Original Meaning
The Vision of Locusts (7:1–3)
IN THE INTRODUCTORY formula, the Hebrew word meaning to see, show (Hiphil of rʾh), indicates that this new divine message is received in a unique way. It includes both words and images to dramatically portray the action that God will take. There is no indication that this vision is based on anything happening in nature (e.g., a plague of locusts; 4:9), nor is there any hint of an ecstatic experience associated with this vision. God is the author, who causes Amos to see something that will devastate the land.
Amos thus sees God forming a huge swarm of locusts that can devour every green plant (cf. Joel 1). The timing of this plague is critical, for two chronological indicators appear in this vision. The locusts are being formed after the king’s share of the crop has been harvested (probably grass for his horses; see 1 Kings 4:26–28; 18:5) and just as the young tender spring crops are sprouting (probably in April).3 This suggests that the royal needs have been met but that the average peasant farmer will be in serious trouble. If the locusts had come a few weeks earlier, there would not yet be any sprouting grain and thus no harm to Israel’s farmers. If it had come later, the crops would be set back by the locusts but not totally destroyed. This heightens Amos’s compassion for the poor farmers, who will be left in a hopeless situation.
The action in 7:1 sets the plot, but nothing has actually happened yet. Some translations of Amos 7:2 picture the crops already eaten by the locusts (RSV, NASB, NIV). This raises the difficult situation of having the prophet intercede after the danger is past and of God’s stopping the punishment after it has already happened. This makes no sense and is not required by the Hebrew text. Since the word used here (klh) can mean to determine, decide, complete a plan (1 Sam. 20:7, 9, 33; Est. 7:7; Prov. 16:30), the text can read, “when he determined to destroy the vegetation.”4 With this translation, Amos’s intercession comes when he realizes God has finally determined to release the locusts on the land.
At that point the prophet prays for compassion. Much like Moses at the golden calf, Amos relies on the long-suffering, patient, and forgiving nature of God (Ex. 34:6). But unlike Moses, there is no reasoning with God about the impression this will have on Israel’s neighbors or any appeal to some promise to the forefathers (32:11–14). The prophet’s prayer seems more like a lament (a lament often asks how long or why; see Ps. 13:1–2; 42:5, 11; 79:5), which is full of deep sympathy for the poor farmers who will suffer the most misery. They have already suffered under the oppression of the wealthy landowners. Why will God make them the object of his anger?
Amos boldly calls for God’s forgiveness, though usually forgiveness is based on a previous response of repentance (1 Kings 8:30–39, 48–50; 2 Chron. 7:14). When sin is confessed, God no longer holds the sinner accountable, and the punishment is removed. Since there is no sign of any repentance by Israel, Amos is asking for an act of pure grace that was undeserved. He requests God’s compassion because some in Israel will not be able to survive; they are just too small and insignificant. These were the little people, like the orphan and widow, with whom God is especially concerned (Ex. 22:22; Deut. 10:18; 24:17–22; Isa. 1:17). Jeroboam’s army is strong and his horses have plenty of hay, but the poor people will have nothing without God’s mercy.
God’s response is immediate and somewhat surprising. The plague is stopped before it begins, and without any prerequisites. God does not make his decision to stop the locusts if the people first do this or that—a condition that would make his decision understandable (see Jer. 18:1–12). It is an act of pure grace on a people who have been rebelling against him for centuries. God’s relenting (niḥam) on his plans is an anthropomorphic way of explaining his personal interaction with the prophet and his people. Compassion for the people is not inconsistent with God’s character; rather, it reveals the depth of his patience and his openness to hearing the prayers of righteous intercessors (James 5:13–18).
God is not a mindless abstract principle of philosophy who rules by some set of mechanical computer formulas. He is a personal caring ruler who does not enjoy the punishment of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23). He richly pours out his love to those who do not deserve it. The removal of the locust plague postpones God’s wrath for another day.
Bridging Contexts
VISIONS. These visions are a special means of revelation to the prophet. God communicated earlier through the use of words in a war oracle (Amos 1:3–2:16) and in woe oracles (5:18–27; 6:1–14), but the visions provide a more stark and realistic view of the tragedy that will happen to the Hebrew people where Amos is prophesying. A vision allows the receiver to imagine the human suffering that will take place when God acts in wrath, to dialogue with God concerning his plans for the future, and to identify with the people who will die.
There is no theological principle that can explain when or why God sometimes chooses to reveal his will at one time in words and in another context through visions. Both methods are equally valid, and one is not superior to the other. The purpose of a vision is to give clear information, not to hide things or confuse the one receiving the vision.
Joel 2:28–32 refers to a future time when many people will see visions and dream dreams, so it is clear that God will reveal his will in this way in the future. While this is not necessarily totally fulfilled in Acts 2, it at least begins to be fulfilled when the Holy Spirit comes on the first members of the church. John’s great vision of the future in Revelation is also a partial fulfillment of what God said through Joel. Since false prophets in the Old Testament also claimed to see visions from God (Jer. 23:9–40), it is always important for people to carefully evaluate any claims (visionary or vocal) of a divine revelation.
The role of intercession. In the midst of this dynamic interaction Amos sets an example to all believers with his intercession for those whom God plans to judge. Intercession involves mediation for the sake of someone else to alleviate a conflict between two parties. Labor disputes sometimes are solved by mediators who intercede and help the parties come to wage or contract agreement. Although people know that a person can often bargain for better benefits at work, at first it seems a little paradoxical to think that someone can get almighty God to listen to human ideas about his plans.
Those who believe in intercession do so because of certain theological attitudes or beliefs about God’s relationship with people. (1) They believe that God hears a person’s prayers on behalf of others and will consider requests made by sincere people. Hezekiah interceded for deliverance of his nation from the destructive hand of the Assyrian king Sennacherib (Isa. 37:14–20): “Give ear, O LORD, and hear . . . [and] listen to all the words [spoken by the evil king] Sennacherib.” The Psalms frequently have such requests as “O LORD, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy” (Ps. 143:1).
In fact, God promises that “if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14). The prophet Isaiah reminded his audience that God’s “ear [is not] too dull to hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isa. 59:1–2). Prayer is a conversation with a God who hears our words and knows our thoughts.7
(2) Those who intercede care deeply about the ones for whom they are praying. Amos prays for God to stop the locusts because the poor farmers will not be able to survive these tragic events (Amos 7:2). Moses cared so much for the Israelites who sinned by worshiping the golden calf that he pleaded with God to “blot me out of the book you have written” (Ex. 32:32). “Such a total commitment . . . is a central feature of his role as mediator and intercessor.”8 The prophet Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, interceded with words like the following:
Since my people are crushed, I am crushed;
I mourn, and horror grips me.
Is there no balm in Gilead?
Is there no physician there?
Why then is there no healing
for the wound of my people?
Oh, that my head were a spring of water
and my eyes a fountain of tears!
I would weep day and night
for the slain of my people. (Jer. 8:21–9:1)
Jesus sets an example with his care for little children (Matt. 19:13), love for his disciples, and concern for their unity after he would leave them (John 17). Paul’s care for his new churches is evident in his intercessory prayers for enlightenment of believers (Eph. 1:18), strength and good theological roots (3:16–17), knowledge of God’s will and spiritual wisdom (Col. 1:9–10), and a worthy walk that glorifies God (2 Thess. 1:11–12). Paul exhorts the church at Ephesus to “be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints” (Eph. 6:18). James encourages people to intercede for the healing of others (James 5:16).
God himself cares about what might happen to these people. His love for his people is evident in 2 Chronicles 7:15–16, where he promises that “my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place . . . my heart will always be there.” According to Romans 8:34, Jesus is “at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (cf. Heb. 7:25), and “the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express” (Rom. 8:26).9
What are we to conclude about people who do not intercede for others? It is hard to make generalizations, but busyness, other priorities, a fatalistic approach to life, a low view of God’s ability to transform a situation, and a lack of compassion may result in no intercession. When someone does not care about what happens to others, that person usually does not take the time to intercede for them. If people are focused on their own desires, they will spend little time to pray for the needs of others.
(3) Those who pray and intercede for others do so because they think that it will make a difference regarding the future. Some prayers focus on changing what people will do (repent and come to God), while others request a different response from God (forgive, heal, or guide). The one praying serves as a mediator to modify the results of a seemingly inevitable outcome.
Samuel, for example, not only promised to teach Saul to do what is right so that he would fear and serve God faithfully with all his heart, but also assured the new king that he would pray for him (1 Sam. 12:22–23). Both the instruction and the prayer were central to modifying Saul’s behavior away from evil and God’s consequent judgment. In a quite different series of events, Nehemiah’s prayers of intercession for his brothers back in the unwalled city of Jerusalem moved him to the place where he was willing to be personally involved with changing the situation in Jerusalem (Neh. 1) and asked the Persian king to give him time off to go to Jerusalem (2:1–10). Later Nehemiah interceded for God to take action against Sanballat, Tobiah, and their associates, who were mocking the meager efforts of those rebuilding the walls (4:1–5).
Does God change his mind or repent? It is not hard to understand how God can influence people to bring changes in their lives, but does prayer just change people? This question is raised by English translations that render the Hebrew verb nḥm (7:3, 6) with words like God “repented” (KJV), “changed his mind” (NASB), or “relented” (NIV). If God is in charge of this world and knows everything about it, does he not carry out his perfect purposes without hesitation or human interference? Since God knows much more than any human being about each situation, it seems that people should leave things in his hands and not try to tell him what should or should not be done in each instance. Even Scripture states that we do not know how to pray as we should and need the Holy Spirit to intercede for us (Rom. 8:26).
If these points are true, then it seems rather presumptuous for any human being to try to get God to “repent” or “change his mind,” and rather contradictory to his nature for him ever to change his mind. Who would presume to put themselves above God and suggest that their way of dealing with a situation is better than God’s way? Although Job initially was confused about God’s action and questioned God’s justice toward himself, his final responses to the divine revelation of wisdom and power was a humble attitude of submission. He admitted he did not know the plans and reasons for God’s actions; God’s ways are too wondrous and marvelous for any person to understand (Job 40:4–5; 42:1–6).
Because it seems illogical for a perfect, all-wise, transcendent God to change, some solve this dilemma by concluding that this is just anthropomorphic and anthropopathic talk about God to help humans refer to the mystery of divine activity. They believe these human descriptions are misleading and inadequate to represent accurately the true nature of God.10
In spite of the theological problems raised by this metaphorical language, clearly God’s people in the Bible and today have repeatedly interceded for others and encouraged him to respond in grace and mercy rather than in wrath and judgment. Prayer to God is based on the view that God has and desires a relationship with people; it is not an obnoxious intrusion that he abhors. Prayers are a continuation of the relationship God has already established with people.
Consequently, some prayers of intercession, such as Exodus 32 (where God wanted to destroy the nation and start over so that the covenant promises would be fulfilled through Moses’ children), discuss the nature of the covenant relationship in which God previously gave his people promises about their future (Gen. 12:1–3). If there appears to be some new initiative in the relationship or if one partner in the relationship does not understand what the other person is doing (God viewed the worship of the golden calf as a rejection of himself and the covenant relationship), questions are asked, requests are presented, and appropriate actions are taken.
Frequently intercession is a request for undeserved mercy from God that goes beyond the normal understanding of the covenant relationship, thus avoiding an immediate execution of God’s justice. Amos’s intercessory cry for forgiveness and the stopping of God’s destruction of Israel (Amos 7:1–6) is a request for God to patiently suspend his just judgment for a time so that his people will have further opportunities to repent of their evil and continue a healthy relationship with God. God is addressed out of human weakness and a need for compassion.
A person could conceive of God as a giant computer that keeps track of the deeds and thoughts of every person in order to automatically and impersonally carry out just commands according to the preset rules designed by the mind of the divine programmer. In this scenario, no one could communicate with the computer and no one could adjust the timing or nature of the computer’s response to human behavior except the programmer himself. Everything would be predetermined by the code inserted into the operating system. This conceptualization of the divine/human setting is nonrelational, impersonal, and, most important, inconsistent with the biblical description of the way God is involved with the world he created.
Part of the problem is our inability to understand how God can know the end from the beginning and still be open to the influence of human prayer. One aspect of the explanation is that God’s plans include the necessity of prayers for things to go as planned. It is also clear from numerous texts that some of God’s plans are given conditionally, based on the behavior of some specific group of people (Deut. 27–28; Jer. 18:1–12).
But even these two facets do not fully explain God’s repentance or changing his mind. Some of the problem here is based on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew verb nḥm. Wolff thinks the term “designates a change of mind prompted by the emotions,”11 while Willis suggests that this metaphor means that God “experienced a reversal or change with respect to some past statement of action.”12
Parunak’s extensive survey of the semantic fields of this root has identified four primary senses of nḥm: (1) comfort, have compassion; (2) suffer emotional pain; (3) relief of emotional tension by performing declared action; and (4) release of emotional tension by detracting a declared action.13 In each case nḥm describes an emotional response (usually a compassionate one) to human behavior—sometimes to establish justice, at other times to show compassion instead of justice. In the process change takes place, but the meaning of this word is not a synonym for change; this word focuses on relieving emotional tension. Thus God’s compassion to Israel in Amos 7:3 and 6 removes the tension of destroying the nation. This picture of God turns the strict, unattached, computer-driven judge into a compassionate and caring covenant partner.
God is not unaware of what will happen, nor is he fooled and surprised by what does happen, but his gift of compassion awaits the intercessor’s request for it. The human intercession is, therefore, essential and effective in moving God to respond compassionately to situations where his emotional distribution of wrath would normally be expected.
Contemporary Significance
PRAYING FOR SINNERS. If Abraham interceded for the few righteous people in the ungodly cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:22–33), if Moses interceded for the sinful Israelites who worshiped the golden calf just a few days after they had seen the glory of God on top of Mount Sinai (Ex. 32), if Amos interceded for the pagan Israelites who worshiped the golden calf at the temple in Bethel (Amos 7:1–6), if Moses interceded for the wicked people of Israel after their rebellion against him (Num. 14:10–25), if Jesus interceded for the Roman soldiers crucifying him (Luke 23:34), and if Paul repeatedly interceded for the Jewish people who were not saved (Rom. 9:1–5; 10:1), it seems only reasonable to conclude that God expects believers to intercede for his mercy on the wicked today. When the church does not pray and ask, it is legitimate to wonder whether God will respond in compassion. When the church does not have time or energy to intercede, it is legitimate to wonder if people still care for others. When the church does not come to God for answers to problems, it is legitimate to wonder if his people still think that this God is interested enough or powerful enough to respond with life-transforming grace. The practical question that must be asked is: When was the last time I followed the examples in Scripture by deeply interceding for an undeserving sinner in this world?
Clearly some believers do pray fervently, consistently, and effectively for the ungodly people of this world (the Billy Graham organization is characterized by this concern), but in the local church I hear many more prayers of intercession for the health needs of the saints than the eternal needs of sinners. It often appears as if the church is more interested in God’s compassion and strength for the physical needs of church members than anything else (play back the tapes of the worship services for the last month to check this out from the pastoral prayers in your church). Why does the church not take more time and put more effort into praying for the condemned people of this world, who do not know God or Jesus as their Savior?
Does the church still realize that God takes no pleasure in the punishment of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23) and that he desires that no one should perish but that all will come to a knowledge of the truth (2 Peter 3:9)? Do Christians not care enough to pray, or is the problem more related to the fact that they have not taken the time to get personally involved with unbelievers? Any single answer would be an overgeneralization, not true of many Christians or churches. But it would not surprise me if we will be asked one day: Who were the sinners you prayed for?
One answer to the problem is for pastors and leaders to set a positive example in their lives and in their public ministry. E. Bradford boldly states that the “judgment is inescapable that the minister who does not pray for those to whom he is called to minister, is indeed, no minister at all. He is proud, conducting his labors as though he can succeed without God’s power. He is cold and lacking in compassion.”14 This sounds good, but do church leaders think of the phrase “those to whom he is called to minister” as including non-Christians?
The “Directory for Worship of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church” states that the duty of the minister is to include “offerings of prayer to the Lord on behalf of the congregation” (6.A.2), for this follows the example of the leaders of the early church, who devoted themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:4). In contrast, John Calvin found that “it was the duty of a prophet, not only to comfort the afflicted by the word of the Lord, but also to offer prayers for their salvation.”15 Paul exhorted the young pastor Timothy that “requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone. . . . God our Savior . . . wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1–4).
Intercession should include prayers for the bad people of our world, the foul-mouthed laborer, the undeserving criminals, and the obsessed molester. Intercessors should plead with God that their neighbors will be saved and not just limit their prayers to the wants of the church. Because of neglect or unbelief, “many have been given up who were still within the reach of grace. There have been many who have been put into the spiritual burial shroud even by Christians, given up to damnation even by ministers. . . . Oh, give up on nobody! Pray still! Lay none out for spiritual dead until they are laid out naturally dead.”16
Prayers of intercession should not be aimed so much at those who want or even deserve a better life but should focus the burden of our hearts on those who deserve eternal damnation under the wrath of God. They have no hope but the intercessory prayers of saints. Perhaps we can stay God’s hand of judgment for a brief time so that there will be additional opportunities to respond to God’s grace.
God and human prayers. Of course, to offer such prayers assumes that intercessory prayer can influence God, that God can choose to be more compassionate and delay the execution of his judgment (cf. Amos 7:3, 6). This raises the ancient and modern question of the “openness of God” to human requests.17 Supporters of an “open God” approach believe that “when we address God in prayer . . . we are entering into a genuine dialogue and . . . the future is not settled.”18 God has intentions or plans, but these “are not ironclad decrees that cannot be changed . . . consequently, God can reformulate his plans, or alter his intentions, in response to developments.”19 This thinking explains the references to God’s repenting of what he had planned to do (e.g., his plans about Nineveh in Jonah 3) or his sorrow over something done earlier that did not work out (e.g., choosing Saul to be king in 1 Sam. 15). These scholars picture a God of feelings, who listens to intercessory petitions, and they criticize those who define the sovereign predestination of God so tightly that real human freedom does not exist and real human-divine interaction is compromised.
This approach does provide a dynamic interplay between the various metaphors of divine activity with humankind, but it has been severely criticized by more traditional theologians because it radically changes most conceptions of God’s immutability, transcendence, and foreknowledge. R. Olson applauds many of the emphases of this new approach but is uncomfortable with the position that “God does not know future free decisions and actions of his creatures.”20 D. Bloesch also has difficulty with this idea but prefers the mystery explanation of all this because he feels there is really no “rationally satisfying answer to this problem.”21
Although this discussion may sometimes seem like an intellectual struggle between classical and open theology, at the heart of its debate is the practical question of the nature of God and how he relates to people. If God only has “present knowledge” and no foreknowledge of what will happen in the future, and if he allows people complete freedom of choice between a variety of options, then his power to control and direct a positive outcome to this world and his ability to answer our prayers is relatively limited. I would argue that the open view of God has overreacted to a Greek philosophical view of the divine and an extreme view of divine sovereignty that makes God into some distant, uncaring, untouchable, and unloving monarch. Few people would identify with this straw man that the “open view of God” rejects.
Classical theology puts together a God who is both a loving Father and the powerful King of the universe. God’s power is not undermined and his foreknowledge is not put in question when he responds to the repentant people of Nineveh (Jonah 3) with compassion. God’s justice is established by judgment if the people do not repent and his justice is established with compassion if the people do repent. God’s character or nature has not changed, his personal relationship to people is maintained, and his power to control the future history of a great empire is not compromised. The Bible never has represented a deistic God wholly unrelated to the world in some sort of abstract transcendent realm. Moreover, it is a myth to suppose that humans are completely free to choose (even sociologists and psychologists know this) and to suppose that God is somehow not in control, but merely reacts to free human decisions.
Nevertheless, this new view of God has given positive emphasis to the existence of real emotions within God’s relationship, to God’s responsiveness to human prayers and actions, and to the existence of human freedom/responsibility to intercede with God for the sake of others. People intercede because God’s power is not limited, because he knows what will happen, and because he has the ability to influence the self-destructive choices people sometimes make. A mother could not pray with much confidence for her drug-obsessed son if she thought that God did not have the power to change her son’s life. A husband could not pray with much confidence about his unfair treatment at work if he believed that the boss was totally free to make his own choices and that God could not influence his decisions.
Human freedom sounds nice and a limited God with less control over us gives us more power, but in this world we need fewer powerful people making sinful choices and a greater demonstration of the divine power to change people’s lives. All prayers of intercession depend on a God who can and does overpower the forces of evil within us, who can powerfully transform us into new creatures in Christ. God has the power to release people from slavery to sin (not the freedom to sin) to become servants of and brothers with Christ.
Having an impact. One final lesson needs to be emphasized. If Christians do practice intercession, if they believe that their prayers can influence the compassion of God, if they believe that God has the power to intervene in the lives of people, then they will find that they themselves can have an impact on the situations they are praying about by simply telling others about their intercession.
True, Amos’s intercession was effective without ever telling anyone about it, and our intercession is also to be practiced in our closets with God. But a powerful impact can be achieved by humbly describing our intercession in a way that focuses on God’s grace. Amos’s retelling of his experience to his audience has the rhetorical effect of identifying the prophet with the audience’s need. An intercessor does not condemn those in need but stands with them to help them avoid punishment. The sharing of a personal experience always has greater persuasive power than mere negative declarations or statements of facts.
Intercessors experience the agony of the potential situation with the sufferers, and consequently their mediation on behalf of the listeners speaks volumes about the care and deep concern of the intercessor. The rhetorical nature of intercessory visions, or any type of intercessory role, enables the message of judgment to be communicated clearly but puts it in a third-person context (God said). This allows the intercessor to take the first-person role (I prayed) on behalf of the listener. Such approaches cause the listener to be more accepting of the intercessor because he or she is not the source of bad news, but of good news.
Set in our day, this means that parents might accomplish more by telling a child that they are praying for them to find good Christian friends, rather than constantly complaining or giving speeches about what they should be doing. A pastor who identifies with his congregation and shares the burdens of his heart for them may gain more acceptance than the one who condemns a congregation. At the same time, no pastor should use such intercession as a mechanism of manipulation, for people can quickly see through the fog of hype.
Original Meaning
The Vision of the Fire (7:4–6)
THE SECOND VISION has a structure parallel to the first vision. God shows Amos a great fire5 that can destroy the sea and land. A ferocious and powerful fire that can devour both matter and the water in the depths of the ocean is a divine fire of enormous size. Deuteronomy 32:22 also refers to a fire that burns to the lowest part of Sheol, that consumes the earth, and that sets on fire the foundations of the mountains. This seems to be either a huge volcanic eruption or a burning star that hits the earth.
Whatever the source of the fire, Amos intercedes with a prayer for God to stop the fire before it destroys the land of Israel.6 Amos laments the fate of the nation, but unlike the first vision, there is no request for forgiveness in this second one. The basis for this request is the same as his earlier rational: Israel is so small, and it cannot last under this great judgment. God’s response is the same as his earlier decision. He stops the fire, for no one can survive the onslaught of his wrath. More time is provided for the Israelites to respond before his judgment. Indeed, God is long-suffering and surprisingly patient; his grace extends to undeserving people again and again.
Bridging Contexts
VISIONS. These visions are a special means of revelation to the prophet. God communicated earlier through the use of words in a war oracle (Amos 1:3–2:16) and in woe oracles (5:18–27; 6:1–14), but the visions provide a more stark and realistic view of the tragedy that will happen to the Hebrew people where Amos is prophesying. A vision allows the receiver to imagine the human suffering that will take place when God acts in wrath, to dialogue with God concerning his plans for the future, and to identify with the people who will die.
There is no theological principle that can explain when or why God sometimes chooses to reveal his will at one time in words and in another context through visions. Both methods are equally valid, and one is not superior to the other. The purpose of a vision is to give clear information, not to hide things or confuse the one receiving the vision.
Joel 2:28–32 refers to a future time when many people will see visions and dream dreams, so it is clear that God will reveal his will in this way in the future. While this is not necessarily totally fulfilled in Acts 2, it at least begins to be fulfilled when the Holy Spirit comes on the first members of the church. John’s great vision of the future in Revelation is also a partial fulfillment of what God said through Joel. Since false prophets in the Old Testament also claimed to see visions from God (Jer. 23:9–40), it is always important for people to carefully evaluate any claims (visionary or vocal) of a divine revelation.
The role of intercession. In the midst of this dynamic interaction Amos sets an example to all believers with his intercession for those whom God plans to judge. Intercession involves mediation for the sake of someone else to alleviate a conflict between two parties. Labor disputes sometimes are solved by mediators who intercede and help the parties come to wage or contract agreement. Although people know that a person can often bargain for better benefits at work, at first it seems a little paradoxical to think that someone can get almighty God to listen to human ideas about his plans.
Those who believe in intercession do so because of certain theological attitudes or beliefs about God’s relationship with people. (1) They believe that God hears a person’s prayers on behalf of others and will consider requests made by sincere people. Hezekiah interceded for deliverance of his nation from the destructive hand of the Assyrian king Sennacherib (Isa. 37:14–20): “Give ear, O LORD, and hear . . . [and] listen to all the words [spoken by the evil king] Sennacherib.” The Psalms frequently have such requests as “O LORD, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy” (Ps. 143:1).
In fact, God promises that “if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14). The prophet Isaiah reminded his audience that God’s “ear [is not] too dull to hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isa. 59:1–2). Prayer is a conversation with a God who hears our words and knows our thoughts.7
(2) Those who intercede care deeply about the ones for whom they are praying. Amos prays for God to stop the locusts because the poor farmers will not be able to survive these tragic events (Amos 7:2). Moses cared so much for the Israelites who sinned by worshiping the golden calf that he pleaded with God to “blot me out of the book you have written” (Ex. 32:32). “Such a total commitment . . . is a central feature of his role as mediator and intercessor.”8 The prophet Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, interceded with words like the following:
Since my people are crushed, I am crushed;
I mourn, and horror grips me.
Is there no balm in Gilead?
Is there no physician there?
Why then is there no healing
for the wound of my people?
Oh, that my head were a spring of water
and my eyes a fountain of tears!
I would weep day and night
for the slain of my people. (Jer. 8:21–9:1)
Jesus sets an example with his care for little children (Matt. 19:13), love for his disciples, and concern for their unity after he would leave them (John 17). Paul’s care for his new churches is evident in his intercessory prayers for enlightenment of believers (Eph. 1:18), strength and good theological roots (3:16–17), knowledge of God’s will and spiritual wisdom (Col. 1:9–10), and a worthy walk that glorifies God (2 Thess. 1:11–12). Paul exhorts the church at Ephesus to “be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints” (Eph. 6:18). James encourages people to intercede for the healing of others (James 5:16).
God himself cares about what might happen to these people. His love for his people is evident in 2 Chronicles 7:15–16, where he promises that “my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place . . . my heart will always be there.” According to Romans 8:34, Jesus is “at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (cf. Heb. 7:25), and “the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express” (Rom. 8:26).9
What are we to conclude about people who do not intercede for others? It is hard to make generalizations, but busyness, other priorities, a fatalistic approach to life, a low view of God’s ability to transform a situation, and a lack of compassion may result in no intercession. When someone does not care about what happens to others, that person usually does not take the time to intercede for them. If people are focused on their own desires, they will spend little time to pray for the needs of others.
(3) Those who pray and intercede for others do so because they think that it will make a difference regarding the future. Some prayers focus on changing what people will do (repent and come to God), while others request a different response from God (forgive, heal, or guide). The one praying serves as a mediator to modify the results of a seemingly inevitable outcome.
Samuel, for example, not only promised to teach Saul to do what is right so that he would fear and serve God faithfully with all his heart, but also assured the new king that he would pray for him (1 Sam. 12:22–23). Both the instruction and the prayer were central to modifying Saul’s behavior away from evil and God’s consequent judgment. In a quite different series of events, Nehemiah’s prayers of intercession for his brothers back in the unwalled city of Jerusalem moved him to the place where he was willing to be personally involved with changing the situation in Jerusalem (Neh. 1) and asked the Persian king to give him time off to go to Jerusalem (2:1–10). Later Nehemiah interceded for God to take action against Sanballat, Tobiah, and their associates, who were mocking the meager efforts of those rebuilding the walls (4:1–5).
Does God change his mind or repent? It is not hard to understand how God can influence people to bring changes in their lives, but does prayer just change people? This question is raised by English translations that render the Hebrew verb nḥm (7:3, 6) with words like God “repented” (KJV), “changed his mind” (NASB), or “relented” (NIV). If God is in charge of this world and knows everything about it, does he not carry out his perfect purposes without hesitation or human interference? Since God knows much more than any human being about each situation, it seems that people should leave things in his hands and not try to tell him what should or should not be done in each instance. Even Scripture states that we do not know how to pray as we should and need the Holy Spirit to intercede for us (Rom. 8:26).
If these points are true, then it seems rather presumptuous for any human being to try to get God to “repent” or “change his mind,” and rather contradictory to his nature for him ever to change his mind. Who would presume to put themselves above God and suggest that their way of dealing with a situation is better than God’s way? Although Job initially was confused about God’s action and questioned God’s justice toward himself, his final responses to the divine revelation of wisdom and power was a humble attitude of submission. He admitted he did not know the plans and reasons for God’s actions; God’s ways are too wondrous and marvelous for any person to understand (Job 40:4–5; 42:1–6).
Because it seems illogical for a perfect, all-wise, transcendent God to change, some solve this dilemma by concluding that this is just anthropomorphic and anthropopathic talk about God to help humans refer to the mystery of divine activity. They believe these human descriptions are misleading and inadequate to represent accurately the true nature of God.10
In spite of the theological problems raised by this metaphorical language, clearly God’s people in the Bible and today have repeatedly interceded for others and encouraged him to respond in grace and mercy rather than in wrath and judgment. Prayer to God is based on the view that God has and desires a relationship with people; it is not an obnoxious intrusion that he abhors. Prayers are a continuation of the relationship God has already established with people.
Consequently, some prayers of intercession, such as Exodus 32 (where God wanted to destroy the nation and start over so that the covenant promises would be fulfilled through Moses’ children), discuss the nature of the covenant relationship in which God previously gave his people promises about their future (Gen. 12:1–3). If there appears to be some new initiative in the relationship or if one partner in the relationship does not understand what the other person is doing (God viewed the worship of the golden calf as a rejection of himself and the covenant relationship), questions are asked, requests are presented, and appropriate actions are taken.
Frequently intercession is a request for undeserved mercy from God that goes beyond the normal understanding of the covenant relationship, thus avoiding an immediate execution of God’s justice. Amos’s intercessory cry for forgiveness and the stopping of God’s destruction of Israel (Amos 7:1–6) is a request for God to patiently suspend his just judgment for a time so that his people will have further opportunities to repent of their evil and continue a healthy relationship with God. God is addressed out of human weakness and a need for compassion.
A person could conceive of God as a giant computer that keeps track of the deeds and thoughts of every person in order to automatically and impersonally carry out just commands according to the preset rules designed by the mind of the divine programmer. In this scenario, no one could communicate with the computer and no one could adjust the timing or nature of the computer’s response to human behavior except the programmer himself. Everything would be predetermined by the code inserted into the operating system. This conceptualization of the divine/human setting is nonrelational, impersonal, and, most important, inconsistent with the biblical description of the way God is involved with the world he created.
Part of the problem is our inability to understand how God can know the end from the beginning and still be open to the influence of human prayer. One aspect of the explanation is that God’s plans include the necessity of prayers for things to go as planned. It is also clear from numerous texts that some of God’s plans are given conditionally, based on the behavior of some specific group of people (Deut. 27–28; Jer. 18:1–12).
But even these two facets do not fully explain God’s repentance or changing his mind. Some of the problem here is based on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew verb nḥm. Wolff thinks the term “designates a change of mind prompted by the emotions,”11 while Willis suggests that this metaphor means that God “experienced a reversal or change with respect to some past statement of action.”12
Parunak’s extensive survey of the semantic fields of this root has identified four primary senses of nḥm: (1) comfort, have compassion; (2) suffer emotional pain; (3) relief of emotional tension by performing declared action; and (4) release of emotional tension by detracting a declared action.13 In each case nḥm describes an emotional response (usually a compassionate one) to human behavior—sometimes to establish justice, at other times to show compassion instead of justice. In the process change takes place, but the meaning of this word is not a synonym for change; this word focuses on relieving emotional tension. Thus God’s compassion to Israel in Amos 7:3 and 6 removes the tension of destroying the nation. This picture of God turns the strict, unattached, computer-driven judge into a compassionate and caring covenant partner.
God is not unaware of what will happen, nor is he fooled and surprised by what does happen, but his gift of compassion awaits the intercessor’s request for it. The human intercession is, therefore, essential and effective in moving God to respond compassionately to situations where his emotional distribution of wrath would normally be expected.
Contemporary Significance
PRAYING FOR SINNERS. If Abraham interceded for the few righteous people in the ungodly cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:22–33), if Moses interceded for the sinful Israelites who worshiped the golden calf just a few days after they had seen the glory of God on top of Mount Sinai (Ex. 32), if Amos interceded for the pagan Israelites who worshiped the golden calf at the temple in Bethel (Amos 7:1–6), if Moses interceded for the wicked people of Israel after their rebellion against him (Num. 14:10–25), if Jesus interceded for the Roman soldiers crucifying him (Luke 23:34), and if Paul repeatedly interceded for the Jewish people who were not saved (Rom. 9:1–5; 10:1), it seems only reasonable to conclude that God expects believers to intercede for his mercy on the wicked today. When the church does not pray and ask, it is legitimate to wonder whether God will respond in compassion. When the church does not have time or energy to intercede, it is legitimate to wonder if people still care for others. When the church does not come to God for answers to problems, it is legitimate to wonder if his people still think that this God is interested enough or powerful enough to respond with life-transforming grace. The practical question that must be asked is: When was the last time I followed the examples in Scripture by deeply interceding for an undeserving sinner in this world?
Clearly some believers do pray fervently, consistently, and effectively for the ungodly people of this world (the Billy Graham organization is characterized by this concern), but in the local church I hear many more prayers of intercession for the health needs of the saints than the eternal needs of sinners. It often appears as if the church is more interested in God’s compassion and strength for the physical needs of church members than anything else (play back the tapes of the worship services for the last month to check this out from the pastoral prayers in your church). Why does the church not take more time and put more effort into praying for the condemned people of this world, who do not know God or Jesus as their Savior?
Does the church still realize that God takes no pleasure in the punishment of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23) and that he desires that no one should perish but that all will come to a knowledge of the truth (2 Peter 3:9)? Do Christians not care enough to pray, or is the problem more related to the fact that they have not taken the time to get personally involved with unbelievers? Any single answer would be an overgeneralization, not true of many Christians or churches. But it would not surprise me if we will be asked one day: Who were the sinners you prayed for?
One answer to the problem is for pastors and leaders to set a positive example in their lives and in their public ministry. E. Bradford boldly states that the “judgment is inescapable that the minister who does not pray for those to whom he is called to minister, is indeed, no minister at all. He is proud, conducting his labors as though he can succeed without God’s power. He is cold and lacking in compassion.”14 This sounds good, but do church leaders think of the phrase “those to whom he is called to minister” as including non-Christians?
The “Directory for Worship of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church” states that the duty of the minister is to include “offerings of prayer to the Lord on behalf of the congregation” (6.A.2), for this follows the example of the leaders of the early church, who devoted themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:4). In contrast, John Calvin found that “it was the duty of a prophet, not only to comfort the afflicted by the word of the Lord, but also to offer prayers for their salvation.”15 Paul exhorted the young pastor Timothy that “requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone. . . . God our Savior . . . wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1–4).
Intercession should include prayers for the bad people of our world, the foul-mouthed laborer, the undeserving criminals, and the obsessed molester. Intercessors should plead with God that their neighbors will be saved and not just limit their prayers to the wants of the church. Because of neglect or unbelief, “many have been given up who were still within the reach of grace. There have been many who have been put into the spiritual burial shroud even by Christians, given up to damnation even by ministers. . . . Oh, give up on nobody! Pray still! Lay none out for spiritual dead until they are laid out naturally dead.”16
Prayers of intercession should not be aimed so much at those who want or even deserve a better life but should focus the burden of our hearts on those who deserve eternal damnation under the wrath of God. They have no hope but the intercessory prayers of saints. Perhaps we can stay God’s hand of judgment for a brief time so that there will be additional opportunities to respond to God’s grace.
God and human prayers. Of course, to offer such prayers assumes that intercessory prayer can influence God, that God can choose to be more compassionate and delay the execution of his judgment (cf. Amos 7:3, 6). This raises the ancient and modern question of the “openness of God” to human requests.17 Supporters of an “open God” approach believe that “when we address God in prayer . . . we are entering into a genuine dialogue and . . . the future is not settled.”18 God has intentions or plans, but these “are not ironclad decrees that cannot be changed . . . consequently, God can reformulate his plans, or alter his intentions, in response to developments.”19 This thinking explains the references to God’s repenting of what he had planned to do (e.g., his plans about Nineveh in Jonah 3) or his sorrow over something done earlier that did not work out (e.g., choosing Saul to be king in 1 Sam. 15). These scholars picture a God of feelings, who listens to intercessory petitions, and they criticize those who define the sovereign predestination of God so tightly that real human freedom does not exist and real human-divine interaction is compromised.
This approach does provide a dynamic interplay between the various metaphors of divine activity with humankind, but it has been severely criticized by more traditional theologians because it radically changes most conceptions of God’s immutability, transcendence, and foreknowledge. R. Olson applauds many of the emphases of this new approach but is uncomfortable with the position that “God does not know future free decisions and actions of his creatures.”20 D. Bloesch also has difficulty with this idea but prefers the mystery explanation of all this because he feels there is really no “rationally satisfying answer to this problem.”21
Although this discussion may sometimes seem like an intellectual struggle between classical and open theology, at the heart of its debate is the practical question of the nature of God and how he relates to people. If God only has “present knowledge” and no foreknowledge of what will happen in the future, and if he allows people complete freedom of choice between a variety of options, then his power to control and direct a positive outcome to this world and his ability to answer our prayers is relatively limited. I would argue that the open view of God has overreacted to a Greek philosophical view of the divine and an extreme view of divine sovereignty that makes God into some distant, uncaring, untouchable, and unloving monarch. Few people would identify with this straw man that the “open view of God” rejects.
Classical theology puts together a God who is both a loving Father and the powerful King of the universe. God’s power is not undermined and his foreknowledge is not put in question when he responds to the repentant people of Nineveh (Jonah 3) with compassion. God’s justice is established by judgment if the people do not repent and his justice is established with compassion if the people do repent. God’s character or nature has not changed, his personal relationship to people is maintained, and his power to control the future history of a great empire is not compromised. The Bible never has represented a deistic God wholly unrelated to the world in some sort of abstract transcendent realm. Moreover, it is a myth to suppose that humans are completely free to choose (even sociologists and psychologists know this) and to suppose that God is somehow not in control, but merely reacts to free human decisions.
Nevertheless, this new view of God has given positive emphasis to the existence of real emotions within God’s relationship, to God’s responsiveness to human prayers and actions, and to the existence of human freedom/responsibility to intercede with God for the sake of others. People intercede because God’s power is not limited, because he knows what will happen, and because he has the ability to influence the self-destructive choices people sometimes make. A mother could not pray with much confidence for her drug-obsessed son if she thought that God did not have the power to change her son’s life. A husband could not pray with much confidence about his unfair treatment at work if he believed that the boss was totally free to make his own choices and that God could not influence his decisions.
Human freedom sounds nice and a limited God with less control over us gives us more power, but in this world we need fewer powerful people making sinful choices and a greater demonstration of the divine power to change people’s lives. All prayers of intercession depend on a God who can and does overpower the forces of evil within us, who can powerfully transform us into new creatures in Christ. God has the power to release people from slavery to sin (not the freedom to sin) to become servants of and brothers with Christ.
Having an impact. One final lesson needs to be emphasized. If Christians do practice intercession, if they believe that their prayers can influence the compassion of God, if they believe that God has the power to intervene in the lives of people, then they will find that they themselves can have an impact on the situations they are praying about by simply telling others about their intercession.
True, Amos’s intercession was effective without ever telling anyone about it, and our intercession is also to be practiced in our closets with God. But a powerful impact can be achieved by humbly describing our intercession in a way that focuses on God’s grace. Amos’s retelling of his experience to his audience has the rhetorical effect of identifying the prophet with the audience’s need. An intercessor does not condemn those in need but stands with them to help them avoid punishment. The sharing of a personal experience always has greater persuasive power than mere negative declarations or statements of facts.
Intercessors experience the agony of the potential situation with the sufferers, and consequently their mediation on behalf of the listeners speaks volumes about the care and deep concern of the intercessor. The rhetorical nature of intercessory visions, or any type of intercessory role, enables the message of judgment to be communicated clearly but puts it in a third-person context (God said). This allows the intercessor to take the first-person role (I prayed) on behalf of the listener. Such approaches cause the listener to be more accepting of the intercessor because he or she is not the source of bad news, but of good news.
Set in our day, this means that parents might accomplish more by telling a child that they are praying for them to find good Christian friends, rather than constantly complaining or giving speeches about what they should be doing. A pastor who identifies with his congregation and shares the burdens of his heart for them may gain more acceptance than the one who condemns a congregation. At the same time, no pastor should use such intercession as a mechanism of manipulation, for people can quickly see through the fog of hype.