AMOS 6:9-10

The whole of Amos 6 constitutes a statement of prophetic judgment against the Northern Kingdom, the house of Israel. In the midst of this denunciation, we come across verses 9-10, which begin with the prediction, “And if ten men remain in one house, they shall die.” It follows this piece of dire news with the pictured scenario: “And when a man's kinsman, he who burns him, shall take him up to bring the bones out of the house, and shall say to him who is in the innermost parts of the house. 'Is there still any one with you?' he shall say, 'No': and he shall say, 'Hush!' We must not mention the name of the LORD.'” (RSV)

These words are filled with difficulties. For one thing, at least according to the NRSV and The Message, they constitute the only bit of prose in the whole of Amos 6, surrounded by poetic passages before and after. However, this should not really pose a problem or prompt us to think that they may have been added by another author since this same stylistic characteristic is found elsewhere in Amos (cf. 3:12; 5:25-27; and 7:12-15). In their commentary on Amos, Andersen and Freedman point out that one scholar has compiled “a long catalog of available rewrites of vv 9-10.”

As to the other problems, they are best handled in the order in which they appear in the text.

Amos 6:9-10

What is the setting of these verses?

J.K. Howard states, “Verses 9, 10 appear to picture some form of pestilence or plague striking a city, perhaps as a result of the warfare around and the conditions that such situations produce. The severity of the situation would be common to plagues of varying forms in the insanitary conditions of the time.” A few other commentators feel that the disaster was the result of a massive earthquake in the area.

Amos 6:9

Why are so many people crammed into one house?

“The reference to 'ten men' and a 'single house' probably has nothing to do with overcrowding during a siege, but rather to the aftermath of decimation...In a particular town, the traditional minimum of ten men (cf. The minyan of Jewish worship), the smallest fighting unit (cf. 5:3), would be all that would remain of the prior population. Of the prior buildings, only a single house would be left standing.” (Stuart)

“The picture of ten refugees in a single house could be explained if they have crowded into a city, perhaps after the defeat of 5:3.” (Andersen and Freedman)

“The wealthy may have used their wealth and influence to keep their sons out of battle in order to avert the tragedies of war.” (G.V. Smith) Therefore they would have been in a house much larger than the ordinary Israelite dwelling.

Other reasons why ten people should be living in a single 'house' include the house referring to the temple at Bethel or a situation in which a squad of soldiers is housed in a government building. (Carroll R)

Do all ten die?

According to the Hebrew text, they all die. However, the Septuagint adds the Greek words that translate something like “but a remnant will be left behind” or “and the remaining ones shall be left,” which Carroll R. feels is a reference to another group of people outside the house.

Keep in mind that “there is widespread agreement that Amos does have a future expectation expressed by means of the remnant idea.” (Hasel) Therefore, we would expect some sort of remnant here also.

Amos 6:10

Carroll R. says, “This verse, which continues the description of widespread death, is notoriously difficult.” The Jerusalem Bible has a footnote for this verse stating that they are following the Greek Septuagint version rather than the unintelligible Hebrew text. And in addition, those translators even suggest, without any manuscript evidence, that our present Hebrew text has been accidentally jumbled in the process of transmission and should be restored to the following order vv. 8, 11, 10, 9. Such a drastic reorganization is only justified in the most unusual cases.

How many people come to get the bodies and who are they?

Regarding this question, we could just listen to Stuart, who says, “The exact identity of those who claim the body...and the survivor hiding in the house are not very important to the message.” But I am not so sure about his comment regarding the survivor (see Conclusion).

The most common understanding is that there is only one person who comes to the house, called the dod, which generally refers to a paternal relative such as an uncle. But then there is a further noun which may either describe the duty of the dod or may indicate a second person altogether. It all hinges on how the Hebrew conjunction between the two nouns is translated. Thus, should it read “dod, that is X” or “dod and X?”

Assuming that there are in fact two people involved, rabbinic tradition took the second label to refer to a maternal uncle to complement the first relative. (Carroll R) This is also Stuart's general understanding.

Perhaps the strangest answer to this question is offered by O'Connell. But I will present it anyway for your consideration. “Based on the ideology that kings were beloved of God, it has been proposed that dod in Amos 6:10 serves as a royal appellative, 'loved one,' referring to the Judean king Josiah, who would come and cremate the remains of deceased Israelites.” He then puts forth the more common explanation that “ it may indicate an unspecified uncle or relative who was responsible for disposing of the remains of his kin.”

Wakely notes a number of attempts to make sense of the Hebrew, with the person who is in charge either being the cremator, a close relative, one who puts aromatic spices on the bodies to cover the smell, or even one who burns spices in honor of the dead.

Why are they bringing the bones of the dead out if they haven't yet cremated them?

This question is only an issue for those who read v. 10 in the KJV. Most other translations make it clear that the literal rendering “bones” in this verse refers to the whole body or remains of the dead. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery explains: “As the last part of the human body to decay, the bones enshrined and preserved the essence of an individual. The bones are the remains and symbolize the fate of the individual.”

Why are they burning the bodies?

Keep in mind, “Cremation was not a Hebrew practice, but in extreme circumstances..a corpse might be buried and the remains later buried in the ancestral tomb (I Sam 31:12-13; cf. Amos 6:10).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

“Burning instead of the usual interment may have been necessary to prevent the spread of a plague which had killed them.” (Wakely)

But even if there were no plague, in view of the multiple deaths, Carroll R explains: “The decomposition of bodies was a danger. There was no time to bury the dead suitably. In fulfillment of familial duties, the kinsman has come to take care of his dead relatives, but all he can do is take them out to burn them.”

Who is the person in the innermost part of the house?

Carroll R asks, “Is it a lone survivor of the catastrophe or someone from outside sent to look for more corpses?” He personally opts for the latter explanation.

However, Andersen and Freedman state that “someone else in the house may suggest that there is just one survivor, cowering in the innermost recesses of the house.” For more on this possibility, see the Conclusion below.

What question is asked of him?

Smith points out that the literal translation of the Hebrew question can be rendered as “Is anyone still with you?” This is a way of expressing: “Is anyone alive?”

But Stuart, feeling that it definitely is directed to a lone survivor in the house, translates it as: “Is anyone else still with you?”

What does he answer?

The answer, of course, depends on how we phrase the question and to whom it is put. Andersen and Freedman explain, “the man in the back answers 'No! Nothing!' – no one or nothing.” Of course, it would make no sense for the relative to shout into the house “Is anyone alive?” and then have a hidden survivor answer him, “No.” That ridiculous option reminds me of a scene in my favorite rom-com (not that I have many) “While You Were Sleeping.” A likeable but not too bright man has been fixated on Sandra Bullock, and so when he knocks on her door, and asks “Is anyone home?,” she answers “No!. Go away!” After a few seconds to think it over, the man says, “Oh, I know that old trick. You can't fool me.”

Who makes the comment about the LORD's name?

Motyer feels that it is the one coming to bury the dead. He stops the mouth of the speaker inside the house “before the negative reply can bring some reaction of exasperation or of piteousness involving God's name.” Carrol R agrees with this assessment.

But that is not the only opinion since Andersen and Freedman state, “It is not clear who is speaking, the kinsman or the lone survivor. Neither is it clear whether the following words, literally, 'for not to memorialize [the dead] in the name of Yahweh,' are spoken by the person who says has! [“hush!”] or whether it is an explanation supplied by the editor.”

What does he mean by it?

“As the few survivors went about the task of burying the dead, they would be careful not to mention the Lord's name, for fear that it might prompt another outburst of divine anger.” (Chisholm)

“Whole households would thus perish in the disaster and in these circumstances they must not mention the name of the LORD..., in case the mention of the Divine Name would bring again the terrible curse that the LORD's appearance had already brought upon them.” (Howard)

“'Hush!' or 'Silence!'...in some other contexts is associated with the imminent arrival of Yahweh (Hab 2:20; Zech 2:17; and esp. Zeph 1:7 in which silence at the arrival of the Day of Yahweh is enjoined)...Since the speaker already uses Yahweh's name, the issue cannot be prohibition of mere oral formulation, but must concern calling on Yahweh in prayers of lamentation or the like. Yahweh will have become foe, not friend.” (Stuart)

“When one says to the other that it is no longer possible to pray, he means that all are dead, and it will no longer do any good to invoke God for mercy and deliverance.” (G.V. Smith)

Motyer feels that “the sense of alienation from God is too great. The day is long past when His name may be used either lightly or seriously. God has departed from His people.”

Alternatively, Carroll R comments that “it might reflect the national ideology that Amos critiques. Instead of fear, superstition, or a sense of remorseful despair, the attitude could be one of anger: 'How could Yahweh have done this to us! He has betrayed us by turning against us! We refuse to call on him or trust him again.'”

My Personal Opinion

I will conclude with one minor “insight” I can bring to the table. Amos has a certain penchant for using numbers in a figurative way to achieve a rhetorical purpose. For example, we have chapters 1-2 with their repeated litany: “For three transgressions and for four.” And then in Amos 5:3 we read, “The city that went forth a thousand shall have a hundred left and that which went forth a hundred shall have ten left to the house of Israel.” In other words, there is a literal “decimation” of the troops.

In the comments collected above, you may have noted that twice commentators referenced Amos 5:3 in their explanations of 6:9-10. I think that this is the clue to answering at least some of the questions posed above.

We can consider that the numerical series 1,000:100:10 begun in Amos 5:3 is finally completed in 6:9 with the statement: “And if ten men remain in one house, they shall die.” The only problem is that mathematically we would have expected that one would remain at that point rather than none. But as noted in the comments on 6:9, it is possible to amend that statement as in the Septuagint to express the fact that a remnant will survive. As to the identity of the sole survivor, he then becomes the man hiding in the house. And since the decimation begun in 5:3 seems to involve soldiers, then the ten hiding there probably represent the only remaining squad in the army, who are being housed in some government building as a sort of temporary barracks. So we now have the whole story of an army of 1,000 being reduced to a single man by successive removals of 90% each.