Come to Bethel and rebel at Gilgal—multiply rebellion. And bring every morning your sacrifices, every three days your tithes. And make a sacrifice of thanksgiving with some leaven and proclaim freewill offerings. Make proclamation! For thus you love [to do] people of Israel. A declaration of my Lord, the LORD. (Amos 4:4–5)^[1]

In 805 BCE King Adad-Nirari III of Assyria captured Damascus and defeated King Hazael of Aram (841–806 BCE) who had been a consistent thorn in the side of Israel’s kings. Hazael had sieged Jerusalem during the reign of Joash of Judah, taken control of the Transjordan, and controlled all the commerce along the King’s Highway.^[2] But now Aram was no longer at the height of its political power and soon neither would Assyria be, as they experienced a period of weakness from 772–754 BCE.^[3] Aram and Assyria’s substantial loss of power was Israel and Judah’s gain as two powerful kings would emerge and rule steadily for over forty years, King Uzziah of the Southern Kingdom of Judah (792–740 BCE) and King Jeroboam II of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (793–753 BCE). During their reigns both Judah and Israel enjoyed great economic prosperity and relative peace and security.

It was during this time that Amos was called by Yahweh to prophesy to the Northern Kingdom of Israel even though he was a native of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Amos’s prophetic career was short, perhaps only a year, sometime between 760 and 730 BCE. He traveled to the Northern Kingdom, specifically to the sanctuary at Bethel, but also perhaps to other sanctuaries such as Gilgal to preach his messages.^[4]

Amos was a shepherd and a grower of sycamore figs. Amos himself explains he is not a prophet by vocation and is proud of his lack of credentials.^[5] The writers of the OT often associated the role of shepherding with the role of being king. Amos was a literal shepherd who spoke against the royal shepherd, Jeroboam II, who was supposed to be leading Yahweh’s people in covenant fidelity. He instead was allowing and encouraging economic exploitation and legal injustice and was also perpetuating the sin of King Jeroboam I (931–910 BCE).^[6] The primary sin of Jeroboam I was the institution of a new state religion. In 930 BCE he erected golden calves at sanctuaries in Bethel and Dan which, it will be argued, at first represented Yahweh but then quickly developed into idolatry, syncretism, and a false view of Yahweh. Under the reign of Jeroboam II, Israel’s worship had become so mixed with pagan elements that they were no longer worshipping Yahweh. Instead they were worshipping a “god” they had named Yahweh who was simply a figment of their imagination—a “god” they thought they could manipulate to bless and protect them.^[7]

Amos 4:4–5 is a sarcastic rendition of a traditional priestly call to worship. Amos calls the Israelites to come to their sanctuaries and continue their rebellion against Yahweh by their manipulative worship of the false “god” to whom they bring abundant sacrifices, tithes, and offerings—for that is what they love to do and brag about. Amos 4:4–5 is a condemnation of Israel’s religion and their view of Yahweh; every aspect of their worship is wrong because they are worshipping the wrong “god.”^[8]

1. Literary Context of Amos 4

Amos 1–2 contains a series of repetitive phrases in which Amos indicts Israel’s neighbors for their פֶּשַׁע (“rebellion”). If Amos was publicly prophesying at the sanctuaries of either Bethel or Gilgal during a pilgrimage festival, the Israelites may likely have cheered as they heard judgment being declared on their enemies.^[9] Amos’s indictments on Israel’s neighbors are primarily about their moral injustices, but when he turns to Judah, Israel’s sister nation and Amos’s own people, he indicts her for not keeping the Torah. Shockingly, in Amos 2:6, he then focuses his attention on Israel herself. Her condemnation is the strongest and longest of those preceding it. He names specific rebellions primarily in the realm of economic exploitation and legal injustice as Israel was enslaving people, abusing widows and orphans, gaining their wealth at the expense of the poor, and living an easy life while others suffered. Amos paints a picture of a seemingly very religious people: at the local sanctuaries they were offering tithes beyond “budgetary requirements,” an abundance of sacrifices, and were voluntarily giving unrequired freewill offerings.^[10] Given their current economic prosperity they likely thought they were being divinely blessed. Amos makes the case that Israel, who has an exclusive relationship with Yahweh, is not on the same immoral level as her pagan neighbors, rather she is worse than them and Yahweh will bring judgement against her too. In Amos 4:1–3 Yahweh threatens “violent military action” against them followed by an exile. It is verses 4–5 that focus on ecclesiastical concerns related to the people of Israel at their cultic sanctuaries.^[11]

2. Exegesis of Amos 4:4

The Israelites would pilgrimage to their cultic sanctuaries, such as Bethel and Gilgal, for a variety of reasons such as to give thanks, fulfill vows, seek atonement through sacrifices, give tithes and offerings,^[12] make peace with their deity through sacrificial communion meals, and to receive their deity’s blessings so as “to secure their welfare.”^[13] Upon arrival at the sanctuary a priest would invite the worshippers to come and seek their deity and in turn find life and peace.^[14] The priest would address “the people with plural imperatives, setting forth instructions concerning the cultic ritual[s] to be performed at the shrines.”^[15] In Amos 4:4–5, Amos the prophet takes over the priestly role to sarcastically exhort “the congregation in a shocking parody of ecclesiastical language that must have sounded like irreverent blasphemy.”^[16] Amos likely surprised his audience but they no doubt would have immediately sensed his sarcasm as he changed the words they were accustomed to hearing; nevertheless, his message would have been appalling in that he was calling them to come to their sanctuaries not to worship but to rebel.^[17]

“To rebel” (פָּשַׁע) is a political term^[18] signaling an “act of rebellion against a constituted authority. It is a volitional act of the will resulting in estrangement from the object of one’s rebellion.”^[19] It is used in Amos 4:4 to identify the Israelite worshippers as “rebels and seditionists” against their “divine suzerain;” they are “treaty-covenant breakers against God.”^[20] The noun פֶּשַׁע (“rebellious act” or “transgression”) is used in the indictments against the foreign nations in Amos 1–2. Its use again in the indictment against Israel signals that Yahweh regards her as being no better than the pagan nations around her. Yahweh’s judgment will surely fall on his people for her acts of willed rebellion against him.^[21]

2.1 Opinions on the Nature of Israel’s Rebellion

The nature of Israel’s rebellion against Yahweh has been an issue of much debate yielding four primary views. While scholars may prioritize one of the four views below, they often see all four as factors in Israel’s rebellion.

First, and the most popular view, is that Israel’s acts are deemed as a rebellion because they are hypocritical and are superficial empty formalism.^[22] The multitude of religious rites that the Israelites performed at their cultic sanctuaries make it seem as though they were very pious and religious people, and they likely thought they were, but these rites were simply an expression of how much they loved being religious.^[23] Their behavior outside the sanctuaries “contradicted their professed devotion” to Yahweh as they would gain wealth by oppressing the poor.^[24]

Second, Israel’s actions are deemed as a rebellion against Yahweh because the people were self-absorbed; they loved and honored themselves more than Yahweh, thus displacing him as the “central reality of the cult.”^[25] It was at the sanctuaries that the wealthy could openly display their wealth to try to gain higher status in the community.^[26]

Third, Israel’s actions are deemed as a rebellion against Yahweh because they believed that if they zealously offered sacrifices, tithes, and offerings they could manipulate Yahweh into blessing and protecting them.^[27] Andersen and Freedman argue that Amos 4:4 “is a specific pronouncement against a particular festivity, a national celebration.” They believe the scattered verses in Amos condemning Israel’s worship are all “glimpses of a single event, a great and special national celebration in thanksgiving for the victories over Lo-Dabar and Qarnaim.”^[28] They posit that if the Israelites were pilgrimaging to religious shrines after military victories then the nature of their rebellion would be “the use of religion to legitimate militarism, to equate victory with divine blessing, [and] to use tokens of divine approval as evidence to contradict the argument that oppression of the poor has made them forfeit the favor of heaven.”^[29]

Fourth, Israel’s actions are deemed as a rebellion against Yahweh because the people were transforming their worship rituals to be ends in and of themselves. The goal of Israel’s worship should have been to fellowship with Yahweh and become moral and ethical people. Worship in and of itself can replace neither morality nor ethical behavior.^[30] Amos, and other prophets to come, condemned Israel’s cult when it was substituted for moral behavior and was being absolutized.^[31] The prophets instead stressed that Yahweh was most concerned with personal behavior: “justice, kindness, righteousness, integrity, honesty, and faithfulness.”^[32]

There are also several options proposed by scholars of what the nature of this rebellion cannot be. Some scholars argue the rituals in and of themselves cannot be the problem since the people were in fact bringing the correct prescribed sacrifices, offerings, and tithes.^[33] Neither Shalom M. Paul nor William Rainey Harper believe Amos is deeming Israel’s cultic rites as rebellion simply because they were practicing them at cultic shrines or high places outside of Jerusalem; for they argue that the Deuteronomic law of the centralization of the cult was not yet in effect.^[34] Nor do they think Amos is accusing the Israelites of “offering illegitimate sacrifices or of being involved in idol worship, as [they argue] these hardly play any role whatsoever in his condemnations.”^[35] Additionally, Harper does not consider Amos to be condemning them for seemingly changing “the details of the ceremonial [law] by adapting them to the heathen worship outside of Israel.”^[36] Andersen and Freedman see that Amos 4:4–5 “is the clearest condemnation of the official cult as sinful,”^[37] but they do not believe Amos’s statements are an indictment of the cultus as a whole for such a “judgment is too categorical.”^[38] Instead they argue the “attitude of the prophets to the political and religious institutions and officials of Israel was ambivalent. They could commend or condemn as occasion required.”^[39]

2.2 The Fundamental Nature of Israel’s Rebellion

The above views on the nature of Israel’s rebellion are aspects of their rebellion but none them identify the fundamental problem. A review of the implications of Jeroboam I’s actions will serve to clarify it.

Jeroboam I became the first king of the Northern Kingdom following the split of the united monarchy in 931 BCE and the death of King Solomon. In 1 Kgs 11:26–40 the prophet Ahijah informs Jeroboam I that it was because of Solomon’s idolatry that the kingdom was going to be divided, but that for the sake of David, and Yahweh’s chosen city of Jerusalem, Judah would continue to be a kingdom and Yahweh would be faithful to the promises he made to David and Solomon. Yahweh then promised to make Jeroboam I “a dynasty as enduring as the one [he] built for David” (1 Kgs 11:38), but in order to be blessed by Yahweh, Jeroboam I needed to obey Yahweh.^[40] Paul R. House comments that implicit “in these promises is the notion that any idolatry will bring this covenant to a halt.”^[41] The role of the king was not simply to be a steward of the government, rather it was to make worship of Yahweh at the temple in Jerusalem of utmost importance and to lead the people in keeping the covenant. When the kings allowed “anything besides separatist Yahwism to flourish” they were not “pure symbols.”^[42]

When Jeroboam I became king of Israel, he had a political problem: how could the Northern Kingdom remain faithful in their covenant with Yahweh when his presence and temple was technically in the Southern Kingdom in Jerusalem? Jeroboam I risked losing control of his own subjects and kingdom if he allowed them to travel to Jerusalem for worship. Jeroboam decided to make a strategic political and religious move, he established two shrines in the already sacred sites of Bethel and Dan at the opposite ends of his kingdom.^[43] These two sites became the main cultic sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom and were an alternative place of worship to Jerusalem.^[44] He then erected golden calves in these sanctuaries, instituted priests who were not from the tribe of Levi, made additional temples on high places, and changed the day of the Feast of Tabernacles (cf. 1 Kgs 12:25-33).

It is debated as to what Jeroboam I’s intentions were when he erected the golden calves, but the most likely option is that the calves were not cultic objects but instead, in likeness to the Ark of the Covenant, were pedestals upon which Yahweh was thought to invisibly stand.^[45] It does not seem Jeroboam I intended for the calves to be worshipped nor was he inventing a new deity, rather they were to represent Yahweh.^[46] However, the golden calf or bull symbol was “too closely associated with the fertility cult to be safe.”^[47] These calves were not images of Egyptian gods but instead were a primitive Semitic and Hebrew symbol of the “life-giving energy of the Godhead.”^[48] Such was likely also the case after the Exodus when the Israelites made a golden calf to symbolize the power of Yahweh who delivered them from Egypt; they were not worshipping an Egyptian god or another deity.^[49] Jeroboam I likely felt he “was following ancient precedent, and was in no sense renouncing the worship of Yahweh.”^[50] But this use of Canaanite cult symbols led to “a confusion of Yahweh and Ba’al, and to the importation of pagan features into the cult of the former.”^[51] By installing the calves Jeroboam I disobeyed the word of Yahweh in Exodus 20:4–6 regarding idolatry. He even had been recently reminded that Yahweh prohibited idolatry for Ahijah had told him this was what led to Solomon’s fall and the division of the kingdom (cf. 1 Kgs 11:26-40).

Jeroboam I had effectively made a new alternative religion and dubbed it the official state religion of the Northern Kingdom.^[52] It was thoroughly non-Mosaic being a syncretistic mix of Canaanite idolatry and deviant Yahwism. Such “syncretism led to loyalty for neither tradition.” Jeroboam I had successfully moved his nation from orthodoxy to heterodoxy.^[53] Syncretism and idolatry in the OT are always forms of non-legitimate worship of Yahweh and they threaten covenant loyalty.^[54]

Yahweh’s rejection of this new religion is made clear in 1 Kgs 13:1–10 as an unnamed man of God cries out against the altar at Bethel “presumably because it has no legitimacy in God’s eyes,” and he predicts Josiah, a descendant of David, will defile the altar.^[55] The man of God then offers a sign to legitimize his message, the altar will split and the ashes on it will be poured out, which is exactly what occurs.^[56] In 1 Kgs 14 Ahijah also condemns Jeroboam I’s idolatry and rejection of Yahweh and tells him that Yahweh regards him as having done more evil than all who were before him, thus he will not receive Yahweh’s promises. He even declares that in the future Israel will go into exile because of this new religion and for taking part in fertility cults.^[57]

The authors of 1–2 Kings use Jeroboam I as an “example of how to define a morally deficient king” because his actions are “so far-reaching and repulsive.”^[58] Jeroboam I set Israel on a path of spiritual, moral, and political decline that ultimately led to destruction. The phrase the “sin of Jeroboam” occurs nineteen times in 1–2 Kings and becomes paradigmatic for the subsequent kings of Israel as the cultic actions he initiated are perpetuated throughout the duration of the Northern Kingdom. Every king of Israel continues the sin of Jeroboam. Jeroboam I is “an example of how pervasive sin can be. His religion affects others adversely. His sin becomes their sin, and his cult leads to an easy acceptance of Baalism.”^[59]

The OT reveals that the majority of Israelites during Jeroboam I’s reign and beyond never took issue with henotheism nor polytheism. “[T]he more Israel accepted not just the presence of the other religions but their validity as well, the more Yahwist worship became a mixture of truth and error and the more the people turned outright to other gods.”^[60] During the reign of the Israelite King Ahab in the ninth century BCE the cult of Jeroboam I continued but now Baalism also spread into the nation due to Ahab’s marriage to Jezebel, a devout Baal worshipper. This move meant that full-blown fertility rites had come into Israel.^[61] The Israelites were now not simply syncretistic and deviant Yahwists, they were polytheists. There is no record of Elijah or Elisha explicitly attacking or condemning the cult established by Jeroboam I, rather they are described as fighting against Baalism only.^[62] They left the people with a choice: they could either serve Yahweh or Baal, but not both. Even after Elijah’s victory on Mt. Caramel, Baalism was still not eradicated, the peoples’ choice of Yahweh alone was only temporary. King Jehu of Israel later purged out Baalism, but rather than leading the people into a separatist Yahwism he still committed the sin of Jeroboam which 2 Kgs 10:29 clarifies as the worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan.^[63] Evidently, he did this because he regarded them as legitimate centers of “primitive Yahweh worship.”^[64]

The defeat of Damascus and Aram by Assyria in 805 BCE did usher in a golden age of economic and military success for Israel, but the nation was the most religiously corrupt it had ever been.^[65] Jeroboam II kept the state religion instituted by Jeroboam I nearly two hundred years earlier, yet it seems the people still considered themselves legitimate followers of Yahweh as none of Amos’s prophesies explicitly accuse the people of foreign idolatry.^[66]

Scholars question why Amos, who prophesied at Bethel, never mentioned the golden calf likely hovering right above him. Lewis Bayles Paton suggested that he never so much as “utter[ed] a single word which can fairly be construed as a direct condemnation of this form of worship.”^[67] Many scholars are unwilling to say Amos 4:4–5 is a reference to worship in the cult established by Jeroboam I, and they use Amos’s silence to signal his consent of the calf-symbolism and Jeroboam I’s cult as a whole.^[68]

It would seem that aside from the condemnations by Ahijah and the man of God in 1 Kgs 13, the cult of Jeroboam I and the “calf-worship enjoyed an undisturbed existence from the time of Jeroboam I to the time of Amos, and that during this long period not one voice was raised in opposition to it as an illegitimate way of worshiping Yahweh.”^[69] The first explicit comments in the prophetic writings come in Hosea who with “intense hostility” explicitly calls the calf-worship idolatry and says the cultic sanctuaries are serving to apostatize Israel from Yahweh.^[70] Paton notes that such “a fully developed antagonism is very surprising in Hosea, in view of the fact that we have found nothing of the sort in the earlier history.”^[71] He questions if it is possible for a religious thought to pass “at a leap from complete approval to complete disapproval, without going through the intermediate stages of criticism or suspicion of the correctness of established beliefs.”^[72] According to Paton the analogy of history teaches the exact opposite:

Great religious revolutions, such as Hosea’s change of attitude towards the calves, do not come in a moment, but are the culmination of a long development of human thought. We are led, therefore, to suspect that the approval of the calf-worship by Hosea’s predecessors is more apparent than real, and that their silence on this subject has another explanation than that they saw nothing to blame in this way of worshiping Yahweh; that possibly the germ of Hosea’s antagonism was already present in the minds of Elijah and Elisha, but that they did not publicly condemn the calf-symbolism, because they thought that it would be time enough to attempt a reformation within the religion of Yahweh, after the religion of Baal had been finally defeated.^[73]

Simply because Amos is silent on the calf-worship and cult of Jeroboam I does not mean he approved of it. Hosea was a near contemporary of Amos, he continued Amos’s main theological points and may have even heard him preach.^[74] It is hard to believe Amos had no antagonism toward the calves and cult of Jeroboam I. His failure to explicitly mention the calves could have been because they were simply one feature of a completely corrupt system, this is likely the same reason he did not mention the non-Levitical priests or the specific rituals of their sacrifices.^[75]

Hosea mentions the calves only three times, they are not a main point in his prophecies; rather, like Amos his main thought is that Israel is not worshipping Yahweh. The “god” they are worshipping is no better than Baal.^[76] Paton proposed a more recent example of this notion:

One might search the writings of the Protestant Reformers without finding any special polemic against the worship of the Virgin as the Mother of Sorrows with seven swords in her heart; but that would not show that they approved of this cult, but simply that they rejected Mariolatry in its entirety, and that, therefore, they did not trouble themselves to antagonize one particular phase of this debased form of Christianity.^[77]

Amos reveals a people who, though they may have nominally called themselves Yahwists, did not truly know the character of Yahweh.^[78] The Israelites essentially regarded him in the same ways their neighbors regarded their gods, as a patron-god who loved and protected only them and hated other nations.^[79] Israel thought their economic prosperity was a result of their deity blessing them in light of their multitudes of tithes, sacrifices, and offerings at their sanctuaries. These apparent blessings motivated the people to keep up their religious rites in abundance to manipulate their deity to keep the blessings coming. The first three sections of Amos seek to combat Israel’s misconceptions about Yahweh.^[80] Amos reintroduces Yahweh not as Israel’s patron-god but as Yahweh the “God of hosts” meaning he is the only God of the universe.^[81]

Thus, the fundamental nature of Israel’s rebellion was their breaking of the Mosaic covenant by not worshipping Yahweh alone but instead engaging in idolatry.^[82] Israel’s idea of Yahweh had degraded so much that they were not purely worshipping him. They were no longer simply syncretists and deviant Yahwists; they were heathens. They had added and subtracted so much to Yahweh’s character that the “god” they worshipped was nothing more than a figment of their imagination, a false god.^[83] Their worship was pleasing only to themselves.

In the OT’s prophetic books the first prophecy of the book displays the theme of the rest of prophecies to come. The first prophecy in Amos is 1:2, “And he said: ‘The Lord roars from Zion and utters his voice from Jerusalem; the pastures of the shepherds mourn, and the top of Carmel withers’” (ESV). Yahweh roars from his city and from his temple, and not “from one of the sanctuaries of the northern kingdom, because he does not dwell in them or recognize them as his.”^[84] This passage programmatically reveals that Yahweh is still the normative voice over his people and that he still has dominion over the Northern Kingdom. Paton aptly notes that “[n]owhere in the book [of Amos] does Yahweh speak of one of the Israelitish sanctuaries as ‘my house.’” ^[85] Because Israel does not worship Yahweh, he declares his judgment against them, particularly against their sanctuary at Bethel.

Since Israel had broken from the Davidic covenant Amos emphasizes the Mosaic covenant. Israel needed to be called back to following Yahweh alone and his commandments in the Torah. The reason Israel was failing in the areas of justice and righteousness was because they were not seeking the one true God or following his standards; “ethical standards flow from a commitment to the living God.”^[86] Although it would have been best for the Israelites to abandon their idols and worship the one and only God, Yahweh, at his temple in Jerusalem served by the Levitical priests, that is not what seeking Yahweh truly entails. Yahweh has always been more concerned about the spiritual condition of one’s heart rather than their external acts of worship. Such is the notion conveyed in 1 Sam 15:22–23 when Samuel rebuked King Saul for disobediently making an unauthorized animal sacrifice. Samuel states that it is obedience that Yahweh requires over sacrifice; ironically this event took place at Gilgal.^[87]

2.3 Exegesis of Amos 4:4b

“Sacrifices” (זִבְחֵיכֶם) is a general term used for any animal sacrifice, but scholars posit here it may be specifically referring to the peace offerings mentioned in the Torah because the thank and freewill offerings to come in 4:5 are types of Torah peace offerings.^[88] It is debated how to translate לַבֹּקֶר and יָמִים לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת. One suggestion is to translate לַבֹּקֶר as “in the morning” and יָמִים לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת as “on the third day,” which leads some to understand Amos’s call as a reference to a pilgrim custom, albeit an unattested one,^[89] of staying three days at a sanctuary offering sacrifices the morning they arrived and giving their tithes on the third day before they left.^[90] They then suggest that Amos’s call could be referring to the peoples’ present practices and he is sarcastically encouraging to continue them.^[91] However, it is best to understand הַרְבּוּ לִפְשֹׁעַ (“multiply rebellion”) as governing v. 4b and the ל prepositions as functioning distributively.^[92] Thus, לַבֹּקֶר would then mean “every morning” and יָמִים לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת would mean “every three days.” Amos is not calling the people to correct observance of the Torah for the people are not even worshipping Yahweh; rather, he is sarcastically calling them to extravagance by sacrificing every morning and giving their tithes every three days. Though Amos knows the Israelites are wealthy and are showing off their wealth with a multitude of sacrifices and tithes, the people would effectively go broke if they followed his advice. Gary V. Smith points out the irony as the sacrifices and tithes are described as “yours” rather than Yahweh’s.^[93] These religious rites are pleasing only to the people as it feeds their ego and as they worship the so-called “god” they have conjured up. The more they perform these rites, the more they exacerbate their rebellion and guilt.

3. Exegesis of Amos 4:5

Amos’s sarcastic call to worship continues with the verb קטר which is a “technical expression for ‘offer’” and means “to burn and send up in smoke.”^[94] These ritual practices in v. 5 are to be understood as peace offerings.^[95] It is the thanksgiving offerings that were traditionally offered “in anticipation [of] or [in] gratitude for deliverance of some kind”^[96] or they were offered as praises to Yahweh for blessings and answered prayers.^[97]Amos clarifies that these thanksgiving offerings are to be leavened (חָמֵץ) which refers to the “meal-offering accompanying the thanksgiving [animal] sacrifice.”^[98] The preposition on the adjective מֵחָמֵץ could be understood as functioning as a privative which would translate as “without leaven,” or it could be understood as a partitive and be rendered “with some leaven.”^[99] It seems best to understand the preposition as a partitive, thus translating it as “with some leaven.”^[100] But why would Amos call the people to offer leavened thanksgiving sacrifices or continue to do so when this would break a ritual regulation according to Leviticus?^[101]

Roy Lee Honeycutt does not believe Amos was concerned with the people violating any cultic laws; rather, he thinks Amos is pointing out their “mistaken zeal” in thinking that by adding leaven to their thanksgiving offerings they could make them more acceptable to their deity.^[102] By way of contrast, Harper suggests Amos was calling the Israelites to “further increase their zeal” by burning “what ordinarily was not burned,” yet he does not think Amos is referring to Lev 2:11 or 7:12 because he does not believe these laws were yet in existence.^[103] Harper also argues Amos is referring to a developing new custom in which the Israelites would prepare a thank offering with “yeast or grape-honey (Ho. 3:1)” believing this “would be more acceptable.”^[104] Harper presumes that the use of leaven at this time was considered pleasing to Canaanite deities, and that because of this when Exodus and Leviticus were later written the use of leaven was forbidden in burnt thanksgiving offerings.^[105] Andersen and Freedman do not believe the use of leaven is the root of the rebellion at Bethel and Gilgal, nor do they believe its use was “paganizing” or that “the bans in Leviticus represent a later purist reaction against the practice.”^[106]

Against these interpretations, v. 5 is not about if the Israelites were correctly following cultic law. Rather, all of Israel’s worship is sinful because it is not pure worship of Yahweh. Amos is sarcastically calling the people to be more zealous as if adding leaven to their thank offerings would somehow make the people more devout and better please their conjured up deity. But it would not at all be surprising if the Israelites were following a Canaanite practice of using leaven to please their deity, for their religion and conception of their deity was so syncretistic and corrupted.^[107]

Amos concludes saying, וְקִרְאוּ נְדָבוֹת (“and proclaim freewill offerings”) and הַשְׁמִיעוּ (“make proclamation”). Together these statements “suggest a prideful and boastful attitude toward their generous sacrifices and offerings.”^[108] According to the Torah, freewill offerings (נְדָבוֹת) were supposed to be “voluntary,” “spontaneous,” and “nonprescribed.”^[109] They were offered out of a worshipper’s own volition to express their joy and devotion to Yahweh^[110] or thank him for his goodness.^[111] The point of freewill offerings is completely contradicted when a worshipper proclaims their offering to others, yet that is exactly what Amos sarcastically calls them to do. Clearly the peoples’ internal motivation was to show others their religious wealth and religious zeal to gain more recognition.

4. Conclusion

While it is fine to search the OT to find analogous texts to make sense of what Amos is saying in these two verses, Amos’s call is not about returning to fastidious Torah following. Rather, Amos 4:4–5 is about the peoples’ sin of breaking the Mosaic covenant with Yahweh, practicing idolatry, and worshipping a made-up deity at their own sanctuaries. Israel’s religious rites were exacerbating the problem: “everything about the services of its sanctuaries, its sacrifices, its offerings, its music, is wrong, because [it is] rendered in worship of a false god.”^[112] Traditionally, at the end of a priestly call to worship there would be “some declaratory formula spoken as the basis for the summons to worship” such as, “‘for I am Yahweh your God’ or a reference to Yahweh’s will or pleasure in the divine cult.”^[113] Such a formula would base the “ritual in the person and will of the deity” and affirm the deity’s acceptance of the offering and pleasure in the worshipper.^[114] Amos however ends with a reference to what the people love to do. He accuses them of loving to boast about their religiosity and generosity, but such “is not the same thing as loving God.”^[115] Indeed, the people did not love Yahweh; they had broken from him and were not worshipping him. They loved only themselves and were making offerings to a false god who was nothing more than a projection of themselves.