3:1-2: Amos began chapter 3 by responding to implied (or assumed) objections to his previous edicts. For example, the Israelites believed God’s election and faithfulness in previous generations protected them from judgment. However, Amos provided evidence showing that God’s election of Israel only exposed them to greater judgment because of the responsibility of being God’s elect and their covenant relationship with Yahweh. Author Robert Jamison commented, “the greater the privileges, the heavier the punishment for the abuse of them; for to the other offenses there is added, in this case, ingratitude. When God’s people do not glorify Him, He glorifies Himself by punishing them.” Furthermore, God’s election and responsibility thereof applied
…show more content…
The first five questions occur in a cause and effect manner. As Hubbard noted, “Each argues from an observed result to an assumed cause.” Yahweh began by asking “Do two men walk together unless they have made an appointment?” (3:3). The implied answer is “no”. Although many people walked together by coincidence, the Hebrew does not allow for coincidence. Instead, the Hebrew implies a common purpose or interest shared by the two parties. Next, Yahweh asked two questions with similar responses, “Does a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey? Does a young lion growl from his den unless he has captured something?” (3:4). The implied answer is “no”. Both Amos and his audience understood that a lion hunts in silence and roars until immediately prior to its attack; therefore, causing its prey to pause, thus making it easier to attack. Furthermore, a young cub hides in its den while the older lion draws prey toward the cub. The cub attacks once it catches the scent of its prey. Therefore, God’s revelation of punishment against Israel motivated Amos to speak. Smith and Page stated, “As the lion’s roar was to frighten and unsettle the prey, so was the Lord’s speaking to frighten and unsettle Israel.” Hence, Yahweh’s lion analogy is the focus of the rhetorical questions and should be interpreted in light of Amos 1:2 and …show more content…
In verses 13-15, Yahweh described the destruction of the temple at Bethel. Complete judgement and destruction came upon Israel and their most sacred possession – the temple. For example, the horns which rose from the alter were removed, as well as the symbols of Israel’s sanctuary in the temple. Removing the horns from the temple had two significant implications: (1) people could no longer make sacrifices on the horns of the alter, as prescribed under Mosaic law, therefore, they could no longer make atonement for their sins. (2) Neither could the people grasp onto the horns for protection as their ancestors did (1 Kings 1:50). Thus, Yahweh removed all sources of security and superiority to show the depths of Israel’s disobedience and punished them accordingly. Furthermore, Yahweh alternates the plural and singular use of the word “alter” in verse 14. “Alter” referred to the alter constructed by Jeroboam for sacrifices and for sprinkling the blood of victims; whereas, the plural usage referred to alters made to imitate the original. Thus, solidifying Yahweh’s argument: idolatry led to their affluent lifestyles. However, Smith & Page stated, “Life apart from God may yield temporary material gain, but it will surely result in eternal
The first five questions occur in a cause and effect manner. As Hubbard noted, “Each argues from an observed result to an assumed cause.” Yahweh began by asking “Do two men walk together unless they have made an appointment?” (3:3). The implied answer is “no”. Although many people walked together by coincidence, the Hebrew does not allow for coincidence. Instead, the Hebrew implies a common purpose or interest shared by the two parties. Next, Yahweh asked two questions with similar responses, “Does a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey? Does a young lion growl from his den unless he has captured something?” (3:4). The implied answer is “no”. Both Amos and his audience understood that a lion hunts in silence and roars until immediately prior to its attack; therefore, causing its prey to pause, thus making it easier to attack. Furthermore, a young cub hides in its den while the older lion draws prey toward the cub. The cub attacks once it catches the scent of its prey. Therefore, God’s revelation of punishment against Israel motivated Amos to speak. Smith and Page stated, “As the lion’s roar was to frighten and unsettle the prey, so was the Lord’s speaking to frighten and unsettle Israel.” Hence, Yahweh’s lion analogy is the focus of the rhetorical questions and should be interpreted in light of Amos 1:2 and …show more content…
In verses 13-15, Yahweh described the destruction of the temple at Bethel. Complete judgement and destruction came upon Israel and their most sacred possession – the temple. For example, the horns which rose from the alter were removed, as well as the symbols of Israel’s sanctuary in the temple. Removing the horns from the temple had two significant implications: (1) people could no longer make sacrifices on the horns of the alter, as prescribed under Mosaic law, therefore, they could no longer make atonement for their sins. (2) Neither could the people grasp onto the horns for protection as their ancestors did (1 Kings 1:50). Thus, Yahweh removed all sources of security and superiority to show the depths of Israel’s disobedience and punished them accordingly. Furthermore, Yahweh alternates the plural and singular use of the word “alter” in verse 14. “Alter” referred to the alter constructed by Jeroboam for sacrifices and for sprinkling the blood of victims; whereas, the plural usage referred to alters made to imitate the original. Thus, solidifying Yahweh’s argument: idolatry led to their affluent lifestyles. However, Smith & Page stated, “Life apart from God may yield temporary material gain, but it will surely result in eternal