The suffix in מֵעַל אַדְמָתוֹ (me'al ʾadmatô, “from upon his land”) most naturally refers to Israel, not to Jeroboam. Israel is the subject of the immediately preceding clause, and the masculine singular suffix accords with ישראל (yiśrāʾēl), a grammatically singular proper name representing the northern kingdom corporately. The statement therefore depicts the nation’s removal from the land that belongs to it as its inherited homeland. The idiom “go into exile from upon his land” expresses forcible displacement from the land, rather than a mere migration beyond its borders. The construction גָּלֹה יִגְלֶה (gālôh yigleh), a Qal infinitive absolute followed by a Qal imperfect of גלה (gālah), intensifies the assertion: Israel will certainly go into exile. Although Jeroboam is named in the preceding, coordinated prediction, the land is not thereby identified as his personal possession. Amaziah’s report joins the announced fall of the royal house to the threatened deportation of the kingdom, preserving the broad force of Amos’s message that covenant judgment would reach both dynasty and people. The land language also fits Amos’s wider presentation of exile as the reversal of Israel’s secure occupation of the land under the Lord’s judgment.

The fire is a conventional prophetic image of Yahweh’s judicial visitation, yet the image envisages concrete historical devastation, including the destruction of royal residences and fortifications. The first-person verb, wĕšillaḥtî, “I will send,” is a Piel form that presents Yahweh himself as the effective agent of Damascus’s downfall. Fire is then personified as the instrument of that judgment: wĕʾākĕlâ, “and it will devour,” is feminine singular, agreeing with ʾēš, “fire.” The verb ʾāḵal, ordinarily “to eat,” regularly describes fire’s consuming action and conveys total ruin rather than a limited punitive stroke. The expression “in the house of Hazael” employs the royal-house terminology that can encompass both the ruler’s physical establishment and his dynastic regime. Its parallel object, “the palaces of Ben-hadad,” specifies the visible centers of royal power that fire will consume. Thus the oracle does not require an exclusively figurative reading in which fire means only war, nor does it predict a detached supernatural conflagration. In the prophetic idiom, Yahweh sends fire through the historical means by which a city is conquered, plundered, and burned. The later Assyrian capture of Damascus in 732 BC provides the broad historical pattern anticipated by the judgment, while the oracle attributes the event decisively to the covenant Lord’s sentence against Aram’s violence toward Gilead (Amos 1:3).

The participle מֵעִיק (mēʿîq), a Hiphil masculine singular participle from עוק (ʿûq), presents the LORD's judicial pressure as an action already set in motion and therefore certain, rather than as a remote possibility. Although English versions often render it with a future, “I will press” or “I am about to press,” the Hebrew participle following אָנֹכִי (ʾānōkî, “I”) most directly has a present or durative force: “Behold, I am pressing down beneath you.” In prophetic announcement, such a present expression can describe the impending judgment as so assured that it is spoken of as presently operative. The following comparison confirms this force. The feminine imperfect תָּעִיק (tāʿîq) describes what a heavily laden cart characteristically does: it presses down under its load. The LORD's action is likened to that crushing pressure, while verses 14-16 unfold its concrete consequences in the collapse of Israel's military and human resources. Thus verse 13 stands at the transition from the catalogue of Israel's covenant violations in verses 6-12 to the sentence of judgment in verses 14-16. The participial form does not soften the threat into a general warning; it declares that the divine response to Israel's persistent rebellion has reached the point of irreversible execution.

Amaziah’s statement that “the land is not able to contain all his words” is a rhetorical claim that Amos’s prophecy has become politically and socially intolerable throughout Israel. The noun אֶרֶץ (ʾereṣ, “land”) denotes the kingdom or its inhabited territory, including its people and ordered life, rather than the physical soil as though speech could exceed its spatial capacity. The expression employs the Hiphil infinitive לְהָכִיל (lehākîl, “to contain, sustain, endure”) with the feminine singular imperfect תוּכַל (tûkal), “is not able,” to portray Amos’s words as an unbearable force within the nation. The immediate context defines the supposed burden of those words. Amaziah will summarize Amos as predicting Jeroboam’s death by the sword and Israel’s exile (v. 11), conclusions drawn particularly from 7:9 and 7:17. Such announcements threaten the ideological foundations of Jeroboam’s prosperous northern kingdom, including the royal sanctuary at Bethel where Amaziah serves. “All his words” therefore does not mean that Amos has delivered an excessive number of speeches; it refers comprehensively to the prophetic message whose announced judgment reaches king, cult, and nation. The language is deliberately inflated for a royal report. Amaziah presents the prophet’s preaching as a national crisis requiring intervention, thereby preparing for his subsequent demand that Amos leave Bethel (vv. 12-13). Yet the narrative does not ratify Amaziah’s assessment as an objective measure of Amos’s influence. It exposes the priest’s inability to tolerate the word of the Lord in the very sanctuary that claims to represent Israel’s worship. The land will indeed experience the consequences Amos proclaims, but its inability to “contain” the words is, in Amaziah’s mouth, an attempt to suppress a judgment message that the covenant people refuse to hear.

Amos 9:10 specifies the class within Israel that will perish and therefore qualifies the preceding assurance that the house of Jacob will not be wholly destroyed (9:8). The expression “all the sinners of my people” (kol chatta'e 'ammi) does not designate every ethnic Israelite without distinction, but all those among God’s covenant people whose settled identity is marked by sin. The construct phrase chatta'e 'ammi identifies them as sinners belonging to “my people,” a designation that heightens rather than diminishes their accountability. Their death “by the sword” describes the historical form of divine judgment, fulfilled through the violent overthrow that Amos has repeatedly announced. Verse 9 has already established the distinction: Israel will be shaken among the nations as grain is sifted, yet no genuine “pebble,” that is, no member of the preserved people, will fall to the ground. Verse 10 then identifies those who do fall under judgment: the complacent sinners who deny that the announced ra'ah, calamity, can overtake them. Their claim, “It will not approach or confront us,” is not a denial of evil in the abstract but a repudiation of Amos’s prophetic warning and of the Lord’s capacity to execute covenant judgment. Thus the remnant promise does not weaken the universality of the sentence against the impenitent; every presumptuous sinner within Israel faces the sword, while the Lord preserves the people whom he purposes to restore (9:11-15).

The phrase naḥal ʾêtān denotes a stream characterized by enduring strength and reliable flow, although the imagery retains the force of a torrent rather than suggesting a placid brook. Naḥal commonly refers to a wadi or ravine that may carry seasonal floodwaters, while ʾêtān signifies what is enduring, firm, strong, or perennial. In Deuteronomy 21:4, a naḥal ʾêtān is a valley with running water, suitable precisely because it is not a dry, cultivated channel. Thus “ever-flowing stream” rightly brings out the contrast with an intermittent wadi, though “mighty stream” also represents an important aspect of the expression. Amos therefore calls for mishpaṭ, the concrete administration of justice, and tsedaqah, covenantally right conduct, to be as constant and unconstrained as a permanently flowing watercourse. The preceding condemnation of sacrificial assemblies and songs establishes the contrast: Israel’s religious activity was abundant, but justice in its communal life was absent or obstructed. The paired water images intensify the point. Justice is to “roll” or surge forward like waters, and righteousness is to continue like a stream whose supply does not fail. The metaphor includes both regularity and force: righteousness is neither an occasional act prompted by a festival nor a weak private sentiment, but the sustained public reality that accords with the covenant character of the Lord.

“Beds of ivory” denotes luxury couches ornamented with ivory, rather than beds constructed wholly from ivory. The expression miṭṭôt šēn (“beds of tooth”) employs šēn, literally “tooth,” as the customary Hebrew designation for elephant ivory. Since ivory was a scarce imported material, it was ordinarily cut into plaques and inlays for wooden furniture and architectural decoration. The construct phrase therefore identifies beds distinguished by their ivory adornment, furnishings belonging to households of exceptional wealth. The image coheres with Amos’s earlier announcement that the Lord will strike the “houses of ivory” (Amos 3:15), a phrase that similarly refers to residences lavishly decorated with ivory. Israel’s monarchy had long associated ivory with royal splendor, as the references to Solomon’s ivory throne and Ahab’s ivory house indicate (1 Kings 10:18; 22:39). Amos’s objection is not directed against craftsmanship as such, but against the complacent elite whose imported luxury and abundant feasting stand in deliberate contrast to the approaching ruin of Joseph (Amos 6:1, 6). The participles, “lying,” “sprawling,” and “eating,” portray settled and continuing indulgence: those responsible for the nation’s life treat their security and abundance as permanent while covenant judgment is already being proclaimed.

The lion's roar functions as a figure for the LORD's announced judgment, though the parallel does not require a crude identification of God with an animal. In the immediate sequence Amos has developed a chain of inescapable cause and effect: a lion does not roar without prey (3:4), a trumpet summons fear in a city (3:6), and calamity comes under the LORD's judicial sovereignty (3:6). The perfect שָׁאָג (shaʾag, "has roared") presents the roar as an accomplished signal whose consequence follows inevitably: "who will not fear?" The corresponding perfect, דִּבֶּר (dibber, "has spoken"), similarly introduces the divine word as an event that necessarily produces its appointed result. This imagery recalls Amos 1:2, where "the LORD roars from Zion," a programmatic declaration that his voice proceeds in judgment against the nations and against Israel. The lion of 3:8 therefore draws upon an established Amosian image of Yahweh's fearsome judicial approach. At the same time, the comparison retains its rhetorical shape: just as the roar produces fear among those within its reach, the speech of אדני יהוה (ʾădōnāy YHWH, "the Lord GOD") produces prophecy in the prophet. The first colon concerns the proper response of those confronted by divine judgment; the second concerns the compelled public announcement of that judgment. Amos thereby grounds his prophetic proclamation in the sovereign speech of the covenant Lord, rather than in private initiative or political calculation.

The “grass of the land” (ʿēśeb hāʾāreṣ) denotes the remaining green growth on which the agricultural life of Israel depended after the king’s share had already been taken. In the preceding verse the locusts appear “at the beginning of the latter growth, after the king’s mowings” (7:1). The phrase in v. 2 therefore does not portray a minor loss of pasture alone. It depicts the consumption of the second and necessary growth, the produce left to the population after the royal mowing. Whether the king’s mowings refer specifically to a royal levy, fodder for royal animals, or the ruler’s customary claim upon the first cutting, the narrative point is the same: the locusts threaten what remains for the people’s survival. The verb kālâ in the Piel perfect, “he had finished” or “he completed,” followed by the infinitive lēʾĕkōl, “to eat,” presents the devastation as total within the vision. Amos speaks at the point when the swarm has consumed the vegetation of “the land” (hāʾāreṣ), a term that in this setting refers principally to the land of Israel, especially the northern kingdom addressed throughout Amos. The prophet’s appeal arises from the economic and demographic consequences of such a calamity. Jacob is “small” (qāṭōn), not necessarily numerically insignificant in an absolute sense, but frail and incapable of recovering from the loss of its remaining sustenance. The reference to the royal mowing heightens the irony: the structures that ordinarily secure the kingdom have already drawn upon its resources, leaving Jacob exposed when divine judgment reaches the latter growth.

The Hiphil of בוא (boʾ), וְהֵבֵאתִי (wehebeʾti, “I will cause to come”), is best rendered here, “I will make the sun go down at noon.” Though the basic sense of the root is “come” or “enter,” Hebrew uses it of the sun’s setting, that is, its entering beyond the horizon. The phrase therefore depicts an untimely sunset: at the very hour when the sun should stand at its height, the LORD will cause its light to disappear. The following clause, “I will darken the land in a day of light,” interprets the first and intensifies the reversal. The language is a judicial declaration of divine sovereignty over the created order. Israel’s coming calamity will overturn the normal conditions of life as decisively as daylight turned into darkness. The expression coheres with prophetic descriptions of the day of the LORD, in which cosmic disorder signifies the exposure and punishment of human rebellion. Amos 8:10 immediately explains the historical force of the image by turning from darkness to mourning, sackcloth, baldness, and lamentation for an only son. The premature setting of the sun thus portrays the abrupt extinguishing of Israel’s prosperity and security under the judgment announced against its covenant unfaithfulness. The two first-person Hiphil perfects, “I will make the sun go down” and “I will darken,” are future in force within the prophetic announcement introduced by “on that day.” They attribute the event directly to the Lord GOD rather than to impersonal fate or merely political circumstance. The wording does not require the reader to identify a particular astronomical mechanism; its central claim is that the coming national catastrophe is the LORD’s act of judgment, represented through the comprehensive reversal of noon into night.

Harmonah is best retained as an otherwise unidentified destination of judgment, rather than replaced with the Septuagint’s “mountain of Rimmon.” The form הַהַרְמוֹנָה (haharmonah) is most naturally a place-name with a directional ending, indicating removal “to” or “toward Harmonah.” In the immediate context, the well-protected women of Samaria will not depart through city gates in honor but through breaches in the ruined wall, and their final casting away points to captivity and ignominious expulsion. The Septuagint reads “the mountain of Rimmon,” apparently reflecting a Hebrew text or interpretation different from the received consonantal tradition. That rendering has prompted proposals that the Masoretic Text originally referred to a known sanctuary, mountain, or northern destination. Yet no proposed reconstruction accounts for all the details with sufficient certainty to displace the Masoretic reading. The name Harmonah itself has not been securely identified geographically, and Amos does not require that it be. Its rhetorical function is clear: Yahweh’s oath against the complacent oppressors of Samaria culminates in their forcible removal to a place of disgrace and exile. The obscurity of the destination heightens rather than diminishes the certainty of the announced judgment, sealed by the concluding נאם־יהוה (neʾum YHWH), “declaration of the LORD.”

The ʾădōnāy who stands by the wall in verse 7 is YHWH himself, not a distinct angelic or intermediary figure. Verse 8 removes any possible ambiguity by identifying the speaker as YHWH: “And YHWH said to me, ‘What do you see, Amos?’” The vision thus presents the Lord both as the one visibly stationed beside the wall and as the one who interprets the symbolic object to the prophet. The form אֲדֹנָי (ʾădōnāy) is traditionally rendered “my Lord,” since it is morphologically related to the noun ʾādôn, “lord,” with a first-person singular suffix. When employed as the divine title, however, it functions as a reverential designation for God and does not chiefly assert Amos’s individual possession of God as “his” Lord. English versions commonly render it simply “the Lord” for this reason. Its use coheres with the preceding visions, where Amos addresses “Lord YHWH” (7:2, 5). Here the title, followed by the singular Niphal participle נִצָּב (niṣṣāb, “standing” or “stationed”), depicts YHWH as personally present to assess Israel. The subsequent use of the covenant name YHWH in verse 8 identifies this assessing Lord as the God who bound himself to Israel, making the announced judgment covenantal rather than impersonal.

Amos 9:5 deliberately recalls Amos 8:8, thereby identifying the upheaval announced earlier with the divine judgment depicted in the closing vision. Both verses speak of all the inhabitants mourning, of the land rising "like the Nile" in its entirety, and of its sinking like the Nile of Egypt. The repetition binds the book's judgment oracles together: the catastrophe is not an isolated threat but the certain outworking of the Lord's sentence against Israel's covenantal corruption. The revision in 9:5 is decisive. Amos 8:8 begins with a rhetorical question concerning whether the land will quake or be shaken (ragaz), whereas 9:5 names its efficient cause: "the Lord YHWH of hosts" is the one "touching" the land (hannogeaʿ baʾarets, Qal active participle of nagaʿ). The participle portrays this action as characteristic of the divine sovereign whose presence is already operative in the vision of 9:1. His touch causes the land to melt (tamug, from mug), a verb denoting dissolution or collapse under overwhelming divine power. The language does not make the land an independent agent of disaster; its convulsion follows from the Creator and commander of the hosts. Amos 9:5 also makes the final movement more compact than 8:8: the land rises and sinks, like the annual swelling and recession of Egypt's Nile. The comparison supplies an image of total, uncontrollable instability, while the preceding divine title prevents the image from being reduced to a natural cycle. What had been stated in Amos 8 as an impending shaking is restated at the book's climax as the effect of YHWH's judicial presence, from whom neither height, depth, sea, nor exile can provide escape (9:2-4).

The “covenant of brothers” (berit ʾaḥim) most naturally denotes a formal bond of political friendship between Tyre and Israel or Judah, rather than a claim that the Phoenicians and Israelites shared literal ancestry. The plural ʾaḥim, “brothers,” can characterize parties joined in parity and loyal alliance. Tyre’s offense is therefore aggravated: having stood in a recognized treaty relationship with Israel, she delivered an entire deported population to Edom. The expression coheres with the older relationship between the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom and Tyre. Hiram of Tyre entered a peaceful, mutually beneficial arrangement with David and Solomon, and 1 Kings 5:12 explicitly says that Solomon and Hiram “made a covenant” (berit) with one another. Amos need not imply that this precise Solomonic treaty remained legally continuous in every detail; rather, the established history of fraternal alliance between the two peoples supplies the moral and diplomatic background for the charge. Tyre violated obligations that her own prior relations with Israel had created. The phrase also distinguishes Tyre’s guilt from Edom’s in the following oracle. Edom is condemned as Israel’s brother by descent from Esau and Jacob, whereas Tyre is described as a brother by covenant. Yet both nations betrayed a relationship that should have restrained hostility toward Israel. The Qal perfect zakru, “they remembered,” negated by loʾ, presents Tyre’s failure as culpable disregard: in handing captives over to Edom, the city acted contrary to a covenantal loyalty it was bound to preserve.

“Your strength” denotes the power and security on which Israel, particularly Samaria and its ruling houses, relied; it includes military defenses but is not restricted to literal fortifications. The noun עֹז (ʿōz) ordinarily signifies strength, might, or security. In this setting its meaning is clarified by the announced enemy, the reference to the land, and the ensuing plundering of palaces. The adversary will strip away Israel’s capacity to resist and preserve its privileged centers of power. The verb וְהוֹרִיד (wehorîd), a Hiphil form of ירד (yārad, “to go down”), means that the enemy will cause Israel’s strength to be brought down or removed. The preposition מִן (“from”) intensifies the thought of dispossession: the power formerly belonging to the nation will be taken away. Some translations render ʿōz as “strongholds,” because the following reference to palaces and the military context permit an architectural nuance. Yet the word itself is broader than “fortress,” and the judgment encompasses the collapse of the political, military, and economic security concentrated in the palatial estates. The palaces are then “plundered” (נָבֹזּוּ, nābōzzû, Niphal), showing that the fall of Israel’s strength issues in the seizure of the wealth amassed by those who had practiced violence and oppression (3:9–10).

The vineyards extend the announced mourning from the public sphere into the places of agricultural prosperity and festal enjoyment. In the preceding description, wailing fills the squares, streets, and fields (5:16); here it reaches “all the vineyards” (bĕkol-kĕrāmîm). The construct noun kol, “all,” with the plural kĕrāmîm, portrays judgment as comprehensive: no productive district or estate lies outside the devastation signified by lamentation (mispēd). Vineyards held particular economic and symbolic significance in Israel. They represented settled possession, patient cultivation, and the wine associated with harvest celebration. Amos has already declared that those who planted desirable vineyards would not drink their wine (5:11). Thus 5:17 does not introduce a random rural location; it completes the judgment oracle by showing that the very places expected to yield security and joy become settings for funeral lament. The language also recalls covenantal curse patterns in which labor in vineyards fails to produce the expected enjoyment of their fruit (Deut 28:39). The reason clause, “for I will pass through your midst,” identifies this transformation as the LORD’s direct judicial visitation rather than an impersonal agricultural disaster. The first-person Qal imperfect ʾeʿĕbōr, “I will pass through,” presents the coming act as certain and imminent. The singular suffix in bĕqirbekā, “in your midst,” addresses Israel collectively as a single covenant people. Their vineyards, like their cities and fields, stand within the sphere of the LORD’s judgment.

The masculine singular imperfect יִצְלַח (yitslaḥ, from ṣālaḥ) most naturally has the LORD as its implied subject: “Seek the LORD and live, lest he break out like fire against the house of Joseph.” The verb can denote advancing, breaking forth, or rushing upon a target; in this threatening context it conveys the irresistible outbreak of divine judgment rather than ordinary success or prosperity. The immediately preceding imperative to seek the LORD supplies the antecedent, and the warning thus presents refusal to seek him as exposure to his judicial visitation. The grammar distinguishes the LORD from the fire image. אֵשׁ (ʾēš, “fire”) is feminine, whereas יִצְלַח is masculine singular and therefore does not naturally take “fire” as its subject. The following וְאָכְלָה (weʾākelâ), a feminine singular sequential perfect from ʾākhal, does take fire as its subject: the fire that images the LORD's outbreak will consume. “House of Joseph” denotes the northern kingdom, whose dominant tribes were Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph's sons. Bethel, its chief royal sanctuary, is named as the place for which no “quencher” will be found. This syntax accords with Amos 5:4-5, where life is attached to seeking the LORD, while Bethel is specifically rejected as a source of security. The judgment is therefore personal and covenantal: the LORD himself comes against Israel, and the fire metaphor describes the consuming and unquenchable character of that visitation. The shift from the “house of Joseph” to Bethel does not make the sanctuary the sole object of judgment; it identifies the cultic center that had become emblematic of the northern kingdom's apostasy and false confidence.

The command to be silent expresses terrified recognition that the calamity consuming the house is the LORD’s judgment, not a disaster that can be met by ordinary lament or invocation. The imperative הָס (has), a Piel imperative from הסס, means “be silent” or “hush.” It is followed by כִּי לֹא לְהַזְכִּיר בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה, literally, “for [there is] no mentioning by the name of the LORD.” The Hiphil infinitive לְהַזְכִּיר (lehazkir, “to cause to be remembered, mention”) commonly concerns the vocal invocation or memorializing of a name. Here it forbids speaking the divine name in the midst of the visitation. The immediate scene explains the injunction. A man who has entered the inner part of the house asks whether any survivor remains; the answer, אֶפֶס (ʾepes), means “none” or “no one.” With the household extinguished and its dead being removed, the speaker abruptly suppresses further speech about the LORD. This does not imply that Amos himself regards the divine name as dangerous in a magical sense, nor that prayer is intrinsically forbidden. Rather, the survivors fear that calling upon the LORD might draw further attention from the Judge whose hand has already fallen upon them. Such fearful silence is the dark reversal of Amos’s earlier summons to seek the LORD and live (5:4, 6, 14). Those who refused that summons now stand before a judgment so manifest and final that even invocation has given way to dread. Some have understood the words chiefly as a prohibition of funeral lament that names the LORD, perhaps because public lament might sound like complaint against him. The grammar, however, is broader than a ban on lamentation, and the setting emphasizes terror before divine wrath rather than a particular burial custom. The silence signifies acknowledgment, however unwilling, that the destruction originates with the covenant God whom Israel had presumed upon while disregarding his righteousness.

Amos’s altered petition reflects the intensified character of the second vision. In 7:2 he pleads, “Forgive” (sĕlaḥ-nāʾ), a request that directly addresses Israel’s guilt. In 7:5 he instead says, “Cease, please” (ḥădal-nāʾ), using the Qal imperative of ḥādal, “to cease” or “to desist.” The prophet asks that the destructive action itself be halted. The vision of fire has already consumed “the great deep” and is consuming the land (7:4), imagery more comprehensive and irreversible in appearance than the devastation by locusts in 7:1-3. Amos therefore does not deny Jacob’s sin or seek to argue its innocence; he appeals for the suspension of a judgment that would leave the covenant people unable to stand. The change does not imply that forgiveness has become impossible, nor does it divide divine mercy from the restraint of judgment. In biblical usage, God’s cessation of announced calamity is itself a merciful response, and verse 6 reports that the LORD relented concerning this judgment as he had concerning the first. The repeated rationale, “How shall Jacob stand? For he is small,” identifies Israel as weak and incapable of enduring the threatened visitation. “Jacob” evokes the covenant people in their ancestral identity, while “small” (qāṭōn) denotes their diminished and vulnerable condition before the divine Judge. Amos’s intercession thus rests on the recognition that, if the vision reaches its depicted completion, Jacob has no capacity to recover by its own strength.

The masculine singular imperative הָבִיאָה (habi'ah), Hiphil imperative masculine singular of בוא (bo', “to cause to come, bring”), is best understood distributively: each woman addresses her own male household superior with the demand, “Bring [it].” The plural participle אֹמְרוֹת (ʾomerot, “saying”) gathers the women as a class, while the singular command represents the repeated speech of each one within her own household. The plural לַאֲדֹנֵיהֶם (laʾadonehem, “to their lords”) correspondingly refers to the several men to whom the several women speak. The final ה in habi'ah is paragogic, an archaic or stylistic imperative ending, and does not alter the masculine singular form or supply a feminine addressee. The object is left unstated, but the ensuing reference to drinking makes wine or another intoxicating drink the natural implication. וְנִשְׁתֶּה (wenishteh), Qal imperfect first common plural of שתה (shatah, “to drink”), follows the imperative and carries a volitive sense in the quotation. “Bring, and let us drink” adequately conveys the force, though “bring, that we may drink” brings out the purposive relation often expressed by an imperative followed by waw plus imperfect. The plural “we” need not include the men addressed; it is the women’s collective voice, whether of a household group or of the privileged women of Samaria considered together. The compressed demand exposes the moral order that Amos condemns: the oppression of the poor and crushing of the needy are presented as the means by which luxurious drinking is sustained.