This is the word of the Lord. This is what God’ s word said. All I did was read it and make some passing comments of interest about what God said.

Finally, notice what Amaziah says to Amos in verse 12. Amaziah calls Amos a prophet for hire. Basically, I know you have a job to do and that is why you are preaching, but go do your preaching somewhere else. Stop preaching against Bethel. Amos responds that he is not a prophet for hire. He was a herdsman and a grower of figs.

Amos was not doing his job for the money. He was prophesying because he received the word of the Lord. We need preachers, teachers, elders, and leaders among God’ s people who do not work for the money, but because the work needs to be done. We should not have to bribe people to do the Lord’ s work and people should not be working because of the money. Preacher, do not preach because of the pay check. Do not preach because you do not know what else to do with yourself.

Preach because your are compelled by the word of the Lord! Preach because you feel like you must proclaim God’ s word and not for any other reason.

The irony of this chapter is staggering. Amos has been the one who has interceding on behalf of these people to not be fully destroyed by locusts or by fire. The thanks that Amos receives is to be called a prophet for hire and told to go home. Do not tell a person who is declaring God’ s word to not speak it. Everyone must proclaim God’ s word and we cannot listen to those who tell us not to. We cannot listen to people who want a softer, more culturally acceptable, and more politically correct message. God’ s word is God’ s word and we must declare God’ s word, even in the face of rejection and opposition. This is the consistent example of the scriptures from the prophets to the apostles. People will reject, but we must obey God rather than humans by continuing to proclaim God’ s truths.

Notice the retribution God brings on those who reject and torment those who are proclaimers of God’ s word. Amos responds to Amaziah that he will die in an unclean land, his land would be divided up and given away, his children would be killed by the sword, his wife would turn to prostitution, and Israel will surely go into exile. We cannot be shaken when people tell us to adjust our message to match the culture. We cannot give up when people do not want to listen to God’ s word. We must keep teaching, knowing that God will pass his judgment on those who try to interfere with the work.

Amos 7 –ConclusionNotice how compassion and the proclamation of truth fit together in this chapter. We are compassionately praying to God on the behalf of others, meanwhile teaching them the way of the Lord. We must proclaim the truth of God’ s word, unchanged, unfiltered, and undiluted. This is a compassionate reaction to the world, and then pray for them to receive and accept the good news that God has extended to the world.

Amos 7:1

Amos 7:1. We see Amos in the role of an intercessor for Irsael, and by his plea to God causes the divine wrath to tie turned back. The subject is presented figuratively and begins with the idea of insects being created to destroy the young vegetation. After the main crop is harvested, called the king’s mowings, a tender growth of grass comes up in the same field, here called the latter growth. This is what the insects destroyed according to the figurative prediction.

Amos 7:2

Amos 7:2, After this destruction by the insects, Amos made his plea on behalf of Jacob (Israel), suggesting that the nation was too small to withstand such a loss.

Amos 7:3

Amos 7:3. Lord repented means the Lord changed his mind and removed the insects.

Amos 7:4

Amos 7:4. But the people were not truly penitent and did not make the proper reformation even though the Lord had relieved their distress. Then He brought a more severe chastisement upon the land. This time it was in the form of fire that dried up the great deep which means the water supply in the veins of the earth,

Amos 7:5

Amos 7:5, Again the prophet pleads on behalf of the people.

Amos 7:6

Amos 7:6. The Lord was again en-treated to relent and withdraw His wrath, to give the nation a chance to reform or change the way of life from had to good.

Amos 7:7

Amos 7:7. The repeated acts of mercy that God. showed toward Israel were not appreciated, but they always slipped back, into their former way of sin. If they even ceased It at all. The pa-tience of the Lord finally was exhausted and He determined to use more severe measures against the unfaithful nation. It is Indicated by the use of the plumbiine w’hich will be explained with the comments on the next verse.

Amos 7:8

Amos 7:8. Plumbline is from anas, which Strong defines, “To be narrow,” In symbolic language it indicates something strict and exacting, and was an appropriate article for the decree that God was about to make. He had been lenient with the unfaithful people until they no longer deserved mercy as a nation. Wot pass by means that the Lord would not overlook their iniquity again but would bring severe punishment on them.

Amos 7:9

Amos 7:9. We have seen the names of Joseph and Jacob used to signify the nation of Israel, now it is Isaac that is used in the same way. In all of the cases it is because of the important relation the men sustained to the race. The predictions and rebuke of the book frequently apply with equal force to all of the Jewish nation, but the writings of Amos generally are made with reference to the 10-tribe kingdom, That is why this verse mentions Jeroboam, he being the man who led the revolt resulting in the establishment of that kingdom (1 Kings 12).

Amos 7:10

Amos 7:10. This is not the Jeroboam mentioned in the preceding verse, but the one named in Amos 1:1, and who is often referred to as Jereboam II. Bethel was one of the places where the first Jeroboam erected altars for idolatrous worship \

Amos 7:11

Amos 7:11. There is no evidence that Amos predicted the death of Jeroboam in the manner accused by Amaziah. 2 Kings 14: 26-29 shows the death of that king not to have been caused by the sword. But the other statement of Amaziah was true, for Amos was authorized to predict the exile of the kingdom of Israel. It is a common trick of evil men to mix some truth with their error so as to deceive their hearers and cause them to accept the entire story.

Amos 7:12

Amos 7:12. A seer is the same as a prophet; it means literally one who sees into the future, Amaziah thought he could get rid of the unpleasant pre-dictions of Amos by having him move into some other locality. He suggested that he go and deliver his messages in the land of Judah, which was the 2-tribe kingdom. Such a suggestion had the appearance of being fair and that he recognized him as a prophet of God who was qualified to contact His people wherever they might be.

Amos 7:13

Amos 7:13. Amaziah spoke on behalf of Jeroboam who was the king and whose chapel (religious headquarters) was at Bethel, one of the seats of idol-atry. He seems to think that by the removal of the one who was giving the unpleasant predictions, he could be rid of the fulfillment of them. It was as foolish as it would be to discharge a doctor who discovered a dreadful disease in one’ s body.

Amos 7:14

Amos 7:14. The speech of Amaziah implied that he considered Amos as one of the regular prophets who had no other occupation. In that case it would not matter very much where he worked, just so he did the work of a prophet. He would then not be idle from his life’s work were lie to go into the land of Judah and continue his regular occupation. But Amos enlightened him on the subject and told him that he was not that kind of prophet, but was a shepherd by occupation. He had been called as a special servant of the Lord for the missioD of delivering the predictions intended for the 10-tribe kingdom, and only incidentally to include some things pertaining to Judah. Prophet’ s son means one of the young men who were being trained by the regular prophets, not a son in the usual sense of that word.

Amos 7:15

Amos 7:15, While Amos was engaged about his work with the flock, the Lord appeared to him by inspiration and told him to go and prophesy unto Israel, which here means the 10-tribe kingdom, not Judah as Amaziah wanted him to do.

Amos 7:16

Amos 7:16. Amos wants Amaziah to know that he is not speaking his own ideas, but that it is the word of the Lord. House of Isaac has the same meaning as house of Israel since he was one of the important men in the blood line from Abraham.

Amos 7:17

Amos 7:17. Amos was not intimidated by the criticism of Amaziah but gave him the final paragraph of his pre-dictions. Not only was the nation to suffer the captivity but his own family was to be disgraced. Divided by line means the land would be measured off into lots and taken possession of by the enemy.