Loading...
In my previous post I began to explain the book of the prophet Amos, the earliest named author of the Bible, in particular his portrayal of the coming “wrath of God.” My ultimate reason for dealing with Amos is to set up a later discussion of the book of Revelation, where the portrayal of God’s wrath is even more stunning. But Amos’s message was certainly stunning enough for his original readers, the Israelites living in the northern kingdom of Israel. Amos was telling them in rather direct and uncomfortable terms that God was soon going to wipe them out in an act of judgment.
Prophets were rarely the bearers of good news. But their condemnations were always brought against people precisely because they had sinned and God was soon to do something about it. Here is more of how I describe Amos in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2017).
******************************
Amos stresses that the coming suffering for the nation will derive not from the accidents of history, the misfortune of living near a mighty world empire, the bad luck of being a relatively weak and minor nation in the path of an aggressive foreign power. The suffering will come because God is punishing the people for their sin. It is all his doing. Nowhere is this stressed more than in the rhetorical questions of 3:3-6. Each of these questions is to be answered “no,” until the logic of the sequence forces one to answer even the final one “no.” Do people walk together if they haven’t agreed to do so? (Answer: no.) Do lions roar if they don’t have any prey? Does a bird fall into a snare if there isn’t a trap set for it? Does a snare spring up if nothing falls into it? Does the trumpet that indicates a military attack sound in the city without making people afraid? And then the climax: “Does disaster befall a city, unless the LORD has done it?” (3:6). Again, the answer must be no. The disaster that is about to fall is not the doing of some foreign, hostile power. It is the act of God.
And why is God so set on punishing Israel? For Amos it is principally because of ethical violations involving issues of social injustice. It is because you “oppress the poor… crush the needy”; it is “because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain…. You… afflict the righteous … and push the afflicted out of the way” (3:6-7) Amos portrays Israel as rotten to the core: “They do not know how to do right, says the LORD, those who store up violence and robbery in their strongholds” (3:10).
And what will God do in response? There will be military attack, and the nation will fall. “Therefore thus says the LORD God: An adversary shall surround the land, and strip you of your defense; and your strongholds shall be plundered” (3:11); “they shall now be the first to go into exile, and the revelry of the loungers shall pass away” (6:7). And so, in Amos’s famous lament: “Fallen, no more to rise, is maiden Israel; forsaken on her land, with no one to raise her up” (5:1).
The people of Israel cannot complain that they have not been given fair warning. Not only have the prophets made proclamation, but God himself has brought suffering on the people in order to get them to turn back to him. This is stated in a series of divine laments in 4:6-12. God indicates that he brought famine, to try to get the people to repent: “yet you did not return to me”; he brought a serious drought: “yet you did not return to me”; he destroyed their crops with blight and mildew and locusts: “yet you did not return to me”; he brought an epidemic and military defeat: “yet you did not return to me.” And since they have failed to return to him, despite everything that he has tried to do in order to get them to sit up and take notice, the outcome will be dire: “Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel!” (6:12). In this context, “meeting your God” is not a happy occasion. At all.
Amos goes on to stress that what God wants is social justice and ethical behavior. What he does not want is the attempt to thwart his purposes by performing seemingly highly religious activities, instead of caring for the poor and hungry. Some people in Israel – probably like many other people in many other times and places – appear to have thought that what God wants is the proper worship: performing the sacrifices to God in the proper way, remembering to celebrate religious festivals, conducting proper worship services. But for Amos, this is not at all what God really wants. He wants a just society. And so, Yahweh himself is portrayed as saying in no uncertain terms:
I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them, and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (5:21-24)
Like other prophets, Amos often spoke using metaphors and parables. In Chapters 7-9 he is said to have seen five visions, each of which were images of judgment – for example, an attack of locusts, a wild fire, and a “plumb line” (which is used to see if a wall is straight; if not, you have to tear it down and start again. This is not a hopeful metaphor for the people of God, if they do not “line up” well.)
In many ways Amos is typical of all the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. The following points about the prophets, based on this reading of Amos, are worth noting:
- The prophets are presented as spokespersons of God, who were intervening in the affairs of the nation of Israel (or Judah) when things were not going well.
- The prophets are particularly concerned about social and religious transgressions of the people (Amos is more concerned about social issues; other prophets will be focused more on religious issues—the proper worship of Yahweh).
- The prophets do make predictions, but they are not predicting events that will transpire hundreds or thousands of years after their day. They are speaking to their own situations and must be rooted in their own historical contexts. Their predictions are about what God will do to the people if they do not return to him and behave as he requires.
- The suffering of the nation rests in the hands of God. Yes, people can and do act in ways harmful to others (that’s a big part of the problem). But the demise of the nation itself will come because of the act of God. He is the one who brings drought, famine, epidemic, economic hardship, and military disaster. If the nation is faithful to God, it will be rewarded. But if not, it will be harshly punished.
- God is not simply the God of his people. He is the sovereign Lord of the entire earth, and all the other nations do his bidding. He is the creator of all, and he uses all nations to perform his will.
Bart,
Ok – I can see where this is going now. Jesus was a *good* kind of apocalyptic thinker not like Revelation.
Suggestion: It’s not a trade book it’s a scholarly work extremely well researched and extensively researched and attributed and broken down in Greek. Avalos goes into many relevant topics for the position you are carving out here. He did a great job with this. You really need to read The Bad Jesus The Ethics of NT Ethics.
To make a claim that Jesus was of course an apocalyptic leader…he ripped his followers away from their families (told them to hate their families (what happened to their families?) and even refusing to let one go to a parents funeral) but he was a *good* apocalyptic sect leader…such a *good* apocalyptic thinker.
There is a mountain of material in the NT that goes against this.
This is an untenable theology position to take.
I can see why you would do it…I understand why.
Let me leave you with this question: Do you think historical Jesus did anything wrong? What?
I know this is my 3rd comment on the blog since Friday I appreciate your patience…off hiking for awhile.
Thank You Sir – (still a big fan!)
SC
I”ve looked at the book, just not read the whole thing. I knew Hector; we were colleagues with offices next door to each other for a couple of years.
I’m not saying that JEsus is “good” in some kind of innate sense. I’m arguing that he had a different understanding of what and why people would be destroyed; I still don’t like the view, but for my ethical sense his particular view is far superior to the view of Revelation, the latter of which is not only an apoocalyptic view but a very biblical one, as I will be trying to show in later posts.
Many of the OT prophets and visions repeatedly show that this “wrath” (related to change), so “judgment” is not Gods last words. After that comes restoration and reunion.
The same pattern is shown in the Revelation which is the story of ourselves, our inner forces, our inner abilities. It begins where we are here and now, we (the book) have opened our seals, and changes and tribulations occurs before the last fall of the fallen “Self” (Babylon). Again the story of “wrath” (related to changes) and judgment, is not the last word. Again comes the story where God will restore and unite with his “people” and all that will take the free gift of the River of Life.
I think the patterns are quite familiar / similar.
I”ll be arguing there are differences. (For one thing: the prophets predict suffering for God’s people for disobedience, after which he restores them; in Revelation the massive devastation is for the “other” and they are not restored, but mercilessly destroyed. God’s own people are not punished for disobedience)
The Revelation is in my mind a revelation of ourself, our own transformation. The symbols are not personal, but rather forces within ourself so there are no “other” in person. This gives that the real message is a transformation of ourself, and there is the restoration.
So, the pattern seems to me the same, and both the prophets and the Revelation point toward restoration.
Mr. Ehrman, Jesus was apparently well-versed in the Old Testament (or, more accurately, the “scriptures”). Also, he understood himself as a prophet (at least, in Mark’s Gospel). Do you think he too recognized the different ways in which the prophets of the scriptures interpreted the problem of suffering?
No I don’t. I don’t think any Jews on record at the time did.
A God of WRATH.
Because they “oppress the poor… crush the needy”; it is “because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain…. You… afflict the righteous … and push the afflicted out of the way” ““They do not know how to do right, says the LORD, those who store up violence and robbery in their strongholds” (3:10).”
To paraphrase Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof: May I be smited with such a God and may I never recover!!
We can’t eat our cake and have it too. Amos is describing a God of love for the poor not a God of wrath for wraths own sake.
This is the God Jesus worshiped and emulated.
This is my father’s God and my God!!
Yes, I too think Amos believed that God sent suffering on those who had oppressed and harmed others; I think that is JEsus’ view too. I don’t think it’s the view of other prophets (Hosea) and the book of Revelation.
The difficulty with that view is collateral damage. When these judgements fall they seem to fall on everyone, like a stick of 500 lb bombs from a B-52. Destroying a nation in order to save it? In that case, the God of wrath might well have conducted the bombing campaign in Vietnam.
Are either 1) the ethics of the poor or 2) the nearly monotheistic power of YHWH in Amos representative of ANE texts of 750 BCE Levantine culture or the broader ANE?
I must wonder at the ethics based results of Amos compared to proper worship. It reminds me of Cyrus blaming the fall of Babylon (to Cyrus) on the improper worship of Marduk 200 years later. So perhaps this stance on the gods caring for the poor was a special advancement made by the worshippers of YHWH in Israel?
You may have picked Amos for this subject because it is commonly assessed to be the oldest, to compare to what is thought by many to be the youngest in Revelations, and both demonstrate the anger of God. But perhaps the very reason for the anger of God in Amos means it was not really that old. Having read your book on Heaven and Hell I wonder if the ethical treatment of others is a father Hellenic ideal?
No and no. Lots of people of course think that its a good thing to treat others well. VEry few cultures emphasize the importance of doing this for the impoveristed, the outcast, the lowlifes, the oppressed. I’ll be arguing that this *is* a theme in part of the Israelite tradition, picked up in a big way by Jesus.
So clearly Amos is concerned with the decline of Yahwism and human behavior in all levels of society. But what can we truly know of his lineage and background? The references to his presence “among” the shepherds ( noqedim) of Tekoa (1:1) and his claims to be a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore fig trees (7:14) do not tell us whether he owned flocks or herds and groves or cared for the possessions of others. Whatever his social and economic status, he is certainly not an uninformed yokel invading the sophisticated world of Bethel. His utterances, couched in excellent Hebrew, reflect knowledge of historical traditions, geography (note the numerous cities he mentions), and Israelite cult practices.
So in light of your ending Prophetic criteria, do you think Amos believed *himself* commissioned by Yahweh to proclaim a message (7:14)? He apparently disassociated with the title “prophet” and with the prophetic movement-“I am no nabi’, nor a son of a nabi’? It would seem Amos’ refusal to be identified with any specific prophetic group, no matter where located, was, perhaps, a rejection of the implication that he prophesied for remuneration.
I don’t have any way to answer that. All we know is what he tells us — and there’s no way to know what “really* prompted him. Since I’m an atheist, I don’t think Yahweh commissioned him…
Sorry. I wasn’t clear. I too am an atheist but the academic question (albeit somewhat pedantic) was the disconnect with what Amos believed as a Commissioned Prophet and his denial as such.
Perhaps the debate of Monotheism as expressed in (by) Amos is more interesting. Amos’ statement recorded at 9:7 may have come as a shock to his listeners to be sure.
Israel and Judah accepted Yahweh as their deity. When the kingdom separated, Jeroboam had demonstrated, in the erection of two shrines to Yahweh, that Yahweh was equally the god of Israel and Judah. The quarrel was not Yahweh on one side against the other, but Yahweh with a separation within the family of those who worshipped him. Therefore, there has been no indication that the Hebrew people conceived of Yahweh as planning the welfare and destinies of other peoples. In fact there is substantial evidence, both prior and subsequent to Amos, that other gods were believed to be responsible for the welfare of the peoples where they were worshipped.
So how do we interpret the monolatry vs henotheism being expressed? scholarly hair-splitting, but without them the varieties of religious expression within Israel cannot be discerned.
YEs, it’s a striking verse. Yahweh seems to indicate that he helped other peoples too. BUt Amos 1-2 indicates clearly that God judged other nations as well. I’m not sure what you’re asking in your final question
The thing is… the people who suffer most from natural (or, presumably, divine) disasters are the poor. Are there any signs that Amos realizes this?
I don’t know. THe reality is that before the modern period, the vast majority of everyone was poor and most of them desperately poor.
Supposedly these things happen because God is “just” but you know as well as I that there had to be people who were doing “His will” and they simply became collateral damage.
Thankyou for another interesting post, as usual. This prompts a few questions :
1. I have noted your previous descriptions about how the 27 books of the NT (no more, no less) came to be declared & accepted AS the NT canon. What is the corresponding story & timing for the OT?
2. And is the Christian OT in its entirety what 1st century Jews, and now modern religious Jews, revere as their Bible as such?
3. Do we know how the book of Amos made the cut to be included in the OT?
4. I have very much enjoyed rereading your posts about attending the “Jesus and Brian” conference in 2014, and note the comments about Brian joining / attempting to blend in with, a long line of doomsaying aspiring prophets. Do we know anything or much about the prophet-landscape in the time of Amos or other OT prophets beyond their own OT books? Was there seemingly a “prophet on every street corner” making all sorts of (written) claims & predictions but only the “lucky” ones who guessed the correct immediate future are remembered?
1. It was at about the same time, but obvioiusly from a different community with somewhat different criteria; 2. Yes, though the canon wasn’t “finalized” then and they numbered the books differently. 3. So far as we know it was never questions. 4. I’m afraid our onlyu information comes from these writings themselves.
On the subject of apocalyptic events – have you been following the extreme climate events across the world this year?
There is some startling footage today of Greece on fire (https://news.sky.com/story/greece-wildfires-british-firefighters-deployed-to-help-out-as-footage-shows-boat-escape-while-blazes-rage-12375560).
Do you think secularists can borrow any useful lessons or insights from religious apocalyptic prophets when sounding the alarm over climate change?
I’d say they have. It’s a secularized version of “The End is Near.” But this time they may be right….
What are your thoughts on climate change? Do you think it will lead to a societal collapse in significant parts of the world within our lifetimes?
Yup. The massive suffering and population shifts are starting, and they ain’t gonna get better.
I recall hearing a radio preacher (Dr David Jeremiah, a Baptist) say that a better translation of the word *wrath* is *hot pursuit*. To me, this sounds like a relentless god who will run me to ground, put his foot on my neck, and make me holler UNCLE. Yet, for me, such a vivid depiction does not excuse the bloodthirstiness evident in the Texts. (If such a god doesn’t want me to think rationally, for myself, deploying my God-given intelligence, I’d rather be crushed.)
Did he really say that? OK then. What would you like to bet that he doesn’t know much Greek?
Interesting Prof., sure enough, the word Israel means those who struggle with God. Bart, your final points are well taken and agree with. In a sense, when I read them and see how God used his will/wrath on everyone, i get the feeling that he (God) softened his stance on judgement in the N.T and redeemed the people by sending his son,Jesus, as the savior of the world. It’s like he gave up or was tired of all the talking through his prophets, and let Jesus do the saving grace through death and resurrection. Do you also see it that way ?
No, I don’t think I do. The real challenge of discussing the views of the NT is to do so without being anti-Jewish.
Interesting and informative article especially on your summary of the responsibilities of prophets. Please elaborate “the earliest named author of the Bible”
It is true that, in the sight of God, taking care for the poor and providing food for those who are staving is essential. Those in Hell, according to another book, will be inquired for some of the reasons for being in Hell. “What has landed you in Hell?” They will reply, “We were not of those who prayed, nor did we feed the poor.”
It is good and timely that you have reminded us among others what “God wants is social justice and ethical behavior. “
According to the Romans and others of the time, the gods ran everything, often with whim. Thus, temples and shrines everywhere for the faithful to ask the god for a good harvest or whatever and leave a sacrifice, preferably cash. From what writings remain, it seem to be a universal theme. Often for the rulers to ponder but, also the common folk. Dante and others write their own versions thru the enlightenment?
Hi Dr Ehrman!!
I’ve heard a conservative pastor quote
2 Thessalonians 3:10 in order to critique communism. What does this verse actually mean, since this Pauline teaching sounds very much at odds with “blessed are the poor”
Thank you!!
I”m afraid ancient authors knew nothing about communism, marxism, socialism, capitalism, or any other modern socio-political -ism, so they couldn’t critique it any more than they could critique personal computers. Communists, as you probably know, did not urge people not to work, so it’s not clear what this Pastor is imagining. Usually that kind of critique is made by someone who has no idea about what it is he’s critiquing. IN any event, the verse is about people who have quit their jobs because Jesus is returning soon (why work?) and so are having to sponge off the congregation. THe author says, don’t do that! I guess that’s the irony: he’s critiquing committed Christians, not Communists.
The Pastor has no clue what he’s talking about. The Soviet Constitution of 1936 actually quotes this Bible verse approvingly (though it doesn’t cite that it’s in the Bible, it just calls it a “principle”)
You could argue with some plausibility that even if Communists want people to work, their system will wind up encouraging idleness.
This is getting beyond the subject of Bart’s blog though.
Ah thank you for that unpacking! Really helpful
Has your ‘Graphic’ New Testament been published yet? I was looking on Amazon among your books and didn’t see it. Let me know if it is available. Thanks, Ray
Ha! I haven’t even decided whether to write it or not! If so … later!
“Does disaster befall a city, unless the LORD has done it?” Was Amos composed at a time when God was seen as the author of both good and evil, or had the concept of Satan as the instigator of evil been introduced by that time?
I don’t know if that was the view at the time, but it seems to be the view of Amos! And no, Satan was not to come along for another six centuries. As the instigator of evil, he doesn’t show up in the Hebrew BIble (even Job doesn’t actually portray him as “the Devil”)
I understand many if not most of the people were among the “poor and oppressed” and the punishment would have affected them as much as the oppressors. Were they being punished for being poor and oppressed? Makes no sense. Same with the babies and children killed by the Israelites in Caanan. The invasion according to some was to punish the Canaanites for doing child sacrifice, yet the invaders were to kill all the children and babies. Seems children and babies they were being punished for being victims! It is as if God is largely incapable of punishing just the guilty. It is kind of all or nothing. (Yet he did single out the guy who reached out to steady the Ark of the Covenant so it wouldn’t fall; only he got killed.)
I would think that a mighty being like God would be able to do precision strikes, surgical strikes, but no, He’s not much better than a nuke or a mass of B-17s dropping incendiaries on Dresden– is the God of wrath a kind of cosmic Curtiss LeMay??
Do scholars think that Amos’s prophecies of disaster were written or heavily edited after the events prophesied actually occurred?
If a whole nation is punished for the transgressions of some (even if it’s a majority), does that suggest that
Israelites (or maybe just “Amos”) thought of themselves more as part of a collective people rather than as individuals? Was that a common perspective in the ancient world?
I don’t think the precdictions of disaster were, but a later editor DID put in a glimmer of hope at the end for those who had already experienced the disaster.
Amos believed God punished those who oppressed the poor and afflicted but He didn’t seem to discriminate when handing down the punishments. The poor and afflicted suffered right along with His punishment of Israel.