When do poets get censored by politicians? Who silences the philosophers or prophetic activists who dare to break the silence and name corruption? What sort of societies refuse to let critics question reality with inconvenient truths?
Now, as always, powerful criticism is suspect, often silenced, and even the most democratic country struggles with limits of free speech. The ones who speak up often pay a price. Some give up. Some persist.
Amos, one of the earliest voices in the Hebrew Bible to challenge the authorities - persists.
In today’s chapter he pushes the line and gets told to shut up. But he doesn't of course, and his response to the censorship attempt will make his voice heard lounder yet, if not during his lifetime than in the generations to come.
As the chapter begins Amos continues to warn Israel that unless they change their unjust ways their fate is doomed: Both temples and palace will be destroyed by YHWH’s fury:
וְנָשַׁ֙מּוּ֙ בָּמ֣וֹת יִשְׂחָ֔ק וּמִקְדְּשֵׁ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל יֶחֱרָ֑בוּ וְקַמְתִּ֛י עַל־בֵּ֥ית יָרׇבְעָ֖ם בֶּחָֽרֶב׃
“The shrines of Isaac shall be laid waste, and the sanctuaries of Israel reduced to ruins; and I will turn upon the House of Jeroboam with the sword.”
Amos 7:9
The direct attack on King Jeroboam and the religious authorities bring out the big guns. Amazia, the priest in charge of the temple at Beth-El, informs the king of the prophet’s doomsday projections, and is authorized to banish Amos from the kingdom and try to silence him with what will become infamous lines:
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲמַצְיָה֙ אֶל־עָמ֔וֹס חֹזֶ֕ה לֵ֥ךְ בְּרַח־לְךָ֖ אֶל־אֶ֣רֶץ יְהוּדָ֑ה וֶאֱכׇל־שָׁ֣ם לֶ֔חֶם וְשָׁ֖ם תִּנָּבֵֽא׃
וּבֵֽית־אֵ֔ל לֹא־תוֹסִ֥יף ע֖וֹד לְהִנָּבֵ֑א כִּ֤י מִקְדַּשׁ־מֶ֙לֶךְ֙ ה֔וּא וּבֵ֥ית מַמְלָכָ֖ה הֽוּא׃
Amaziah said to Amos, “Seer, go away and flee to the land of Judah! Earn your living there, and do your prophesying there.
But don’t ever prophesy again at Bethel; for it is a king’s sanctuary and a royal palace.”
Amos 7:10-11
But Amos does not flee, nor does he cower, with a response just as famous and very intriguing:
וַיַּ֤עַן עָמוֹס֙ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֶל־אֲמַצְיָ֔ה לֹא־נָבִ֣יא אָנֹ֔כִי וְלֹ֥א בֶן־נָבִ֖יא אָנֹ֑כִי כִּי־בוֹקֵ֥ר אָנֹ֖כִי וּבוֹלֵ֥ס שִׁקְמִֽים׃ וַיִּקָּחֵ֣נִי יְהֹוָ֔ה מֵאַחֲרֵ֖י הַצֹּ֑אן וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלַי֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה לֵ֥ךְ הִנָּבֵ֖א אֶל־עַמִּ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
“Amos answered Amazia: “I am not a prophet, and I am not a son of a prophet. I am a cattle breeder and a tender of sycamore figs.
But it was YHWH who took me away from following the flock, and YHWH who said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to My people Israel.’
Amos 7:14
When Amos says that he is not a prophet nor the son of one - is he mocking the priest who is another link in the dynastic chain of priests? Why does he refuse the prophetic title?
This dialogue between priest and prophet is a snapshot of the ongoing struggle between state-religion and folk-spirituality, the pomp of power and the people’s voice. Whoever included this scene in the Book of Amos wanted us to know that this tension has always been there and continues to challenges civic society and its discontents.
Rabbi Natasha Mann explores and frames this conflict further:
“In this wonderful and strange statement, Amos highlights the assumptions that Amazia the priest makes about religious leadership. Amos is not a prophet, nor the disciple of a prophet, by trade or profession. He is not earning his bread by offering comforting prophecies, like the professional prophets of the Northern Kingdom. Instead, Amos’s livelihood and training are in animal and plant care. And while this might read to our modern eyes as a humble profession, in the world of Amos and Amazia, the implication would have been the opposite: Amos was a relatively wealthy man. He was not in need of prophesying to earn his bread; on the contrary, he left a comfortable existence behind him in order to prophesy. And Amos, unlike Amazia, earns no friends on the political front in his prophesying.
Amos and Amazia are, in some ways, opposites. Amazia leads an idolatrous cult, has political capital, and is so entrenched in the idea that religious leadership is about wealth that he cannot imagine that not all prophets are professionals. Amos left a life of wealth and comfort behind him in order to make enemies in the Northern Kingdom by prophesying against the king, and he earns no money doing it. And yet somehow, the tender of sycamore figs has struck fear into the heart of the wealthy priest.”
What happens when the politician quotes the protesting prophet, and when the line between policy and prophecy get blurred? What is the danger of prophetic ideas incorporated by people in power who might abuse what once was legitimate critique?
Sir Isaiah Berlin, in one of his memoirs, mentions an astonishing scene, occurring in the late 1950’s in Tel Aviv. Berlin was invited by David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding Prime Minister, to join him for the exclusive bible class held at Ben Gurion’s home for many years. What’s disturbing in this scene, seen through the philosopher's eye, is the way the politician silences the prophetic protest by questioning its legitimate claim:
“The subject was the role of the prophet during the period of the First Temple: what was his status? Was he an itinerant preacher like Elijah, Amos and perhaps Hosea? or attached to the Court as the Prophet Nathan seemed to be, and perhaps Isaiah too, in virtue of his royal connection? The discussion was exceedingly interesting, conducted partly in English for my benefit; in connection with the Prophet Nathan, the story of David and Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite naturally came up, and in particular Nathan’s famous fiery words to David “You are the man!”. Someone then remarked that, as was known, David was not allowed to build the Temple because he was a man of blood; only Solomon could be permitted to do this. At this point Ben Gurion sprang to the defense of David with mounting passion—declared that he was by far the greatest of the Jews since Moses, that the blood he had spilt was in a holy cause, that he was the creator of a nation, and that Nathan had gone far beyond what was proper in making so fierce an attack on this great and good King. It became plain to me, and perhaps to everyone present, that David Ben-Gurion had in some sense identified himself with his royal namesake, that he was not going to allow that methods of violence should always be condemned as such, that the contrast drawn in this respect between David and Solomon was wholly unjust. So intense and vehement were his words that the Bible class came to an end there and then, while Ben Gurion paced up and down the room in a state of considerable agitation. I realized then that he really did profoundly identify himself with the Biblical past and that his sense of it, whether real or imagined, was indeed not dissimilar to the historical nationalism of Churchill or de Gaulle, and that this was perhaps the central inspiration of all that he believed and did and was.”
Berlin’s questions are more relevant today then ever.
Who are the ones to stand up today and protest Ben Gurion’s followers? How has the biblical prophetic vision become a tool in the hands of powerful people who like Amazia and Jeroboam link religion and politics to justify injustice and cause so much harm to their people and all people?
The pain of the prophet who risks his life to protest power has not vanished and yet more like Amos must be heard, not banished, silenced, ridiculed or ignored.
Perhaps there is one more clue to the perennial prophetic power of Amos in the additional professional role that he describes himself with - Boles Shikmim - A tender of sycamore figs.
The Hebrew word Shiqmim occurs seven times in the Hebrew Bible, referring to the sycamore tree and its fruit, similar to the fig. But the word boles occurs only here. The Ben-Yehudah Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew, finds no cognate in sister languages but, according to the context, defines boles as “nipping the sycamore fig to cause it to finish ripening quickly”.
Amos, with words that echo his farming knowledge, nips corruption in the bud, or at least tries to, interrupting what may seem like the natural way of things to offer, on behalf of the divine mysteries, a better way to be, to live, to govern and to grow as a people.
He reminds us today, despite all the Amazia type people in power, that these voices that challenge authority are among the most precious and critical a culture can have if it wants to survive.
Never silence the seers or banish the prophets.
Go Below the Bible Belt. Link in bio. subscribe.Below the Bible Belt: 929 chapters, 42 months, daily reflections.
Become a free or paid subscriber and join Rabbi Amichai’s 3+ years interactive online quest to question, queer + re-read between the lines of the entire Hebrew Bible. Enjoy daily posts, weekly videos and monthly learning sessions. 2022-2025.
#Amos #Amos7 #ProphetAmos #הנביאעמוס# עמוס #BookofAmos #תריעשר #treiasar #minorprophets #Prophets #Neviim #Hebrewbible #Tanach #929 #labshul #belowthebiblebelt929 #truthtopower #censorship #priestvs.prophet #silencingprotest #bengurion #religiousabuse #kingdomofIsrael #sirisaiahberlin #stoptheviolence #peace #prayforpeace #nomorewar #hope
Fascinating anecdote about Ben Gurion and Berlin—one could spend a lot of time unpacking that!