James R. Linville, «Visions and Voices: Amos 7–9», Vol. 80 (1999) 22-42

The final chapters of Amos are read synchronically to highlight the relationship between the divine voice, which demands that its hearers prophesy (Amos 3,8), the voice of Amos, and those of other characters. Amos’ intercessions soon give way to entrapping word-plays and these are related to the rhetorical “traps” in Amos 1–2. Divine and prophetic speech defy the wish of human authority that they be silent. The figure of Amos eventually disappears from the reader’s view, but not before the prophet has been used as a focal point for the readers’ projections of themselves into the literary world of the text. As the scenes change from ultimate destruction to restoration, the readers appropriate the prophetic voice themselves, especially in the final verse which ends with a declaration of security uttered by “your God”.

which followed the "king’s mowing", the one which was apparently meant for the people (v.1)¹⁶. In the second vision, one’s attention is similarly directed to YHWH’s calling for a judgment by cosmic fire (v. 4)¹⁷. The active solicitation of the reader’s imagination is matched by Amos’ own reactions. In the first case he exclaims "My Lord YHWH, forgive! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!"(7,2)¹⁸. God does relent. In v. 3 one reads, "God repented concerning this, ‘It shall not be’, said YHWH".

        In the second vision, Amos largely repeats the formula, but calls for God to "cease" ldx rather than forgive xls (7,5). While both have the same result, there is a qualitative difference. The locusts of the first vision are something fearful, but still worldly, familiar, and something which perhaps can be accommodated by an understanding of sin and punishment. But the cosmic fire which follows is beyond experience; an end of creation, which elicits the more primal response from Amos. God’s responses also differ subtly. "It shall not be" becomes, "This also shall not be" (7,6). Lyle Eslinger points out that this emphasizes God’s magnanimity, especially since the second vision is more terrible than the first, and yet it implies that this magnanimity will have its limits as well¹⁹.