Amos' Intercessory Formula

Brueggemann,Walter (Webster Groves, Mo)

Vetus Testamentum, 1969, 19(4) 385-399.

Allen Johnson

Rt. 1, Box 119-B

Dunmore, West Virginia 24934

Theology of the Minor Prophets

Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Dr. Tom McDaniel

Fall, 1994

When they had finished eating the grass of the land, I said,

"Oh Lord God, forgive, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!"

Then I said, "Oh Lord God, cease, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!"

Amos 7:2, 5 NRSV

The intercessions of Amos (7:2,5) have always held interest to the scholar, a seeming aberration from the prophet's otherwise continual scathing blast of judgment and doom to the unfaithful nation. Scholars typically suggest these intercessions as a spot of tender compassion in the steely heart of the prophet of Tekoa. Not so, writes esteemed Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann in this critical study, who forthwith proposes that these intercessions are in the context of a covenant lawsuit in which Amos pleads for Yahweh to keep as highest priority covenant (p. 25).

To unlock this passage Brueggemann studies several key Hebrew terms, the first being "small." Through brief exposition of several narratives in Genesis, Judges, 1 Samuel, and 1 Kings, Brueggemann derives a pattern to "little", being a description of a "person who lacks the legal credentials to make a claim for himself and ... who is totally dependent on another for his position or power which is not his right but a gift granted to him (p. 387). In other words Jacob [the nation Israel] is established by God's grace and therefore, as Amos asserts, God must uphold Jacob by grace. Jacob may be unfaithful but Jacob is also helpless without Yahweh's saving hand.

Brueggemann draws upon "the southern tradition of the Davidic covenant" which Amos undoubtedly was influenced by in demonstrating the plausibility of this appeal to Yahweh's grace (p. 388). Yahweh simply cannot honorably go back on his commitment to Jacob.

A work of von Rad ("Faith Reckoned as Righteousness") is cited to demonstrate that the peculiar form, kî qaton hu’ can be more than a priestly judgment of a worshiper but may judge a relationship (p. 390). Like a lawyer defending an obviously guilty party Amos pleads for the honor of the court (Yahweh) to show mercy and steadfast commitment.

Brueggemann bears down with an examination of mî yaqûm Jacob. This may be more than a poignant heart cry of pathos and despair. Many times in the past Israel has been in a state of utter helplessness and seeming hopelessness yet Yahweh has always been deliverer. Israel lives by Yahweh's periodic and necessitated emancipations. How can Israel exist otherwise?

Thus Amos' appeal is not so much rooted in tender compassion as it is in covenantal commitment and legal precedent. This lawsuit comes close to accusation against Yahweh. "Mî yaqûm: Has he abandoned his commitment? Kî qaton hu’: Israel is his responsibility" (p. 396).

Strikingly, Amos does not plead from a basis of repentance. Brueggemann cites the intercessory prayer of Moses as a precedence in which the people are acknowledged as "stiff-necked" yet are begged pardon notwithstanding (Ex. 34:9) (p. 346). Therefore the appeal is predicated upon salvation as always Yahweh's initiative and prerogative, and not upon Israel's repentance (p. 397). Does not Yahweh want covenant relationship, yet nevertheless the people are weak and faltering? At least one partner must stand faithful, and that partner can only consistently be the Holy One of Israel.

This passage therefore reveals Amos in a role as covenant mediator seeking the upholding and preservation of that covenant. One could say then that Amos is not faint-hearted at the prospect that Israel might be slaughtered, exiled, or otherwise perish, but rather that the covenant dissolve. I see this then as a plea for the honor and vindication of Yahweh. Brueggemann suggests in closing that "the fidelity of Yahweh ... [in] the intercession of vii 2, 5, may be the central kerygma of the tradition of Amos" (p. 399).

Despite his illuminating treatise on vii 2, 5, Bruggemann stops short in tackling the famous "plumbline" judgment passage (7:7-9) that is the continuation to the intercessions of vii 2, 5. Brueggemann states simply, "The effect of this form [Amos' appeal to Yahweh's obligation to preserve covenant] is to make rejection of intercession in Amos vii 8 more decisive and devastating" (p. 397). It seems to me that the pericope in its entirety should have been examined in the light of Brueggemann's thesis, not a truncated piece.

Although out of the scope of this exegesis, I would have appreciated from Brueggemann an extrapolation onto our Christian covenant. I can only conjecture for myself: In the incarnate Son God has taken upon Himself the response to Amos' accusation by suffering the judgment so that the covenant might truly stand with integrity.