Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Amos and Acts

Amos and Acts

Last updated on: June 30, 2023 at 5:29 pm by Fred Clark

0 Comments

Amos and Acts 2023-06-30T17:29:11-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Here’s a lovely, fascinating little sermonette from Walter Brueggemann: “The God of the Other (Amos 9:7).”

I’ve read and re-read this chapter countless times without ever catching — or getting caught by — the verse that Brueggemann highlights here and its implications. The speaker here, according to Amos, is none other than God, who says:

Are you not like the Ethiopians to me,
O people of Israel? says the Lord.
Did I not bring Israel from the land of Egypt,
and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?

At the simplest level, this is the lesson Mister Rogers taught us: That you are precious and special and infinitely loved. And that so is everyone else.

But there’s a lot more going on, or a lot more that needs to be unpacked from that. Brueggemann argues that here, in one of the earliest and oldest texts of the Hebrew scriptures, we have the same argument for radical inclusiveness that folks like me have made based on New Testament passages from Acts or Galatians. Brueggemann is famous as a scholar and academic, but he’s preaching here, and this’ll preach:

Israel remembered its emancipation from slavery in Egypt under Pharaoh, and imagined that God’s Exodus deliverance of Israel was a singular act without parallel in the history of the world. After all, God had identified Israel as “my first born son” (Exodus 4:22). But Amos, to the contrary, insisted otherwise. He asks of Israel two rhetorical questions. The first question requires a “yes” from Israel. Yes, Israel is like the Ethiopians. That must have been a surprise and a shock to Israel, to hear itself compared to Ethiopia, a nation of “people of color.” Amos challenges the exclusionary self-understanding of Israel. In his second rhetorical question Amos probes the meaning of the Exodus deliverance with the verb, “bring up from,” that is, “set free from.” Yes, God did bring up Israel from Egypt; without a doubt! Everyone knows that. But then two other claims:

Yes, YHWH did bring up the Philistines from Caphtor.

Yes, YHWH did bring up the Arameans (Syrians) from Kir.

Amos names two foreign peoples that were at different times Israel’s most threatening enemies, the Philistines and later the Syrians. He dares to say that God enacts “Exoduses” for Israel’s enemies. He affirms that God’ emancipatory power extends to other peoples who are not commonly taken to be “chosen.” He debunks Israel’s claim to the exclusionary love and justice of God, and insists that in universal scope YHWH’s emancipatory reach extends everywhere, at many times, and in many places, bringing emancipation for those not yet liberated. Indeed, he suggests that the wide sweep of history under YHWH is a sequence of Exoduses, so that there is nothing exclusionary about Israel’s emancipatory memory or claim.

There it is: “YHWH’s emancipatory reach extends everywhere, at many times, and in many places, bringing emancipation for those not yet liberated.”

The topical “tag” for that idea here is labeled “Acts 10” because our initial discussions of it here arose from the “God hates shrimp” arguments and my attempts to rebut the idea that this story of Peter welcoming outsiders was merely meant to teach us to be exclusionary bigots who get to eat bacon cheeseburgers.

“You are my friend, you are special,” Mister Rogers said. But he said that to EVERYBODY.

We’ve made the same biblical case here, repeatedly, arguing for the ever-expanding “emancipatory reach” of God based on Philip the Evangelist, based on Paul’s angry, relentless argument for that in Galatians, and based on the book of Jonah.

That Jonah stuff is particularly important because it illustrates that this idea of God’s ever-expanding emancipatory inclusion is not some New Testament innovation requiring the creative revisionism of the Apostle Paul. The book of Jonah was written centuries before the birth of Jesus or of Paul, and it was written — explicitly and ferociously — as a polemic against the idea that God’s children are “not like the Ethopians” or the Philistines or the Arameans or the pagan sailors or the Ninevites. The presence of this argument in the Hebrew scriptures is important because it means we don’t need to skip off into some supercessionist understanding of Pentecost or Paul to affirm the argument Brueggemann makes above.

Walter Brueggemann is kinder and gentler than the author of the book of Jonah, but he’s making the same argument for the boundless love of God, ever expanding and ever including. The straw-man caricature of Jonah represents and embodies the exclusive opposite idea of religion, the cramped ingratitude that gets so possessed by the first half of Mister Rogers’ lesson — “I am precious and special and infinitely beloved” — that it cannot accept the essential second part of it (“And so is everyone else”).

Both sides of this argument can be found in our Bible. The book of Ezra ends with a horrifying mass-divorce and mass-abandonment of children as Ezra demands the purification of Israel by the casting out of Moabite wives and half-Moabite children by the thousands. The book of Ruth is a little novella of a scripture written in rebuttal to that. The various royal genealogies scattered throughout the Bible — up to and including those in the Gospels — take sides in this argument by including Ruth in the lineage of David.

This claim (or aspect of reality) may be more of an obstacle for my white evangelical friends than what Brueggemann calls the “yes” of God that “counters all of our fearful exclusions.” The idea that there are arguments and oppositions within the scriptures means that you can’t just flip-and-point to a random verse or pluck one out of a concordance and be assured that it will provide a clear and specific answer to all your questions. And if that clear and specific answer is not so easily available, then we might be reading something wrong. If you imagine that your eternal salvation is dependent on your never reading anything wrong, then this idea is terrifying. The horror of that possibility makes you reject any suggestion that the Bible may speak with the voices from many sides of many arguments, or that it may contain stories with unreliable narrators. (This is why white evangelical readings of Jonah — a wholly unreliable narrator — are so tortured and strange.)

The fascinating thing about the passage Brueggemann highlights here is that the book of Amos was written a very long time before the book of Exodus was. Amos 9:7 presents one side in an argument about the meaning of the Exodus, showing us that both sides of this argument existed centuries before the book of Exodus itself was written. Amos is one of the oldest books in the Bible — possibly the oldest — so the tension between the two sides of this argument date back to the very beginning.

That argument continues today. Skip ahead a few verses from where Dr. Brueggemann left us and you’ll come to Amos 9:11-12 — verses cited in the book of Acts as the early Christian community struggled to grasp this notion of God’s boundless love. For those of us who read the Bible in English translation, there’s something very odd about that passage in Acts, which we discussed here a while ago:

Acts 15 tells us about an argument among the leaders of the early church over the status of Gentile believers. James gets up and speaks in favor of including these unclean outsiders in the community of believers. He quotes the Bible in support of this position: “This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written, ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, so that all other peoples may seek the Lord.’”

He’s quoting there from the book of Amos — Amos 9:11-12. But here’s the odd thing: according to the book of Amos in our Bible, he’s quoting it wrong.

Keep one finger there in Acts 15 and turn to that passage in Amos in the same Bible you’re holding there in your hands. You won’t find what James says there in Amos. Instead, you’ll read something like this: “On that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; in order that they may possess the remnant of Edom.”

That’s not the same at all. That says the opposite of what James says it said.

James is there in Acts 15, claiming that Amos 9:11-12 tells us that the dwelling of David will be built up “so that all other peoples may seek the Lord,” but when we turn there ourselves we find Amos saying, instead, that the dwelling of David will be built up so that David’s people “may possess the remnant of Edom.”

One choice offers a radically inclusive view in which Israel was chosen so that salvation could come to every last person on earth. The other choice offers a radically exclusive view in which Israel was chosen so that it could utterly vanquish every last remnant of its enemies.

And they’re both right there in the same Bible. You’ve got one finger stuck in a passage defending one choice and another finger stuck in a passage defending its opposite. And these conflicting meanings don’t even come from two different passages — they come from the exact same two verses. What gives?

This specific disparity between our English translations of Amos and the text of the prophet that James was reading is partly due to the difficulty of translating ancient writing that didn’t have vowels. The ambiguity faced by translators, though, is also due to the presence within and throughout the scriptures of these two very different understandings of God.

Previous Post

June 26, 2023

Old habits die hard

Next Post

July 4, 2023 Twice on the pipe if the answer is no

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"In the wake of El-Sayed disavowing the MB, I was surprised to learn how many ..."

Ross

Some obscure footnotes of white evangelical ..."

"Let's not share this info with Donald Trump....or did someone do it already? Damn it!"

Skadi

Some obscure footnotes of white evangelical ..."

"I've been hanging around with the Catholics again:"Jesus was empathetic, but he also said to ..."

Amaryllis

Some obscure footnotes of white evangelical ..."

"It denies the teachings of Jesus, who was all about empathy.(So much for having him ..."

P J Evans

Some obscure footnotes of white evangelical ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What items did Pharaoh give Joseph as a sign of authority?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Sword and shield Crown and sandals Ring and robe Chariot and whip