Amos 14

Amos’ Five Visions (chapters 7-9)

We have already seen that vision is a form of prophecy. A prophet is at times called a “seer” (rö
´è). Example of prophetic books that report visions are Isaiah (ch. 6); Ezekiel’s four visions (1:1; 8:1;
37:1; and 40); Zechariah’s eight visions; Daniel’s vision (Dan 7:15-16).
Visions of Amos
Vision 1 7:1-3 Locusts
Vision 2 7:4-6 Fire
Vision 3 7:7-9 Plumb line? (better plaster)
Narrative 7:10-17 Amos vs. Amaziah
Vision 4 8:1-3 Summer fruit
Vision 5 9:1-4 Yahweh by the altar
Salvation Oracle 9:11-15 David's tent
The first four visions are similarly structured. Each begins with the sentence "This is what my lord
YHWH showed [Hebrew “to see”] me." In each vision Amos saw something that indicated God was going
to destroy Israel, with natural disasters. In the first (7:1-3) he saw locusts devouring the produce of the
land. In the second (7:4-6) he saw a fire consume the land (=fires are caused by the so-called siroccos,
destructive east wind that regularly visits Israel, drying up water sources and causing extreme heat
temperature, see Job 1:16). In both of these visions, after Amos cried out with concern for Israel, God
changed his mind and withdrew the punishment.
In the third vision (7:7-9) Amos saw Yahweh with a “plumb line” [Hebrew not certain] in his
hand. Most translators (like NRSV) follow this translation. If the Hebrew (´ánäK) means “plumb line” it
implies that this vision is different from the prior two. It is not an image of destruction. Rather, Amos sees
God holding a measuring device against which Israel was measured.
A plumb line is a construction worker's tool consisting of a weight attached to a string. The
weighted string provides a true vertical (or plumb) standard by which other objects, such as masonry walls
or door posts, can be built straight. Judged against true vertical, Israel was tilted and out of plumb.
The Hebrew word only appears in this passage in Amos (or hapaxlegomenon). In the context, a
measurement does not go with the flow of the visions which focused on punishment through natural
disasters. Sweeney, p. 254 suggests a different reading “plaster” based on Rabbinic Hebrew and attested in
Vulgate (super murum litum, “upon a plastered wall”). The suggestion makes sense if we take into
consideration that a re-plastered house indicates the house of an excommunicated “leper” in the book of
Leviticus (Lev 14:42). The outbreak of skin diseases is considered a form of punishment (Exod 9:9; Deut
28:27,35; Job 2:7).
NRSV translation is:
And the LORD said to me, "Amos, what do you see?" And I said, "A plumb line." Then the Lord said, "See,
I am setting a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel; I will never again pass them by.”
My translation would be:
And the LORD said to me, "Amos, what do you see?" And I said, "A plaster." Then the Lord said, "See, I
am putting a plaster in the midst of my people Israel; Indeed,* I will again pass by.”
*In Hebrew (attested in Ugaritic), the negative lö´ (“not” or “never”) can be read as emphatic, “indeed”.

The Narrative Section in 7:10-17: Amos is Banned

This, the third vision, is not followed directly by the fourth. Instead, a narrative was inserted
recording a confrontation between Amos and Amaziah, a Bethel priest loyal to Jeroboam II. Amaziah was
provoked by the preaching of Amos. In Bethel, the main Israelite worship center sponsored by the king,
Amos proclaimed that Jeroboam would die and Israel would go into exile (7:11). Amaziah, in reality, told
Amos to go back to Judah where he had came from. The prophet was banned to “prophesy there”.
This is a kind of biographical memoir which records Amos’ arrest in the sanctuary at Bethel on
charge of sedition given the fact that assassinations and violent take over of the throne characterize the
previous reigns (see 2 Kings 14:11-15). But here we note the intense exchange of Amos the prophet and
Amaziah the priest (v. 12-14). Amos is branded as “seer” (Hözè) who prophesies for payment. Amos’
reply, “I am no prophet, nor a prophet’s son” (=belonging to a prophetic company) indicates that the
prophetic office is often abused. Amos outlines his curriculum vitae: a herdsman
 Amos 15

(hence not merely a shepherd (cf. 1:1), and a dresser of sycamore trees (there are no sycamore trees in the
South but in the North. Amos could be doing also an overseas work. A similar defense of earning one’s
living is made by Paul (see 1 Cor 9:13-15).
This narrative breaks up the flow of the vision accounts, but the arrangement does have a certain
editorial logic. The vision accounts condemned Israel for disregarding justice performed at the Israelite
sanctuary in Bethel (as in the third vision). Whereas after the first two visions God relented of his planned
punishment, there is no relenting in the third and fourth visions. This confrontation account demonstrates
that there was no repentant spirit in Israel that could warrant a removal of God's planned destruction.
The fourth vision account, 8:1-3, was built around a play on words. Amos saw a basket of
summer fruit (Hebrew qäºyic) Yahweh said in explanation, "the end (Hebrew qëc) of my people has
arrived." What follows, almost until the end of the book, is a series of disaster descriptions: famine,
mourning, violence, exile, death, and despair.
The fifth vision account, 9:1-4, is structured differently from the preceding four visions. Instead
of Yahweh showing Amos an object and constructing a lesson around it, here Amos sees Yahweh standing
by the altar. He issues an order to "smash the pillar capitals." The text implies the destruction of places like
the Bethel sanctuary, or even houses of the rich (note “pillars”), possibly by an earthquake.
The last oracle, 9:11-15, contains expectation of the rebirth of the Davidic dynasty and a
delightful depiction of the glorious future awaiting the land and its people. The ground will be so
productive harvesters will not be able to keep pace, and the people will enjoy peace and prosperity. This
last unit is so radically different from the preceding words of Amos (production of editing) concerning not
Israel but the rebirth of the Judean Davidic dynasty, that it is usually attributed to someone other than
Amos. Why was it attached to the book as the final unit? The reason, as we notice at the beginning of the
course, is the fact the Prophetic Literature is structured with a negative-positive schema. The final word is
a note of Hope.

Conclusion (adapted from Blenkinsopp, p. 80ff.)

(1) A remarkable aspect of the book is the presentation of worship as the expression of a radically sinful
way of life (Amos 4:4-5). Festivals, sacrifice, religious music, and tithing is rejected as hateful to
YHWH (5:21-24), a rejection repeated often in prophetic books (e.g. Hos 6:6; 8:13; Isa 1:10-17; Jer
6:20). The reason is clearly not rejection of organized worship in favor of a “spiritual” or
“charismatic” one. Ceresko observes a kind of lavish liturgical activities here. But we can also say that
Amos sees that worship (as it is still today) is a very powerful way of legitimating the current political
and social status quo (or tolerating unjust social structures).

(2) For Amos and the rest of the eight century prophets, worship and morality are intertwined with social
and political realities. Hence, the prophet intervenes when wealth, for instance, does not trickle to the
lower social levels, when ordinary people are sold to slavery for trivial debts (2:6; 8:6); when they are
charged with excessive fines (2:8); victims of false weights and measures (8:5), dishonest trade
practices (8:6), corrupt legal process (2:7; 5:10, 12); and so on. In a sense, Amos begins a tradition of
religious leaders making interventions in politics when morality (here, justice) is at stake. Amos could
be a prophet if international law, social justice, and civil rights.

(3) By linking indictment and verdict as cause and effect, and by affirming that the verdict is to be carried
out by means of natural disasters (like locusts, drought, earthquake, etc), but even more through
political events (like wars), Amos laid the basis for a certain understanding of divine action in history
that would be immensely influential but also very problematic.