I listened to Scott Ritter's scathing rebuke of Netanyahu's speech and accusations yesterday. It stuck in my head. Listen to the first 3-5 minutes and see if his rebuke was appropriate. What a pathetic and dangerous Congress we the people have.

Today's repetitive reading of Amos began with chapter 6. This makes the twelfth time I've read this passage since July 1 and it is not getting old. They say history repeats itself; I say surely it does. This portion stuck out like sore thumb.

Israel has always been a people marked by history, by tradition, by wandering.  Now, just as in the days of Amos, we find ourselves asking questions—questions that seem to lead us in circles. What does God do with Israel now? Does the Book of Amos shine light on such questions? And are the sins of today a mere echo of the past? It’s a mystery, one we’ll unravel step by step, piecing together the clues, until the truth emerges and perhaps—just perhaps—Israel finds its way back to God.

Amos 6:1-3
1 Woe to those who are at ease in Zion
And to those who feel secure in the mountain of Samaria,
The distinguished men of the foremost of nations,
To whom the house of Israel comes.
2 Go over to Calneh and look,
And go from there to Hamath the great,
Then go down to Gath of the Philistines.
Are they better than these kingdoms,
Or is their territory greater than yours?
3 Do you put off the day of calamity,
And would you bring near the seat of violence?

The point of this passage is not geography. Just because it involves a distant people in a distant time does not mean it has nothing to say to us today. It is not where and when this takes place but who. The spiritual condition of the people is the who. The who was what mattered and the who is what matters today.

The same pride in the people back then is the same pride in the people we see today. The same pride that lead to the same actions we see today will lead to the same outcome we see back then. You can put your money on that. It comes down to a matter of God's mercy and patience as to when. It's not if God will respond to a nations pride, but when.

With the above underlined verses standing out to me today, I was interested to see what others have said about this ancient text. I did not take the time to read every commentary I have on this passage, but I did take the time to read one. I learned a few things. Have you ever wondered what Hamas means? Here is copy of the one commentary I looked at today: Clendenen, E. Ray; Mathews, Kenneth A. (General Editors), The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. I think you will find it interesting.

(4) A Preeminent Nation (Amos 6:1-7)

Amos 6:1-7 is another woe oracle.  The first element is the woe-cry itself, “woe” (‎hôy‎). Eight plural active participles follow the woe-cry, a second identifying mark of the woe oracle. The woe-cry says something is wrong, the participles describe what is wrong, and the judgment word (v. 7) announces God’s response to what is wrong.

Preeminent In Leadership (Amos 6:1-3).

The first focus of the woe oracle is upon the proud leaders of Judah and Israel. They considered themselves the top men of the top nation. The entire house of Israel came to them in all matters of importance “for advice or in order to petition them against injustice.”

Amos 6:1 Woe to those who are at ease in Zion and to those who feel secure in the mountain of Samaria, the distinguished men of the foremost of nations, to whom the house of Israel comes.

The woe-cry (‎hôy‎), a funeral lament, was in sharp contrast to the leaders’ self-evaluation. The following active participles (“who are complacent” and “who feel secure”) function as prophetic accusations in describing their behavior. Zion’s (i.e., Jerusalem’s) leaders were “complacent.” They were at ease and untroubled (cf. Isa 32:9-11). Perhaps that attitude grew from their inflated opinion of their spiritual preeminence.

Samaria’s leaders felt “secure.”  Their confidence was in their own ability to control their destiny. They were “trusting in Mount Samaria,” literally. Samaria’s topography made it a natural fortress. Their leaders’ trust may have been in their political and military preeminence. Both sets of leaders (from Judah and Israel) thought of themselves as the “notable men of the foremost nation.” “You notable men” translates the passive participle of a verb (‎n¹qab‎) that can mean to “pierce,” “point to,” or “designate” (cf. Gen 30:28). The position of “foremost” was self-assigned. The leaders designated themselves the number one nation. “To whom the people of Israel come” describes the pitiable plight of Israel’s people, who must depend on leaders whose trust is in Mount Samaria rather than God.

Amos 6:2 Go over to Calneh and look, and go from there to Hamath the great, then go down to Gath of the Philistines. Are they better than these kingdoms, or is their territory greater than yours?

Amos ordered the self-evaluated preeminent leaders in Zion and Samaria to compare themselves with three nearby city-states. The four verbs are imperatives, perhaps suggesting the urgency of the situation from the prophet’s perspective. Amos probably did not expect his audience to travel anywhere. In their mind’s eye they were to go to the cities named. Calneh and Hamath were Syrian city-states under Israel’s influence. Gath was a Philistine city-state under Judah’s control. “No” was the expected answer to the rhetorical questions. The point of the rhetorical questions was the equality between those city-states and Israel/Judah. Leaders of Israel and Judah were wrong if they thought they were better or bigger than the three city-states.

Amos 6:3 Do you put off the day of calamity, and would you bring near the seat of violence?

Another plural active participle (“you put off”) continues the prophetic accusations. Israel’s leaders denied that a day of disaster (“evil,” ‎r¹±‎) was approaching (cf. Jer 17:17-18; 51:2). They refused to learn from the history of their neighboring city-states, who once had been independent. Now they were subject to Israel and Judah respectively. What happened to their neighbors could happen to them.

By consigning to the distant future any day of accounting, Israel’s leaders invited “a reign of terror.” Amos had a view of reality that differed from the view held by the high society of Israel. The leaders in Israel felt secure in their fortresses and comfortable in their winter and summer houses. They scornfully dismissed any thought of a day of “evil.”  The term translated “put off” occurs elsewhere only in Isa 66:5, where it means to “exclude” or “reject.” Here it means they rejected the idea of “the evil day.”  They were confident such a day was reserved for God’s enemies. What they failed to see was that they might be God’s enemies. Any thought of a day of disaster for Israel was put off to the distant future.

“Violence” is the usual word selected to render into English the idea in the term translated “terror” (‎hāmās; cf. comments at Amos 3:10). The word rendered “reign” (‎šebet‎) means “sitting” or “seat.” To dismiss the concept of punishment for evil tends to promote the practice of violence. Israel’s leaders precipitated and accelerated “the very misfortune that they claim will never overtake them.”

Application

1. What questions does Amos raise in this passage that would help apply his message to our lives?

2. Put yourself in the shoes of Amos’ audience and answer the questions that he raises.

3. In what ways might we, as individuals or as a society, be exhibiting the same complacency and false sense of security that the leaders of Zion and Samaria displayed? How can we guard against this attitude?

4. The leaders of Israel and Judah considered themselves “the top men of the top nation.” How do we see similar attitudes of national or cultural superiority in our world today? How should Christians approach issues of national pride?

5. The passage suggests that the leaders trusted in their own abilities and fortifications rather than in God. Where in our lives are we tempted to place our trust in our own strengths or worldly securities instead of in God?

6. Amos points out that the leaders were wrong to think they were better than neighboring city-states. How can we cultivate humility and a realistic view of ourselves in comparison to others?

7. The sermon mentions that by dismissing the possibility of judgment, the leaders were actually inviting “a reign of terror.” In what ways might our own denial or dismissal of potential consequences for our actions be setting us up for future problems?

Click on the "Amos" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here. To join me in this study on Gab click here.