Dramatic honesty
The usual practice in churches is to read only a select few verses as the lesson which may miss the message of a whole book. Bear Grylls has brought more of the human life of Jesus to our attention with his “Greatest Story” book. Amos was not an intellectual from the university but a sheep farmer who did not fear to put things plainly. He used Nathan’s technique of communication by getting people to judge others before realising they were actually judging themselves. Despite his humble position, I can imagine him standing speaking to groups of people and receiving cheers and clapping as he told the truth about the bad things of others. Laughter too. He honestly lays accusations on the nations, towns and settlements that are neighbours. Almost earthy humour. First in the North, then South, North West, South West, East South East and the South. They were cruel and made weapons even for others to do atrocities. They did slave trading, even selling whole communities. They disregarded treaties and were not just. They were obsessed with idols. He used a set form of words for these accusations. In an identical format he then pointed to his audience and says in effect “You are no better. You may not have done all these things yourself, but you have not done anything to stop them”. A moment of drama when indignation becomes painful.
An absolute standard
The essential message of the book is summarised in the statement “Can two walk together unless they be agreed?” in chapter 3. He then gives an honest lesson in logic using words and language that only Old Testament prophets seem permitted to use. As an example he said that these other people “sold the righteous for silver and the needy for the price of a pair of sandals. They trampled on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and denied justice to the oppressed”. He goes on to say that although his audience may not actually do these obviously cruel and inhumane practices, they did not do anything to prevent or oppose them. Intentions as well as actions are equally judged. He says that God will set a plumb line to define justice. In modern construction we may use a spirit level or theodolite for accuracy, but in those days a piece of string with a weight on it was used to find the vertical. That was called a plumb line. It was an absolute standard. You could not argue with it or make excuses. So is God’s judgement.
Inclusive?
This message of separation may seem at odds with things like Jesus’ going to dinner with a Roman centurion, also Zacchaeus the tax collector, touching a lepper, the woman at the well, eating with sinners, healing on the Sabbath, accepting Palestinians and the thief on the cross. David was a really nasty piece of work with his fighting and womanising. Jesus’s teaching is clear that some will be saved and others not. But it is Jesus who will judge, not us. Whole books have been written on this message when it is really quite simple. Amos is telling his audience to accept the people but reject their attitudes and actions.
Warnings
This was all at an interesting period in history. The northern kingdom of Israel was doing good trade and seemed secure. The southern lot based in Jerusalem also were well off and at peace with neighbours. Only twenty years later the Assyrians decided they wanted a safe trade route to Egypt and beyond and so attacked and devastated Israel in the North. These Israelis were scattered and never really recovered their lands for many hundreds of years and then only partially under domination. The Assyrians confident of victory marched on towards Jerusalem where a God fearing king had led a reformation. What followed was one of the most dramatic victories which we may look at later and the southern people survived for another hundred and twenty years. Amos predicted this devastation from riches to annihilation accurately. They took no notice of the warnings and suffered the consequences while the southern kingdom listened and acted.
Judgement inevitable
Amos reminds this northern kingdom that God had promised blessings but they had rejected God with a perversion of religion to injustice and decadence. God gave them five repeated stimuli to repent which were painful (famine, drought, plague etc.) but even then declares the Lord they had not returned to him. So a final disaster was coming. That disaster continued about five hundred years later when they asked the Romans to come in “to protect them from attacks” and suffered accordingly. The last few verses of the book reminded them of God’s original promise whose results were not seen for several thousands of years.
Questions
Amos uses amusement and basic language to get his message across. He must have offended a lot of people. Was that right? Are our rituals, attitudes and actions justifiable in the light of the general confession we recite each Sunday in church? Jesus used recreation in some of his parables. Was he seriously honest with things? Amos does finish his book with a message of restoration and hope.
Bob
The usual practice in churches is to read only a select few verses as the lesson which may miss the message of a whole book. Bear Grylls has brought more of the human life of Jesus to our attention with his “Greatest Story” book. Amos was not an intellectual from the university but a sheep farmer who did not fear to put things plainly. He used Nathan’s technique of communication by getting people to judge others before realising they were actually judging themselves. Despite his humble position, I can imagine him standing speaking to groups of people and receiving cheers and clapping as he told the truth about the bad things of others. Laughter too. He honestly lays accusations on the nations, towns and settlements that are neighbours. Almost earthy humour. First in the North, then South, North West, South West, East South East and the South. They were cruel and made weapons even for others to do atrocities. They did slave trading, even selling whole communities. They disregarded treaties and were not just. They were obsessed with idols. He used a set form of words for these accusations. In an identical format he then pointed to his audience and says in effect “You are no better. You may not have done all these things yourself, but you have not done anything to stop them”. A moment of drama when indignation becomes painful.
An absolute standard
The essential message of the book is summarised in the statement “Can two walk together unless they be agreed?” in chapter 3. He then gives an honest lesson in logic using words and language that only Old Testament prophets seem permitted to use. As an example he said that these other people “sold the righteous for silver and the needy for the price of a pair of sandals. They trampled on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and denied justice to the oppressed”. He goes on to say that although his audience may not actually do these obviously cruel and inhumane practices, they did not do anything to prevent or oppose them. Intentions as well as actions are equally judged. He says that God will set a plumb line to define justice. In modern construction we may use a spirit level or theodolite for accuracy, but in those days a piece of string with a weight on it was used to find the vertical. That was called a plumb line. It was an absolute standard. You could not argue with it or make excuses. So is God’s judgement.
Inclusive?
This message of separation may seem at odds with things like Jesus’ going to dinner with a Roman centurion, also Zacchaeus the tax collector, touching a lepper, the woman at the well, eating with sinners, healing on the Sabbath, accepting Palestinians and the thief on the cross. David was a really nasty piece of work with his fighting and womanising. Jesus’s teaching is clear that some will be saved and others not. But it is Jesus who will judge, not us. Whole books have been written on this message when it is really quite simple. Amos is telling his audience to accept the people but reject their attitudes and actions.
Warnings
This was all at an interesting period in history. The northern kingdom of Israel was doing good trade and seemed secure. The southern lot based in Jerusalem also were well off and at peace with neighbours. Only twenty years later the Assyrians decided they wanted a safe trade route to Egypt and beyond and so attacked and devastated Israel in the North. These Israelis were scattered and never really recovered their lands for many hundreds of years and then only partially under domination. The Assyrians confident of victory marched on towards Jerusalem where a God fearing king had led a reformation. What followed was one of the most dramatic victories which we may look at later and the southern people survived for another hundred and twenty years. Amos predicted this devastation from riches to annihilation accurately. They took no notice of the warnings and suffered the consequences while the southern kingdom listened and acted.
Judgement inevitable
Amos reminds this northern kingdom that God had promised blessings but they had rejected God with a perversion of religion to injustice and decadence. God gave them five repeated stimuli to repent which were painful (famine, drought, plague etc.) but even then declares the Lord they had not returned to him. So a final disaster was coming. That disaster continued about five hundred years later when they asked the Romans to come in “to protect them from attacks” and suffered accordingly. The last few verses of the book reminded them of God’s original promise whose results were not seen for several thousands of years.
Questions
Amos uses amusement and basic language to get his message across. He must have offended a lot of people. Was that right? Are our rituals, attitudes and actions justifiable in the light of the general confession we recite each Sunday in church? Jesus used recreation in some of his parables. Was he seriously honest with things? Amos does finish his book with a message of restoration and hope.
Bob