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”.

Samaria and the North are the focus of much of the book, Judah hardly gets off scot-free (cf. 2,4-5, while the whole of Israel is obviously being discussed in 3,1-2, and also in 2,9-13)⁴⁵. Ultimately, it is the mysterious "Booth of David" dywd tks that will be raised when YHWH is reconciled to his purged people (9,11)⁴⁶.

        The interactive role Amos had in the previous visions is not found in the fifth. Other than witness the spectacle, Amos does nothing: he does not speak, either in protest or response. The mediating role of the locusts and fire, and the ensnaring ambiguity of the Kn) and the fruit basket are replaced with the direct order that the temple is to be destroyed. The identity of the one to whom God speaks is not specified, but again the ambiguity seems deliberate. The command may be simply rhetorical, to confront the reader with the violence of God’s judgment by an allusion to the armies which would sweep the kingdom away⁴⁷. The command may be directed at Amos, but some suggest it is impossible that this be the case, as a man could not be expected to do the damage which was ordered. To solve this perceived problem, emendations to the text have been suggested which result in God striking the temple, or at least indicating that he will⁴⁸. Such emendations are quite unjustified, and stem from an overly literalistic reading of the text. The order to strike may be symbolic of the delivery of the word. Andersen and Freedman retain the imperative by seeing the vocative as some unnamed agent, possibly the metaphorical serpent and sword which are commanded in Amos 9,3-4. In any case, for Andersen and Freedman, the matter is of little consequence, as they write, "The command is the deed, and ultimately in the OT the word is itself