Amos Bible Quotes

One of the great truths of the Bible is that whenever God gets ready to do anything in the earth, He always works through a person or a group of people whom He has called and who have willingly responded to Him. The human factor is key for God’s activity on the earth. When God prepared to deliver the Israelites from Egypt, He called Moses. When He got ready to rescue His people from the Midianites, He called Gideon. When God wanted to warn His disobedient people of His judgment and call them back to Him, He called Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and the other prophets. When God was ready to send His Son into the world, He chose Mary, a humble peasant girl, to be His mother. When Jesus Christ prepared to send His message of salvation throughout the world, He called and anointed men and women—His Church—and commissioned them for the mission. This illustrates an incredible principle under which God operates: Without God we cannot, and without us God will not. For everything that God desires to do in the earth, He enters into partnership with those to whom He has already given dominion.

Faith cannot be about absolute certainty in the letters of the Bible and wrath against those who don’t comply (Ephesians 2:15). It has to be about overwhelming trust in God’s love,6 which as the apostle Paul confirms, is beyond the letter of law and narrow legalistic interpretations.

It is not a light thing for very religious people to accept that their religion itself is offensive to God!

AMO5.18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.

Here is a very largely forgotten and yet most vital principle. It is certainly the case that the church is called by God to safeguard, publicize and transmit His truth (e.g. 2 Tim. 1: 13, 14; 2:1, 2); but it is equally the case that the truth is the safeguard of the church, both in the corporate sense of preserving the whole body and in the individual sense of guarding, defending and keeping each member.5 The life which walks in the truth is impregnable (cf. Jn. 8:31, 32, 34-36).

One author, in writing of the Bible’s uniqueness, put it this way: Here is a book: 1. written over a 1500 year span; 2. written over 40 generations; 3. written by more than 40 authors, from every walk of life— including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars, etc.: Moses, a political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt Peter, a fisherman Amos, a herdsman Joshua, a military general Nehemiah, a cupbearer Daniel, a prime minister Luke, a doctor Solomon, a king Matthew, a tax collector Paul, a rabbi 4. written in different places: Moses in the wilderness Jeremiah in a dungeon Daniel on a hillside and in a palace Paul inside a prison Luke while traveling John on the isle of Patmos others in the rigors of a military campaign 5. written at different times: David in times of war Solomon in times of peace 6. written during different moods: some writing from the heights of joy and others from the depths of sorrow and despair 7. written on three continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe 8. written in three languages: Hebrew… , Aramaic… , and Greek… 9. Finally, its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial topics. Yet, the biblical authors spoke with harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revelation. There is one unfolding story…

Amo al SEÑOR, porque ha oído mi voz y mis súplicas. 2 Porque ha inclinado a mí su oído, le invocaré en todos mis días. 3 Me rodearon los dolores de la muerte, me encontraron las angustias del Seol; angustia y dolor había yo hallado. 4 Entonces invoqué el Nombre del SEÑOR, diciendo: Libra ahora, oh SEÑOR, mi alma. 5 Clemente es el SEÑOR y justo; sí, misericordioso es nuestro Dios. 6 El SEÑOR guarda a los simples; estaba debilitado, y me salvó. 7 Vuelve, oh alma mía, a tu reposo; porque el SEÑOR te ha hecho bien. 8 Porque has librado mi alma de la muerte, mis ojos de lágrimas, y mis pies de resbalar. 9 Andaré delante del SEÑOR en la tierra de los vivientes.

The Israeli writer and chronicler Amos Elon once described archaeology in Israel as “almost a national sport,” which had captivated a nation forever looking for “the reassurance of roots.” Elon noted that Israeli national symbols were almost wholly drawn from antiquities. “For the disquieted Israeli,” Elon wrote, “the moral comforts of archaeology are considerable.” Like that of the British before them, Zionist archaeology sought to affirm the Bible as history to affirm its state project. What that project needed was an unbroken narrative, stretching back to time immemorial, of Jewish nationhood. With such a narrative in hand, Israel would then have what Ben-Gurion called “the sacrosanct title-deed to Palestine.

the causes of poverty as put forth in the Bible are remarkably balanced. The Bible gives us a matrix of causes. One factor is oppression, which includes a judicial system weighted in favor of the powerful (Leviticus 19:15), or loans with excessive interest (Exodus 22:25-27), or unjustly low wages (Jeremiah 22:13; James 5:1-6). Ultimately, however, the prophets blame the rich when extremes of wealth and poverty in society appear (Amos 5:11-12; Ezekiel 22:29; Micah 2:2; Isaiah 5:8). As we have seen, a great deal of the Mosaic legislation was designed to keep the ordinary disparities between the wealthy and the poor from becoming aggravated and extreme. Therefore, whenever great disparities arose, the prophets assumed that to some degree it was the result of selfish individualism rather than concern with the common good.

It is noteworthy that God is often seen showing mercy where repentance is evident (Exodus 32:14; 2 Samuel 24:16; Amos 7:3,6).

Amos’ exposure of a religion which leaves life untouched could not have been more brilliantly accomplished. They go, they sing, they come away, and nothing, simply nothing has changed. Justice is still turned sour (7a, 12c) and righteousness is still overthrown (7b, 12b).

The point at issue is not the social injustice involved, that comes later, but the refusal to allow life to be governed by truth.

First, Amos insisted that privilege brings peril (3:2). The claim of the day clearly was that privilege brings security. They had been privileged to have direct dealings with God

The question whether Amos was teaching that the Lord had decided to change His covenant purposes, or whether he was foretelling purgative judgments designed to sweep out of the covenant-people all whose profession was a pretence and whose lives did not show the marks of true membership, must be settled by the study of chapters 7-9.

We cannot be wrong in supposing that at any rate the majority of those who flocked to Bethel, Beer-sheba and Gilgal thought that they were legitimate partakers of the promises of God. Amos and history unite to proclaim that of these the majority was wholly mistaken. In the bitter event they discovered that it was one thing to know a promise but quite another to be an inheritor of it; it was one thing to be around to hear the promise proclaimed but quite another to be able to register a valid claim to possess it for oneself.

Take it metaphorically, but ask what the metaphor means. ‘Threshing’ is what a man does to a thing, a grain crop, in order to extract his own profit from it. This is what Hazael did in Gilead. He treated people as things. But he found no sympathy, allowance or forgiveness in heaven.

The one sin which runs like a devilish thread through the six aspects we have studied is the sin of self-pleasing: the self proudly trampling on others, intent on its own profit, sitting loose to troublesome obligations, indulging its secret motives, careless of all so long as it has its way, and bitter to the last against all who dare to say it nay! But the particular way in which this sin has been brought to our attention is its manifestation in the context of human relationships and its origin in ignoring the voice of conscience.

Yet it is also true that the wrath of a sinhating God ought to be part of the permanent consciousness of the Christian, for God never hates sin more than when He sees it defiling the life of His people. The Fatherhood of God, the supreme privilege of our redeemed position, is also the ground of perpetual fear.

to force us to make our calling and election sure, to remind us that it is one thing to claim God’s promises but another to inherit them, and to teach, seven hundred and sixty years before a greater than Amos used the words, that many will call out ‘Lord, Lord’ only to hear the words in reply ‘Depart from me, you evil-doers’ (Mt. 7:22 f.).

The verb possess signifies a conquest. The people of God demonstrate a superior power. But the conquest is followed by an equality of citizenship in that it is not their name but the name of their God by which the Gentiles are called. What the Old Testament thus saw in its own terms as military expansion, the New Testament, following the lead of Jesus who said, If my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight (Jn. 18:36), teaches us to see as the missionary expansion of the church. At the Council of Jerusalem James used this very passage of Amos as scriptural justification for the decision that the Gentiles were eligible for co-equal membership in the things of the Lord Jesus (Acts 15:12-19). Clearly, missionary expansion involves a submission followed by an equality.

Jeremiah saw the Jerusalem temple subjected to this abuse: people confessedly finding peace with God and all manner of religious helpfulness there, but coming back unchanged, praying on their knees in the temple and preying on their neighbours everywhere else!

It is not just illogical that people should love mercy when they seek it from God for themselves and hate it when required to show it to others. The Scripture says that it is impossible. The unforgiving cannot be forgiven, the unmerciful cannot receive mercy.

There is, then, one thing which the Almighty cannot do: He cannot bestow mercy on those who do not show mercy. Nothing is left for those who turn their faces away from the needy—or who exploit the needy for their own gain—than that God will turn His face away from them. This is the grim but biblically realistic truth of Amos 8:1—10. The plumb-line hangs vertical in the unmoving hand of God, a mute summons to eternal wrath to flash forth, terrifyingly, disastrously, unendingly against those who are pitiless towards the poor, the central evidence of false religion (cf. Jas. 1:27) and dead faith (cf. Jas. 2:14-

If we do not labour to establish justice in the gate, we shall be accused from this passage in Amos of a one-sided morality stopping short of the biblical concern for society, we shall be exposed, according to Amos 3:9-4:5, of playing around with a useless religion while society rots, and we shall find, according to Amos 6:3, that, while we have been unconcerned, other and sinister forces have been at work to enthrone violence and disorder.

But see how he reverses what we often hear said: that by means of a new ‘blessing’ from heaven we are enabled to walk in holiness. We ever want the blessing first and the duty second, but Amos says that it is those who set themselves in the way that delights their God who receive life, power and grace from and in Him. Jesus put things the same way when He promised that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness would be filled (Mt. 5:6).

The book of Amos is an industrial-strength excoriation of Israel’s reprehensible treatment of the poor.

The silence of the biblical writings about the Edomite deity provides circumstantial evidence for its identification with Yahweh. Further indications strengthen this claim. First, Edom is qualified as 'the land of wisdom' in Jer. 49.7 and Obadiah 8. In a monotheistic context, it is difficult to assume that wisdom would have a source other than Yahweh. Furthermore, it seems that the book of Job, the main 'wisdom book' of the Bible, has an Edomite origin, thus strengthening the linkage between Edom and Yahweh. Second, the worship of Yahweh in Edom is explicitly mentioned in Isa. 21.11 ('One is calling to me [Yahweh] from Seir'), and the duty of Yahweh in regard to his Edomite worshippers is stressed by Jer. 49.11 ('Leave [Edom] your orphans, I [Yahweh] will keep them alive; and let your widows trust in me'). Third, according to the book of Exodus, Esau-Edom and not Jacob-Israel had to inherit Yahweh's benediction from Isaac (Exod. 27.2-4). This suggests that, before emergence of the Israelites alliance, Esau was the 'legitimate trustee' of the Yahwistic traditions. [Fourth]: The Israelite nazirim (the men self-consecrated to Yahweh in Israel) are compared by Jeremiah to the Edomites: 'For thus says the LORD: If those [the Israelite nazirim] who do not deserve to drink the cup still have to drink it, shall you [Edom] be the one to go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished; you must drink it.' Such a parallel between the elite of the Israelite worshippers (nazirim) and the Edomite people as a whole also suggests that Edom was the first 'land of Yahweh'. [Fifth]: The primacy of Edom did not disappear quickly from the Israelite collective memory. This point is clearly stressed by Amos (9.11-12): 'On that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and repair its breaches and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; in order that they may possess the remnant of Edom...' Together, these five points suggest the conclusion that Yahweh was truly the main (if not the only) deity worshipped in Edom. In this case, it is likely that (1) the name of Yahweh was not used publicly in Edom, and (2) 'Qos' was an Edomite epithet for Yahweh rather than an autonomous deity. (pp. 391-392) from 'Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy?', JSOT 33.4 (2009): 387-404

[Concerning the 'over-extended domain' of Yahweh:] It is very interesting to observe that, in the Bible, Yahweh is not exclusively linked to Israel. This point is clearly stressed in the book of Amos, where it is claimed: 'On that day...they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name, says the LORD who does this' (Amos 9.11-12). Indeed, it appears from many biblical sources that Yahweh also 'protects' the Canaanite alliances of Edom, Moab and Amon, sometimes against the political interest of the Israelite Alliance. [61] Even more intriguing is the special attention, in the book of Jeremiah, devoted to the far country of Elam: I [Yahweh] will terrify Elam before their enemies, and before those who seek their life; I will bring disaster upon them, my fierce anger, says the LORD. I will send the sword after them, until I have consumed them; and I will set my throne in Elam, and destroy their king and officials, says the LORD. But in the latter days I will restore the fortunes of Elam, says the LORD (Jer. 49.37-39). This oracle is amazingly similar to those devoted to Judah and Israel. Such a commitment concerning Elam suggests that the Elamites were also regarded here as a 'people of Yahweh'. In this case, however, one has to assume a homology (if not an identity) between Yahweh and Napir ('the great god'), the main deity of Elam, who was also the god of metallurgy. (pp. 401-402) (from 'Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy?', JSOT 33.4 (2009): 387-404) [61] It is especially mentioned that the Israelites cannot conquer the lands of Edom, Moab and Ammon, since Yahweh has given them forever to the sons of Esau (Deut. 2.5) and Lot (Deut. 2.9, 19). In Jer. 9.24-25, Edom, Moab and Ammon are considered together with Judah as the circumcised, the peoples of Yahweh. The Amos oracles against Amon, Moab, Damas or Edom (Amos 1 and 2) not only mention their 'cimres' against Judah and Israel, but also all the 'crimes' perpetrated between and among them in regard to Yahweh.

The Bible reveals that there are many different clans that either were giants or had giants among them that were ultimately related in a line all the way back to the Nephilim of Genesis:   Nephilim (Gen. 6:1-4; Num. 13:33) Anakim (Num. 13:28-33; Deut. 1:28; 2:10-11, 21; 9:2; Josh. 14:12) Amorites (Amos 2:9-10) Emim (Deut. 2:10-11) Rephaim (Deut. 2:10-11, 20; 3:11) Zamzummim (Deut. 2:20) Zuzim (Gen. 14:5) Perizzites (Gen. 15:20; Josh. 17:15) Philistines (2 Sam. 21:18-22) Horites/Horim (Deut. 2:21-22) Avvim (Deut. 2:23) Caphtorim (Deut. 2:23)

went by back roads, past pines, swamps, shacks, the small towns of Lorman and Fayette, a school flying a Confederate flag, and down one road on which for some miles there were large lettered signs with intimidating Bible quotations nailed to roadside trees: “Prepare to Meet Thy God—Amos 4:12” and “He who endures to the end shall be saved—Mark 13:13” and “REPENT”—Mark 6:12.” Finally I arrived at the lovely town of Natchez. Natchez is dramatically sited on the bluffs above the wide brown Mississippi, facing the cotton fields in flatter Louisiana and the transpontine town of Vidalia. It was my first glimpse of the river on this trip. Though the Mississippi is not the busy thoroughfare it once was, it is impossible for an American to see this great, muddy, slow-moving stream and not be moved, as an Indian is by the Ganges, a Chinese by the Yangtze, an Egyptian by the Nile, an African by the Zambezi, a New Guinean by the Sepik, a Brazilian by the Amazon, an English person by the Thames, a Quebecois by the St. Lawrence, or any citizen by a stream flowing past his feet. I mention these rivers because I’ve seen them myself, and written about them, but as an alien, a romantic voyeur. A river is history made visible, the lifeblood of a nation.

QUESTION: “Is reconciliation the same as forgiveness?” ANSWER: No, reconciliation and forgiveness are not the same because ... Reconciliation focuses on the relationship. Forgiveness focuses on the offense. Reconciliation requires at least two people. Forgiveness requires only one person. Reconciliation is necessarily reciprocal, directed two-ways. Forgiveness is not necessarily reciprocal, but can be directed only one-way. Reconciliation is the choice to rejoin the offender. Forgiveness is the choice to release the offender. Reconciliation involves a change in behavior by the offender. Forgiveness involves a change in thinking about the offender. Reconciliation is a restored relationship based on restored trust. Forgiveness is a free gift to the one who has broken trust. Reconciliation is offered to the offender because it has been earned. Forgiveness is extended even if it is never, ever earned. Reconciliation is conditional, based on repentance. Forgiveness is unconditional, regardless of a lack of repentance. Reconciliation necessitates an agreed upon relationship. Forgiveness necessitates no relationship at all. The Bible asks this rhetorical question: “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” (Amos 3:3)

The Protestant view is problematic because it ignores the fact that certain prophetic oracles are very interested in punctilious performance of particular ritual laws (see esp. Jer 17.19–27). Furthermore, a close reading of prophets such as Isaiah or Amos suggests that they are not anti-law or anti-Temple, but are rhetorically emphasizing that ritual behavior alone, without proper moral behavior, is insufficient to assure divine blessing.

Amo ne faras malbonon al proksimulo; amo do estas la plenumado de la leĝo. (Romanoj 13.10)

Et Jésus lui-même commençait d'avoir environ trente ans, étant, comme on l'estimait, fils de Joseph: d'Héli, de Matthat, de Lévi, de Melchi, de Janna, de Joseph, de Mattathie, d'Amos, de Nahum, d'Esli, de Naggé, de Maath, de Mattathie, de Séméi, de Joseph, de Juda, de Johanna, de Rhésa, de Zorobabel, de Salathiel, de Néri, de Melchi, d'Addi, de Cosam, d'Elmodam, d'Er, de José, d'Éliézer, de Jorim, de Matthat, de Lévi, de Siméon, de Juda, de Joseph, de Jonan, d'Éliakim, de Méléa, de Maïnan, de Mattatha, de Nathan, de David, de Jessé, d'Obed, de Booz, de Salmon, de Naasson, d'Aminadab, d'Aram, d'Esrom, de Pharès, de Juda, de Jacob, d'Isaac, d'Abraham, de Thara, de Nachor, de Seruch, de Ragaü, de Phalek, d'Éber, de Sala, de Caïnan, d'Arphaxad, de Sem, de Noé, de Lamech, de Mathusala, d'Énoch, de Jared, de Maléléel, de Caïnan, d'Énos, de Seth, d'Adam, de Dieu.

Paul said, “If one loves God, one is known by him.” That does not mean that God doesn’t know us if we don’t love him. It means rather that our love of God is a sign of his special elective love for us, which the Bible calls his knowing us (Amos 3:2; †elect). Our loving God means that we have been given to participate in an experiential way in God’s knowledge and love of us. It is only in God that we find our true identity. But in this life even this is obscure. Then we will see God as he really is and ourselves as who we really are in him.

Amos’s position defies the stream of modern business books, such as the Alpha Male Bible (2021), intended to instruct men how to become an alpha male. These books teach body language tricks and urge men to think like a winner with the goal of securing the corner office and charming women. They forget to mention the skills that set a good chimpanzee alpha male apart, such as generosity and impartiality. We’re presented with a cardboard version of the alpha concept, which I find all the more galling given how much my book Chimpanzee Politics contributed to its popularity.17

The logic of the language of poetry brings Amos to glimpse for a moment a new order of reality. Strictly speaking, this is not yet eschatology as it would be developed seven or eight centuries after Amos, but the imagination in prophetic poetry of restored national existence without want or pain or danger is an important way station to explicit doctrines of a radically new era that will replace earthly life as we know it.

The prophecy of Amos carries an urgent message for the global church in the twenty-first century. Where God has brought material blessing to his people through honest hard work and diligence, such blessing should be received gratefully and enjoyed. Yet in light of massive worldwide needs such as poverty, lack of clean water, malnutrition, and inadequate medical care, material blessing granted to some believers must go out to those parts of the world where help is needed. To do anything less is to tragically imitate the people in Amos’s day who neglected the poor among them. Such neglect deserves, and will receive, God’s judgment.

12:6. in a vision; in a dream. All prophetic experience in the Tanak is understood to be through visions and dreams—except Moses'. The fifteen books of the Hebrew Bible that are named for prophets either identify the prophets' experiences as visions or else leave the form of the experiences undescribed (Ezek 12:27; 40:2; Hos 12:11; Hab 2:2; Mic 3:6). Many begin by identifying the book's contents as the prophet's vision: "The vision of Isaiah" (Isa 1:1, cf. 2 Chr 32:32); "The vision of Obadiah" (Oba 1); "The book of the vision of Nahum" (Nah 1:1); "The words of Amos ... which he envisioned" (Amos 1:1); "The word of YHWH that came to Micah ... which he envisioned" (Mic 1:1); "The oracle that Habakkuk the prophet envisioned" (Hab 1:1).

the boisterous and brash? “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Matthew 5:6). “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24; see also 1 Kings 10:9; Job 29:14; Psalm 89:14; Proverbs 29:7; Isaiah 9:7). Isn’t it true that the passion for righteousness is more gratifying than the passions of the world?

again the roaring lion is heard (3:8a), but it is not followed by the lion growling over its prey. The roaring lion has provoked the voice of prophecy (3: 8b).

We have forgotten that our God can turn and become our enemy (Is. 63:10) and with all our talk of taking care not to fall into the power of Satan we have become blind to the much more dangerous possibility of falling out of the power of God.

Thus in a nutshell Amos summarizes the Bible’s doctrine of the life of holiness as the life which loves and obeys the truth. But when the truth is no longer loved and is not kept by daily obedience its rejection is complete: and this is the charge levelled against Judah. God’s people have despised His truth.

Three principles were held and acted upon: the primary importance of seeking material possessions (the sin of covetousness), the irrelevance of the rights of other people (the sin of indifference and oppression)9 and the unrestricted promotion of self-advantage (the sin of self-importance).

When the grace of God reaches out to man its purpose is to make him truly human: as we would say, the purpose of God’s saving work is to make us like Jesus, the perfect Man.

Another way of stating the same truth is to say that the face which God turns to the world is predominantly one of mercy, that wrath comes, when it comes at all, late and overdue,

What are justice and righteousness? In 5:7 the turning of justice to wormwood indicates that justice is a word involving the treatment of other people: wormwood has to be tasted before it is known for the bitter thing it is. Justice, therefore, is right behaviour in relation to others, whereby they ‘taste’ or experience what is good and pleasant.

But to whom was Amos speaking? Even the most casual reading of his book reveals his hearers as a church which had confused assurance with complacency. They not only professed salvation but also an unworried certainty of salvation (cf. 5:14, 18). As Amos looked at them, however, he saw a people who not only professed salvation but who exhibited a total lack of the sort of evidence which would make their profession credible.

In my novel 'Panther in the Basement,' I retold the experiences that revealed to me, as a child, that sometimes there are two sides to a story, that conflicts are colored not only in black and white. In the last year of the British Mandate, when I was about eight, I befriended a British policeman who spoke ancient Hebrew and had memorized most of the Bible. He was a fat, asthmatic, emotional man, and perhaps a slightly muddled one, who fervently believed that the Jewish people's return to its ancestral land heralded redemption for the world at large. When the other children discovered my friendship with this man, they called me a traitor. Much later, I learned to take comfort in the thought that, for fanatic, a traitor is anyone who dares to change. Fanatics of all kinds, in all places at all times, loathe and fear change, suspecting that it is nothing less than a betrayal resulting from dark, base motives.

I used to be a dairy farmer, but I don’t do so much anymore. I’m not retired. I’m just tired.” I think Amos just made another joke. You haven’t seen deadpan delivery till you’ve seen the Amish.

They used to be racehorses,” says Amos, patting one on the neck. “Ninety percent of the horses the Amish have were once racehorses.” This is the only time during the weekend that Amos approached being prideful. Humility is absolutely central to the Amish way of life, and it’s one of the most beautiful things about the community. But if you’re going to be proud of anything, I figure these horses are a pretty good choice.

Justice is not a static ideal; it is not the maintenance of some steady state in society. The accent in biblical justice falls on positive action, the exercising of power to resist the oppressor and set the oppressed free. This is why Amos pictures justice as a thundering river that than as in the Western tradition, a neatly balanced set of scales [Amos 5:21-24].

Stopping at a red light, Chris picks up his Bible and turns to the Old Testament book of Amos. “Here, for instance, in chapter five, the prophet says, ‘You, Israel, you were supposed to take care of the poor and you’re not doing it,’ ” Chris says. “ ‘You’re using power and wealth to tilt the system in your favor.

Yes, and what widows would stand on the shore at Rackwick this night and every night till all the bodies were found? Bella of The Harp and Jess of Topmast and Margaret-Ann of Sheepsay and Willa of Two-Waters and Mary of Hawkfell and Sara of Malthouse and Amos's Rachel with the unborn child in her, dark shrouded figures among the round red rocks of the beach. Night would come down from the hills on them, still their eyes would stare at this moving thing and that small glimmer out in the bay, bits of driftwood only, fleeting phosphorescence. They would shake their heads to one another. Then it would be too dark to know sea from land. They would walk home separately across the steep fields. Then in the lamplight an unfolding of shrouds, an opening of black bibles, a stony intentness of grief.

If the Hebrew Bible contains a political theology, then two of its central principles are: (1) a rejection of all political idolatry, and therefore a distrust of monarchs, who often make gods of themselves; and (2) a demand for social justice, and therefore a distrust of the well-to-do, who often hoard riches for themselves. These principles are invoked again and again by the Jewish prophets, from Amos through Isaiah and on to the man known as Jesus (Brueggemann, 1978).

Jonah is a Prophet in the northern kingdom of Israel during the first half of the eighth century BC. His predecessors are Elijah and Elisha. The ministries of Hosea and Amos immediately follow that of Jonah.

The authors of Job and Ecclesiastes explicitly state that there is no afterlife. The book of Amos insists that the people of God suffer because God is punishing them for their sins; the book of Job insists that the innocent can suffer; and the book of Daniel indicates that the innocent in fact will suffer. All of these books are different, all of them have a message, and all of the messages deserve to be heard.

Historical Setting A reference to “Jonah son of Amittai” in 2Ki 14:25 places the setting for the book of Jonah between 790 and 760 BC. Jonah therefore serves in the generation just before Amos and Hosea, at the beginning of classical prophecy in Israel. During the time of Jonah, the reign of Jeroboam II (793–753 BC) achieved unparalleled prosperity and military success in the history of Israel’s divided monarchy. The Arameans were the only hindrance to territorial expansion. Assyria, in a period of decline, was preoccupied with internal security. This background is important for it shows that the northern kingdom of Israel at this time was near the top, not the bottom, in the realm of international politics. This situation was a reversal from a century earlier when, under Shalmaneser III, the Assyrian Empire had extended its control into the west, exercising authority over Aram, Israel, Judah, and many others. The end of his reign, however, saw revolt by several Assyrian centers (including Nineveh) from 826–820 BC. His son, Shamshi-Adad V, subdued the rebellion, but Assyrian control over the west weakened considerably. Shamshi-Adad V died about 811 BC and left as heir to the throne his young son, Adadnirari III. Until the boy came of age the country was ruled by Shamshi-Adad’s widow, Sammuramat, who retained extensive control until her death. Adadnirari reigned until 783 BC. His city of residence and capital was not Nineveh, but Calah. He was succeeded by three sons: Shalmaneser IV, Ashur-Dan III and Ashurnirari V, respectively. This was a period of practical anarchy. Particularly notable is the series of rebellions between 763 and 758. These were led by disaffected officials who show evidence of usurping royal prerogatives. In such a political climate, a prophecy proclaiming the imminent fall of Nineveh would be taken quite seriously. With the accession of Tiglath-Pileser III in 745 BC, a new dynasty began that established Assyrian supremacy for a century. Tiglath-Pileser III was succeeded by Shalmaneser V, Sargon II and, finally, Sennacherib, who enlarged Nineveh and made it the capital of the Assyrian Empire more than 50 years after the time of Jonah. The importance of this information for the study of the book of Jonah is the understanding that at the time of Jonah, Assyria had not been a threat to Israel for a generation, and it would be no threat for a generation to come. In addition, when Jonah was sent to Nineveh, he was being sent not to the capital city of a vast empire but to one of the provincial centers of a struggling nation. Some would consider this evidence that the book of Jonah was written several centuries after the Assyrian Empire had come and gone by an author unfamiliar with the details of history. Preferably, it could suggest that God had chosen to send Jonah to Nineveh in anticipation of the role it would eventually play.

Seek good and not evil so that you may live, and the Lord will be with you.

EMPTINESS OF RITUAL. [Amos 5:21–26] “I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!