The only reference in the Hebrew Bible to the prophet Jonah outside of the book bearing his name is in the book of Kings, with a brief mention regarding a prophecy related to the expansion of Israel’s borders during the reign of Jeroboam II.
[Jeroboam II] restored the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher. For the LORD saw that the distress of Israel was very bitter; there was no one left, bond or free, and no one to help Israel. But the LORD had not said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, so he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Joash.
(2 Kings 14:25-27)
We can infer from this account in Kings that some unnamed person, or persons, was claiming that the name of Israel would be eradicated, presumably as a result of the “distress” the nation was suffering (and several scholars read this as evidence of a prophetic word contradicting that of Jonah). This is the same kind of language that is used repeatedly throughout the Hebrew Bible to describe an attack or invasion by a foreign power, and as the Assyrian empire was expanding at this time we can reasonably presume the threat was coming from that direction. Jonah’s message was that rather than being eradicated the nation would actually expand their borders. However, another voice was claiming that Israel would be defeated, and this voice was either loud enough, or authoritative enough, that the writer of Kings felt it was important to mention. The most interesting thing here, at least to me, is that we may possibly be able to identify the source of the contradictory message that Israel would be “blotted out.”
A contemporary of Jonah and Jeroboam II was the prophet Amos (the book bearing his name begins by telling us that he lived “in the days of King Jeroboam son of Joash of Israel” Amos 1:1). Interestingly, Amos prophesied quite specifically that “Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel must go into exile away from his land” (Amos 7:11). Two things are certain by comparing the accounts in Kings and Amos: Jonah prophesied about Jeroboam II’s military success and the prophet Amos prophesied of his defeat. It is true that Israel eventually went into exile, but not during the reign of Jeroboam II. There also is nothing in the historical records to suggest that Jeroboam died “by the sword.” Jonah’s prediction, on the other hand, came true, according to the writer of 2 Kings.
So here we have two biblical prophets making contradictory claims about the success or defeat of the king of Israel. The message of one comes true while the other is proven wrong by history. It might seem extraordinary that the messages of both prophets were preserved, and books bearing both their names – Jonah and Amos – are found together in “the book of the Twelve” (as it is known in the Hebrew Bible, or “the minor prophets” in Christian Bibles). Technically, according to the definition of a “false prophet” in Deuteronomy 18:22, we could argue that Amos was a “failed” prophet as his prediction was not fulfilled.[1] However, the fact that his message was preserved in the Bible suggests that the people who first compiled the Hebrew Bible (or ‘Old Testament’) were less concerned about whether a prophet’s predictions came true or not, and were more concerned about the moral implications of their message, and whether or not they were able to persuade the community to change for the better.
The fact that Amos’s predictions about Jeroboam II and Israel were not fulfilled does not disqualify them from inclusion in the Bible. This suggests to me that books like “the Twelve,” and probably others, were part of a dialogue, with conflicting views and opposing voices, and we should not expect the Bible to present a consistent theme or message. It is more important to understand the conversation, to listen to the different voices, to consider the process and the outcomes, than to try to find a consistent message. There is a lesson here, I think, for those people who believe the Bible is “inerrant,” without error, infallible in every word, and that it contains no contradictions. It seems obvious to me that the people who first preserved all the books of the Bible into a single collection weren’t trying to avoid contradictions, and they weren’t concerned about eliminating or covering up historical inaccuracies. They felt no need to “fix” the mistakes of some of the biblical writers. What was apparently most important to them was to preserve the conversation, no doubt with a view to continuing the dialogue. That’s also why we will be disappointed if we look to the Bible for the answer to all of life’s questions. Rather than providing answers, the Bible preserves the questions and discussions of ancient communities, and sometimes the contradictory ideas that they developed in an effort to explain the issues which faced them. For me, reading the Bible as a record of these conversations makes it much more fascinating, and valuable, than trying to read it as an answer to all life’s questions and being disappointed when I don’t find them.
[1] Deuteronomy 18:22 says: “when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”
מִקְרָא Mikra: Biblical studies 
This is mighty interesting. If I understand it correctly you propose that Amos is an example of a false prophet? I am missing from your quote from Deuteronomy that false prophets even deserve death, but never mind that. From the whole story of Amos I detected a few more indications he might be even worse than just a false prophet. From the opening we get the impression that he is from Judah. From the dialogue with the priest Amaziah we gather that his rant at king Jeroboam is reason enough for him to be suspected as a hostile interloper inciting the people against the king and his temple in Bethel, Amaziah even reports to the king to warn for Amos’ conspiracy against him. Amaziah even tells Amos that he should leave and make his living as a prophet in Judah instead! Than follows the strange remark from Amos that he isn’t a professional prophet but just a regular Joe told by God to prophesy to Israel. Is he telling us now that he is the real thing because he is not a professional who is only in it for the money? And then we have the only positive part of the prophesy at the very end, where the restoration of the people Israel is described. Here the peculiar thing is that he hints at the restoration of the tabernacle of David first and that sounds like a restoration of the house of David over all Israel, but that is only my guess.
Concluding I suspect this piece to be a sort of warning against hostile agitators who pose as prophets to undermine the kingdom of Israel. Just as the prophet Jonah in his piece wasn’t too much of a prophet, almost a parody of a prophet, Amos is too much of a prophet so that might be a parody too. Finally the name Amos almost gives it away, he is definitely not Moses.
I’m pretty sure that you are misreading Amos 7:11. Amos 7:11 is what Amaziah the priest of Bethel is saying ABOUT Amos, it is not what Amos himself is saying. Amos’ words are at 7:17.
I don’t think I’m misreading it at all. Amaziah’s words were not refuted or corrected. Instead, the words directed against Amaziah by Amos in v. 17 which you have quoted reinforce the message that Israel would go into exile, and Amaziah himself would be one of those exiled, “you yourself shall die in an unclean land.” It simply didn’t happen. Amos was wrong.
Why are you saying that these two passages conflict when they clearly don’t have to? Jonah is prophesying that in the reign of Jeroboam he will conquer land. If Jonah prophesied near the beginning of Jeroboam’s rule, his prophesy is fulfilled in that Jeroboam conquered from the entrance of Hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah. But we see in 2 Kings 14:24 that the overview of Jeroboam’s rule is that he did evil in the sight of the LORD. So, after Jonah’s prophesy and fulfillment, Amos prophesies that Israel will be destroyed because of Jeroboam’s wickedness. Also, Amos does NOT say that Jeroboam will die by the sword. Those are the words of Amaziah, who is twisting Amos’s words to get Amos in trouble with Jeroboam (Please read the verses that you put in your articles in context). In Amos 7:9, Amos’s words from the LORD are “Then I will rise up against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.” Amos doesn’t say that Jeroboam will be killed with a sword, but the LORD will come against Jeroboam’s house with the sword, meaning God is bringing judgment. The two prophets are not making contradictory claims.
Finally, your statement that we shouldn’t come to the Bible with life’s questions is completely unfounded. It is the Word of God and it has the answers to everything in life that is important. You are trying to make a contradiction where there isn’t any.
As C.F. Kiel said in the classic Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Minor Prophets: “The fact that in ver .9 Jeroboam is named, and not the house of Jeroboam, makes no difference; for the head of the house is naturally included in the house itself. And the carrying away of the people out of the land was not only implied in the announcement of the devestation of the sanctuaries of the kingdom (ver. 9), which presupposes the conquest of the landby foes; but Amos had actually predicted it in so many words (ch. v. 27). And Amaziah naturally gave the substance of all the prophet’s addresses, instead of simply confining himself to the last. There is no reason, therefore, to think of intentional slander.” (Keil, C.F and F Delizsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Vol. 10, 311-312)
I stand by what I’ve written: Amos predicted the death of Jeroboam by the sword, and that Israel would imminently go into exile. He was right about Israel going into exile, but wrong about the timing. And wrong about the death of Jeroboam.
I think it all depends on the version of bible you read.. according to KJV verse 9 does say the house of Jeroboam. Hence the first reply comment is more accurate
No, it doesn’t depend on the translation. Most (if not all) translations have “house of Jeroboam” in v.9, simply following the unambiguous Hebrew. That is precisely what Keil was addressing in the comment I quoted. I stand by my explanation.