Amos 7:1-9 · Locusts, Fire and a Plumb Line
A Tale Of Two Cities
Amos 7:1-9, Amos 7:10-17
Sermon
by Carlyle Fielding Stewart
Loading...

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times ... It was an age of belief. It was an age of incredulity." Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, was highly vexed at the pronouncements of Amos, who warned of God's coming judgment on Jeroboam and the people of Israel. Amos was no extraordinary prophet. He lacked the sophistication, flamboyance, and eloquence of some high prophets, but he knew that God had called and anointed him to preach judgment to the people of Israel. Amos was not well connected politically. He was not part of the political and religious establishment. He was not part of the in crowd, but simply a "country preacher," a herdsman, a dresser of sycamore trees whom God had anointed to bring a Word to the people from on high. He would therefore would not shirk his prophetic duty. He would not shun this serious and awesome responsibility. He would not be intimidated by the power of the priests and their ruling cohorts. He would stand before them and speak the truth that God had given him, well or ill.

Amaziah, a chief priest at Bethel who administered the golden calf there, was threatened by the words cascading from the mouth of Amos. So concerned was he with the efficacy of Amos' message that he lied to King Jeroboam, saying that Amos had prophesied death against the king. Amaziah knew that this was treason in the highest form and that such insolence would bring certain death to Amos! Amaziah was uncomfortable with the presence of this country herdsman, speaking fire and brimstone and shaking the foundations of the religious/political establishment. Thus the stage was set for a classic confrontation between priest and prophet. By what authority did Amos speak? By what authority did Amaziah command Amos to prophesy elsewhere?

A number of key issues may be derived from this text which set the stage for the clash between priest and prophet between these two cities of action and belief. Both claimed an indisputable authority which emanated from God, but the realms of authority and their attending concerns were at issue here.

First was the conflict between political authority and spiritual authority. Amaziah was concerned about the welfare of King Jeroboam. He was an integral player in the brokerage of power in Israel. The high priest often functioned at the behest of the king, so Amaziah's concern would be to please and appease the king first in all things. He understood that most power was concentrated in the king of Israel. The high priest would not only administer the religious rites of the temple but also would equally function as a political ally, as eyes and ears for any seditious activity in the kingdom. Any perceived or real threat would be immediately reported to the king, so that any potential uprising could be summarily and thoroughly crushed by the king on a moment's notice.

The reality is that all kings, because of the covenant established between God and Israel, would have the best interest of God's kingdom at heart. But Jeroboam was stubborn and self-centered. He veered the people of Israel off their spiritual course by erecting idols in Israel in order to keep people away from the temple. He appointed priests from outside the tribe of Levi and depended more on his own gambits and cunning than on the promises of God. He essentially wanted to usurp the power and authority of God through his political administration but was careless and would not change his evil ways.

As a votary of the king Jeroboam, Amaziah was probably corrupted by the vices and devices of the king's administration. Everyone in Israel knew this, and the priest had essentially lost all moral and spiritual authority. This is a problem in the church today. Some priests and ministers are more interested in serving the men who occupy the thrones of leadership in the church's hierarchy than the God who commissions such leadership in the first place. The problem is the corruption of power and the power of corruption even within religious institutions. We have repeatedly observed these traits from the early persecutions to the Spanish Inquisition, where priests have blindly followed the higher prelates of the church virtually to personal ruin out of loyalty to their rulers. Amaziah appeared to be a priest who would do anything to preserve his power, even if it meant lying to the prophet.

Amos, on the other hand, was more concerned with serving God than the people of the kingdom of Israel. Amos wanted to do God's will and bidding by exhorting the people back to God and by warning them of the coming scourge. God probably chose someone as plain and naive as Amos to prophesy to the people because Amos had lost respect for temple ministrations. The religious establishment had become corrupted because it was more interested in serving the king rather than spiritually serving God and the people of his kingdom.

Amos understood that the current dilemma of the people of God was due to their tendency to place men above God rather than God above men. The general failings of the covenant were due to the idolatry of hero worship, which had flourished in Israel as a cult reality. Whenever the people of God place men and women and the power and authority of institutions above the will of God, the covenant is broken. This was Israel's problem. It had turned firmly away from the spiritual traditions which gave them success over their enemies. How could Amaziah tell Amos when and where to prophesy when he had become corrupted by the very men against whom Amos was sent to prophesy? By what authority could Amaziah prevent Amos from preaching God's word? Amaziah had compromised his spiritual and moral authority to a corrupt political establishment and was part of the problem of Israel's demise and not part of the solution to its long-term health and vitality.

Second was the conflict between maintaining order and transforming order. Amaziah did not want Amos to rock the boat. The prophet was an embarrassment to his administration. The people were listening and hearing the words of the prophet, and this was a threat to the status quo. Amaziah wanted to maintain things as they were. He wanted to stay in his comfort zone. His job was to see that discomfort or anxiety did not unsettle the king, and Amos' words were particularly annoying. Amos wanted to transform the status quo and he would do this at the request of God, who commanded him to speak. Amos would not have business as usual. The sorry state of affairs among the people had reached a new low and the time had come to do something definitive about the problem.

As people of God we must do more than maintain the status quo. We must do more than keep the corrupt and disingenuous in their tranquil state. The prophet comes to upset, to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, and Amos was willing to do this for the restoration of the souls of God's people.

Nothing is more vexing in our modern society than a corrupt and moribund priesthood, who administrate and caretake a church which is generally disinterested in saving souls, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and clothing the naked. They specialize in maintaining things as they are. They never raise a voice of protest, never challenge the existing order, never take risks and leaps of faith on behalf of God's people. They hide out in their temples and sanctuaries, in their plush-carpeted offices and abodes, never hearing or tending to the cries and needs of the depressed and oppressed. They maintain the current corruption by never challenging the establishment to repent or raise a higher standard and make good on its promises to the people.

When the church does not cry out in protest against the evils and corruptions of this world, God truly grieves. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer once observed, "Only he who dares cry out for the Jews dares permit himself to chant in Gregorian." This same truth may be applied wherever there is desolation and oppression among the people. The church must cry out, "Thus saith the Lord." But such is difficult to achieve if the priesthood is corrupted by the political power. We need not only an active priesthood of all believers but equally, in the words of James Luther Adams, a "prophethood of all believers." Numerous churches have lost the respect of the world because of their failures to transform or to speak prophetically to current social and political evils.

Priests have often been ridiculed for wanting to maintain rather than transform the existing order and prophets have been ostracized for wanting to transform that order without a concern for establishing order. But the truth is we need both. We must, in the words of Alfred North Whitehead, "preserve order amid change and change amid order." It does not suffice simply to maintain the church or to maintain its ministry without a concern for a transformation which brings human wholeness and the realization of human potential.

Amos' concern was calling the people back to God and into an awareness and action by effecting long-term positive change which would engender long-term results. He was not concerned with establishing political connections, placating the king, currying favor for his prophetic office and orders, or obtaining a place on the board of directors of the nation. Amos was concerned about doing God's will, and this would require boldness, tenacity, and courage to bring the word of truth to the political powers of his times. The concern is not to maintain the current corruption and apathy, but to transform the hearts, minds, and souls of the nation and to retrieve those time-honored principles which consolidated Israel's power as a nation and made it a formidable adversary.

Just as we can never manage ourselves into the kingdom, we can never simply be content with maintaining things as they are. Amos understood the necessity of transformation. He knew the hazards of maintaining things as they are. He knew that God was fed up with sin, lies, avarice, lust, betrayal, greed, corruption, and the wholesale crimes of influence peddling among the religious establishment. Israel had lost her sanctity and Amos was interested in restoring it in the name of God. The priest wanted to maintain order while the prophet wanted to transform that order.

Third was the conflict between professing the sacrament and living the sacrament. Now we know that the sacraments in Israel's time were not as we know them in the new Covenant tradition. However, "sacrament" here means the acknowledgment and practice of consecrating and making sacred the things of God. The sacrament is the process of sacralizing and making holy the things that are God's. For example, the administration of the rites of temple were a kind of sacrament in Amos' time. The oblation of certain offerings as atonement for sin was sacrament. Any action or activity which invokes the awareness and practice of the sacred or the divine among the people is sacramental. The priest must do more than profess the sacred or simply be a passive exponent of all things sacred, but the priest must equally live his or her life in the zone of consecration and sanctity. This was a major disparity between Amaziah and Amos. The sacrament of life and living holy had to be more than a thought or belief that one professed. It had to be lived amid the myriad desecrations and profanities of real-life experiences. The Word of God would have to be lived with head and heart, body and soul. One must do more than give mere lip service to the sacred but must live life out within these realms of reality and possibility.

The religious and political establishment had lost their sense of the sacred. They abandoned those precepts, concepts, and beliefs which allowed them to live consecrated lives. That's why God chose an outsider, a most unlikely person to prophesy unto the people. Living life sacramentally means maintaining the vertical spiritual connection in all things. It means doing God's will and work without regard to outcome. It means doing God's will and work as God has commanded without compunctions, reservations or fear. Amos knew that Amaziah had lost all moral and spiritual authority as a priest and therefore did not possess the power to deter the prophetic imperative to prophesy unto the nation. The priest was appointed. The prophet was anointed. Only God has the power to affirm or quench the prophet's desire to speak the truth on behalf of God.

We today need to retrieve such moral authority in doing God's will and work as both priest and prophet by standing on and speaking the truth. We must claim our authority and vouchsafe our right to speak that truth whenever and wherever God's Word demands. The offices of priest and prophet need not be diametrically opposed. Those who are called and anointed of God can maintain their temples and still bring a word of hope and transformation for a suffering people. It is only by such conviction, power, compassion, and resolve that the people of God can be won back to God and souls can be saved for the coming time. The authority by which they both think and speak should be an authority that emanates from God and should be preserved without comprise unto the ends of the earth. True spiritual authority issues from God, and those unwilling to uphold that authority are not worthy of service to the people of God! True spiritual authority comes from doing God's will, knowing what is right, and doing what is right. The compromise of spiritual authority often leads to a conflict of authority, and this was the case of Amaziah and Amos! But by holding fast to the things of God, as did Amos, we can restore sanctity and order in spite of the conflicts and challenges we face! Amen!

CSS Publishing, Lima, Ohio, How Long Will You Limp?, by Carlyle Fielding Stewart