EXAM QUESTIONS

Candidates should be able to show that Amos was a prophet of social justice, e.g.

• selling the righteous for silver, etc.

• Father and son going in to the same maiden;

• lying down beside the altar on garments taken in pledge;

• The fat cows of Bashan oppressing the poor and demanding drink;

• taking bribes;

• turning aside the needy at the gate of justice;

• Sybaritic luxury in the face of the poverty of the majority, and so on.

On the question of whether Amos was “nothing more” than a prophet of social justice, many candidates will perhaps simply use weight of evidence to ‘prove’ that he was. More discerning candidates may be able to point to additional themes in Amos, such as election and covenant, God as judge of the nations in general, and the fact that not all sin is based in social injustice.

• The claim that Amos was nothing more than a prophet of social justice is likely to be established by reference to the content of his oracles, for example: his condemnation of the Philistine cities because of their slave traffic with Edom; of Tyre for breaking the covenant of brotherhood by delivering up a whole people to Edom; of the Ammonites for atrocities such as ripping up pregnant women in Gilead. Reference is likely to be made to selling the righteous for silver; father and son going in to the same maiden; lying down next to the altar on garments taken in pledge; the greedy conduct of women (the fat cows of Bashan who oppressed the poor and demanded drink); those who take bribes; those who ignored people in need at the gate of justice; the luxury of the rich in face of the poverty of the many, etc.

• The amount of space taken up in the Book of Amos with social injustices such as these illustrates the view given in the question.

• Candidates are at liberty to illustrate and develop any alternative descriptions of what Amos stood for as a Prophet. In particular for example, he is generally seen as a prophet of doom: expect illustration from his comments, e.g. the five visions of God’s judgement and indictment in chapters 7 to 9.

• Some will refer to the concluding salvation oracle to suggest that Amos was also a prophet of mercy and salvation at appropriate times.

• Credit any valid attempts to provide alternative descriptions of Amos’ prophetic function.

• Given the amount of space that the Book of Amos dedicates to issues of social justice, the claim that this was the most important part of his message is on fairly solid ground.

• Answers are likely to present a broad picture of Amos’ condemnation of social injustices. For example: in the oracles against the surrounding nations, the Philistine cities are condemned because of their slave traffic with Edom; Tyre is castigated for breaking the covenant of brotherhood by delivering up a whole people to Edom; and, the Ammonites are denounced for atrocities such as ripping up pregnant women in Gilead.

• Amos was equally disgusted at the social injustice he witnessed in Israel: the righteous were sold for silver and the needy for a pair of shoes, and the poor were trampled into the dust (2:6–7); he called the wealthy and greedy women of Samaria ‘cows of Bashan’ – they grew sleek and fat by oppressing the poor (4:1–3).

• It is also true, however, that Amos denounced Israel for religious sins. Instead of proper religious observance, both priests and people were taken up with flamboyant public rituals (4:4–5). Jeroboam II had taken up worship of astral gods (e.g. 5:26–27), and as a result would be exiled.

• Some answers may argue that social injustice and religious sins were not separate issues for Amos but were part of the same issue. For example, in Chapter 8, Amos addresses those who trample upon the needy and the poor and look forward to the new moon being over so that they can sell grain, and to the Sabbath being over so that they can offer wheat for sale, at the same time doing this using false balances. Any social sin is in effect a sin against Yahweh, who despises the feasts and solemn assemblies of the nation, and therefore refuses to accept burnt offerings. Instead, justice should ‘roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream’ (5:21–24).

• Some will argue that Amos’ doom oracles are the most important part of Amos’ message, since their upshot was that the nation would be taken into exile. Others might argue that the doom oracles are offset by the salvation oracle at the end of the book, although it seems likely that this was added by the redactor of the Book of the Twelve.

• Answers should attempt to make a case for the priority (or otherwise) of any particular theme or themes in Amos.

For Amos’ doom oracles, e.g.

• 1:2–2:16: introductory indictment of foreign nations, Israel and Judah

• the punishment of Israel, e.g. the shepherd who rescues bits of animal from the lion’s mouth // the similarly comprehensive punishment of Israel

• the ‘fat cows of Bashan’ being led away with hooks

• 5:1ff. – “Fallen, no more to rise, is the virgin Israel …”

• “Woe to those who are at ease in Zion”, etc. (6:1ff)

• 7–9: The five visions of God’s judgement and indictment, etc.

For Amos was a prophet of social justice, e.g.

• selling the righteous for silver, etc.

• father and son going in to the same maiden;

• lying down beside the altar on garments taken in pledge;

• the fat cows of Bashan oppressing the poor and demanding drink;

• taking bribes;

• turning aside the needy at the gate of justice;

• sybaritic luxury in the face of the poverty of the majority, and so on.

Candidates might argue that one theme or the other has preponderance. Some might suggest that the final oracles of salvation mitigate the doom oracles, although most will refer to the fact that these are an attempt to lighten the air of unremitting gloom/doom in Amos. Many are likely to argue that the condemnation of social injustice cannot be separated from the oracles of doom, since the latter are the result of the former; so neither theme is more prevalent in Amos.

There are a number of lines of argument that candidates could take with this question. Most are likely to illustrate the unavoidable nature of destruction, giving an extended demonstration of the doom oracles, linked to Amos’ critique of the social ills that compelled him to prophesy. Emphasis will probably be given to elements such as:

• the repetition that Yahweh “will not revoke the punishment” (chapters 1-2)

• the point that Israel is the recipient of Yahweh’s election promises makes punishment even more certain, since election requires greater responsibility (3:2)

• Amos’ visions of destruction: 3:12; 7:4-6, 7-9; 8:1-3, 9-14; 9:1-10

• the lament over fallen Israel: 5:2-3, 16-17

• the ‘Day of the Lord’ that will be darkness, not light: 5:18-20

• the self-indulgent rich will be the first into exile: 6:1-7; punishment will be thorough: 6:8-14

• Amos’ promise of exile given through Amaziah: 7:10-17.

Some are likely to balance this material by contrasting it with some of the intercessory material where Yahweh changes his mind (7:2-3, 4-6); also with the prophecy of restoration in 9:11-15.

This material could be interpreted to mean that destruction would not be total, or else the reverse, if the material is from a later editor.

To say that there was no point to Amos’ prophecy might be argued if destruction was to be total, since Amos’ words would amount to nothing more than a very severe telling-off. If there was nothing that Israel could do to avoid destruction, then what was the point of Amos’ message other than to rub salt into the inevitable wounds? Some might argue that Amos did believe that some might escape: thus in 5:6 he says, “Seek the Lord and live” – the injunction would be pointless if there was no possibility that anyone would do so.

This question is a departure from the usual run of Amos questions, so credit all attempts at reasoning.

The judgmental element in Amos is very evident, e.g.

• the opening section of the book, where God is said to ‘roar from Zion’, and pronounces an indictment of the neighbouring peoples as well as of Israel/Judah, listing a number of misdemeanours/sins

• these culminate in the indictment of Israel, whose responsibility is greater because the privileges of election require it

• Amos lists a string of religious and social evils committed by all levels of society. Candidates are likely to refer to a selection of these, and to show the finality of their judgement, such as the fate of the ‘fat cows of Bashan’

• the passage in 5:1–6:14 details the horror and finality of Israel’s punishment: ‘Fallen, no more to rise, is the virgin Israel; forsaken on her land, with none to raise her up’

• also, Amos’ visions of judgement, such as the locusts, fire, and summer fruit that is ‘ripe’ for destruction. Balanced against that, candidates are likely to pick out elements of Yahweh’s love visible in the book, such as:

• Amos’ intercession in 7:1–3, where Yahweh repents of his destructive intentions: ‘It shall not be’

• Amos’ intercession in the subsequent vision of judgement by fire (7:4–6), where Yahweh again responds to that intercession

• some might wonder at the fact that God appears to repent (v.3 and v.6) of each decision, in which case both decisions appear to be acts of unwarranted judgement rather than divine love

• most are likely to refer to 9:11–15, the promise of restoration of the booth of David (the Davidic dynasty) and the glorious age to come

• some will see this as part of the process of redaction in the Book of the Twelve. For the higher grades, candidates should make some judgement on the view stated in the question as opposed to simply listing what might be judgement and what might show love.

Amos is the first prophet to use the phrase, ‘The Day of the LORD’, and it is a lynch-pin for Amos’ prophecies of doom to the Northern Kingdom:

• it is not a requirement, but candidates might offer some setting for the Day of the LORD, e.g. as an apocalyptic event in which it was expected that Yahweh would intervene in human affairs in order to punish Israel’s enemies and elevate Israel to its rightful place at the head of the nations. It is generally interpreted as a theophany – an appearance of Yahweh in majesty/power

• the focal prophecies are in 5:18ff., where Amos says that it will be a day of darkness, rather than light, ‘as if a man fled from a lion and a bear met him’

• the phrase, ‘On that day’ occurs several times, e.g. 2:16 (the stout of heart fleeing naked during God’s destruction of the nations); 3:13–15 (punishing the altars of Bethel/smiting the great houses); 8:1ff. (following the vision of the ripe summer fruit, the sun going down at noon, feasts turning into mourning, sackcloth, famine, thirst …) Almost all of the doom oracles can be seen in this context. The salvation oracle in 9:13, where ‘that day’ is reinterpreted, presumably by a later editor, in terms of a Davidic restoration could also be included.

God’s power is seen in the OT as incomparable. Candidates might refer to the picture of Yahweh as the divine warrior – as Lord of the heavenly armies. This is illustrated chiefly through the doom oracles in Amos, e.g.

• 1:2 - 2:16: introductory indictment of foreign nations, Israel and Judah, where the language is about destructive power, e.g. 1:5 – ‘I will break the bar of Damascus’; 1:7 – ‘I will send a fire upon the wall of Gaza’; 2:13 – ‘I will press you down in your place’;

• the lion terminology, such as 3:8 – ‘The lion has roared – who will not fear?’

• the punishment of Israel, e.g. 3:12 – the shepherd who rescues bits of animal from the lion’s mouth/the similarly comprehensive punishment of Israel;

• ch.4: – rain/pestilence/mildew/blight;

• the ‘fat cows of Bashan’ being led away with hooks;

• 5:1ff. – ‘Fallen, no more to rise, is the virgin Israel …’ – ‘the Lord makes destruction flash forth against the strong’;

• ‘Woe to those who are at ease in Zion’, etc. (6:1ff.)

• 7–9: The five visions of God’s judgement and indictment, etc.

To examine themes such as these, candidates might put this catalogue of power into Amos’ theme of the Day of the Lord, where instead of vindication, Israel will experience darkness and gloom; moreover the Israelites who feel themselves secure will be the first to be sent into exile to an unclean land (7:17). In the 5th vision, the destruction is complete, since no-one will escape, even if they flee to the depths of Sheol (9:2).

In the earlier chapters, candidates might refer specifically to Amos’ portrayal of Yahweh’s universalism. In terms of God’s power and control over the nations, the comprehensive nature of the threats against all nations would have been new territory for those who heard him.

Candidates might raise some of the following points:

• Amos came from the South to prophesy in the North. His intervention in northern affairs was probably seen as intrusive and unwarranted

• his status as a shepherd would probably have made his message appear to be a presumption when addressed to the royal court

• alternatively, his appearance at the royal shrine of Bethel might mean that he was a cultic functionary who had turned against the system, which would have been shocking to his hearers

• his criticisms of life in the Northern Kingdom were addressed to Jeroboam II, under whose rule Israel attained a height of territorial expansion and national prosperity never again achieved. Military security and the economic wealth that accompanied it were taken by many as a sign of Yahweh’s favour, since wealth was seen as a sign of the gods’ approval, and poverty as a sign of the reverse. The people could not, therefore, understand Amos’ criticisms of their lifestyle

• there was an assumption, based on election theology, that God’s chosen people would be exempt from punishment. Amos announced that this was not the case, and that covenant privilege required covenant responsibility, without which destruction would follow

• Amos was the first prophet to announce the total destruction of Israel

• Amos contradicted the traditional interpretation of the ‘Day of the Lord’ as being a day of Yahweh’s vengeance on Israel for its sins, rather than a day of vindication for Israel

• Amos’ portrayal of Yahweh’s universalism, in terms of God’s control over the nations, would have been new territory for those who heard him.

No particular balance between the treatment of Amos and Hosea is required in answering this question. In practice, candidates are likely to refer in more detail to Hosea.

For Amos, candidates will focus on the biographical incident in Amos 7:10– 17, where in response to Amaziah’s taunt to Amos that he should go back to Judah and prophesy there, Amos replies: ‘I am no prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but I am a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees, and the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, “Go, prophesy to my people Israel”’. Candidates are likely to suggest that God compelled Amos to prophesy in the North, and that this explains the hard-hitting language used by Amos, who uses a series of doom oracles to announce the destruction of Israel. Amos claims that he was a simple shepherd put into a situation he could not understand; nevertheless he has no choice but to obey. Some will argue that Amos had a poor background, and therefore was very scathing against the luxuries of the Northern Kingdom which were achieved at the expense of the poor.

For the higher levels, some judgement would be expected as to whether Amos’ background explains ‘everything’ about his prophecies. Some might say that he was simply repeating what he was told to say. Others might say that he was acting under prophetic compulsion, and it was this that explained everything about his prophecies. For Hosea, candidates will analyse Hosea’s relationship with Gomer in Hosea 1–3, together with the impact this had on Hosea’s message andpersonal life. This might involve considering the identity of the woman in chapters 1 and 3, the depth of Hosea’s unhappiness and its effect on his prophecy, and so. Again, for the higher levels, some judgement is expected as to whether such experiences explain everything about Hosea’s prophecies