These prophecies are held together firmly by the same basic format employed in each. The theological import of this section, which ostensibly deals with the pagan nations, is to actually cast the light squarely on Israel's wrongdoings. The literary form serves to accomplish this in several ways.
“Thus says the LORD: 'For three transgressions of [name of country], and for four, I will not revoke the punishment.'”
This common opening formula “for three transgressions...and for four” creates an emotional intensity and climax associated with Yahweh reaching the end of his patience with the nations. (J.R. Davis)
Hicks says, “The expression for three transgressions...and for four indicates 'more than enough' (Job 33:14; Pr. 30.18).”
And the Jerusalem Bible notes: “These two numbers together indicate an indefinite quantity (small or large according to the context).” As additional examples of this literary device, Isaiah 17:6; Amos 4:8; and Jeremiah 36:23 are cited.
This opening formula is repeated exactly eight times. “There is no change whatever. What that means is that while the poet-prophet was free to vary from any repeated pattern, he was also free to stick with it without variation.” (Freedman)
McKenna feels that this familiar “x, x=1” formula indicates the nations had sinned “enough and more than enough” to call forth God’s wrath. Although there is no particular significance to the numbers 3 and 4 in this context, their usage prepares us subconsciously for a listing of seven nations in the series, when in fact there will be 7 + 1 with the last being the prophet’s major target: Israel herself. The opening formula “suggests a pattern of cumulation and surfeit in accordance with which Israel, in the larger scheme of the whole oration, is the supernumerary term,” to quote Marks.
Finally, Motyer states, “The numerical feature...probably signified that the measure of guiltiness is more than full...It also reveals the patience of God, who neither acts in haste or without cause, even delaying beyond the point where action was well justified.”
“because they/he...”
Next the reason(s) for God's judgment on the nation is given. The number of such transgressions varies from one to four, depending on the nation involved and whether one groups some sins together as the same particular type of transgression. But however one counts them, the most sins of all are listed for the last one – Israel herself. Motyer divides the transgressions of Judah into sins against society, God's revelation, and grace even though one can detect as many as ten separate offenses in 2:6-8.
One variation is worth noting here. In the Edom oracle (#4), the nation is personalized as “he” rather than the usual “they.” Carroll R explains: “The term brother can allude to the historic kinship relationship between Israel and Edom. This possibility is potentially viable because, unlike in the previous oracles, the pronominal suffix on the infinitive is singular (he pursued).” Thus, it takes us back to the conflict stories involving brothers Jacob and Esau.
That leaves only the use of “he” in the Moab oracle to explain, but commentators are hampered by not knowing the circumstances behind the particular event mentioned here. Carroll R says, “Although there is no textual evidence, some propose on metrical grounds that the name of a king has been dropped” and that he was the “he” being referred to in Amos 2:1b.
But another possibility, similar to that proposed for the Edom oracle above, is suggested by Campbell's designation of Moab as: “a nation whose affiliation with Israel may have been the closest of all her neighbors. This is indicated by the affinity of the Moabite language and writing tradition to Hebrew; by David's ancestry from the Moabite Ruth and his sending his parents for sanctuary in Moab (1 Sam. 22:3-5); by the legend of Moab's birth through the incestuous union of Lot and his elder daughter (Gen. 19:30-37); and by religious affinities to Yahwism portrayed in the Moabite Stone” as well as from the fact that Yahweh forbade Israel from attacking her in Deuteronomy 2:9.
“So I will send a fire”
The consequences of the nations' disobedience is then recounted in each case. Most of these involve God “sending a fire against the nation involved. Only in the eighth oracle is this phrase not utilized. And another variation is seen in the fifth oracle in which “kindle” is the verb rather than “send.”
Carroll R comments on this variation as well: “The term employed here [1:14] is different from that used in the other oracles...While some scholars are uncomfortable with this slight change, it is another instance of the stylistic diversity within the OAN [oracles against the nations]. Unity and coherence are maintained yet with occasional artistic variations...Sweeny says, 'The kindling of fire calls to mind the ease with which sparks will kindle dry brush at the edge of the Arabian desert'...Stanislav Segert suggests that this different expression was an intentional change to ascertain correct copying [by ancient Hebrew scribes].”
This small variation in wording has caused some scholars to declare the text is corrupt at this point, but Freedman wisely points out that an editor is much more likely to remove such variations in wording than purposely cause them.
“Judgment by fire constitutes a prominent theme in Amos (cf. Also 5:6; 7:4). In the present complex of eight oracles, only the final one, concerning Israel, mentions no fire...because fire is a synecdoche for divine destruction via warfare in these orcles. The detailed description of Israel's defeat (2:13-16) obviates the need there for a summarizing image.” (Stuart)
Part of excessive length of the final oracle is due to the presence of verses 2:9-12, labeled “A Long History of Disobedience” by Stuart, in which the prophet shows clearly that Israel's sins are not just recent in origin. In addition, Stuart says, “The oracle against Israel is longer and more detailed than any of the others because it constitutes the climax to the entire group of oracles.”
Three of these prophecies mention the presence of “walls” in this punishment section. “Walls (homot)....represent a basic element in the security system of an ancient city; thus when the judgment of the Lord comes upon the land, its people, and its main, fortified cities, the destruction of the city walls is a focus of the attack (cf. 1:7, 10, 14).” (Schoville)
And Ellul adds that “this condemnation of the city, its punishment, always consists of sending a fire (the sign of the curse) into the heart of the city, to the center of hits power, destroying by the curse that for which the city was built (Amos 1).” He considers 'the city' to be the center of man's rebellion against God's rule and defends that thesis in his important book The Meaning of the City.
“says the LORD (God)”
This closing word appears in all but oracles 3 and 7, and is used twice in the final one against Israel. There is an anomaly in the second oracle in that the full title “LORD God” appears. Interestingly, as Carroll R points out, this is the first of exactly 21 occurrences of this divine designation in the Book of Amos. Thus, it may have significance as being necessary to both bring the total up to the symbolic 7x3 as well as tying this first major section in the book with what follows.
Figure 1: Summary of variations in Amos 1-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
“Because..” they they they he they he they they
“So I will..” yes yes yes yes yes yes yes none
“send a fire..” yes yes yes yes kindle yes yes none
“upon (the)..” house wall wall Teman wall Moab Judah none
“says the LORD..” x God none none x x none 2x
# of verses 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 11
Notice two things about these characteristics in the set of oracles: (1) In spite of the great similarity between them, due to the small differences in bold, no two in the list have exactly the same format, and (2) The greater number of divergencies from the norm shown in the final oracle against the Northern Kingdom demonstrate that is being set apart as being particularly blameworthy in God's eyes.
The reason for the latter is explained by Hicks: “The judgment, cast into the same literary form as that used for Israel's neighbors, is portrayed in more detail because Israel had been given specific knowledge of God's requirements.”
Range of Scholarly Opinions
Hasel, in thirteen pages of text, surveys in detail the various views by earlier critical Bible commentators and concludes by stating that “until recently, there was a consensus in modern critical scholarship that the original sequence of the OAN consisted in its most minimal form of four oracles: those against Aram (1:3-5), Philistia (1:6-8), Ammon (1:13-15), and Moab (2:1-3)...It may be surprising, therefore, that this picture is totally different in commentaries published since 1987...they agree independently of each other in their assessment that the OAN derive from Amos himself.”
And the hypothetical reconstruction of the history of these oracles proposed by Jeremias is even more complicated, involving an original grouping of three prophecies to which one more was added at a later date, followed by the final four at a still later time period. (Redditt)
“This oracle moves from the periphery to the geographic center. The circle of oracles has moved round the surrounding nations leaving now only Judah and Israel in the center...It has been thought likely by a large number of scholars that this particular indictment [i.e. against Judah] is out of character with the oracles of the series and represents an addition inserted by later editors of the prophecy. The genuineness of these words is well defended by Hammershaimb.” (Howard)
And G.V. Smith constructs an elaborate scheme tying the eight oracles together based on the length of each individual section within each oracle while recognizing at the same time much individual variation within this scheme. He also critiques earlier attempts to label some of the oracles as later in date based on historical information and explains that we really have little external information regarding that particular time period on which to ground such negative opinions.
Then Stuart adds: “In the 1960s and 1970s scholarship began gradually to move away from atomism [i.e., to consider the book a compilation of many distinct units at the smallest level] and to be willing to recognize larger – sometimes multichapter – units of prophetic composition.” As he also states, “Many scholars have attempted to deny the authenticity of those oracles, or parts of them, that exhibit any individuality...Variations of style and structure are so common among individual oracles of given prophets that the attempt to impose a monolithic, subjectively induced norm upon all eight of the oracles in Amos 1:3-2:16 necessarily fails. To make Amos so ponderously uncreative and conformist that each of his oracles against foreign nations must be a precise calque of the others is needlessly anti-empirical.”
Freedman similarly concludes: “The danger for modern scholars is that they are like ancient ones and prefer everything neat and orderly. But poets and prophets are made of different stuff, cut from different cloth.”
Effect of the Oracles
There are actually a couple of lessons which can be learned from this set of prophecies. For example, Raabe says, “The collection has the overall effect of demoting Judah and especially Israel to the level of the other neighboring countries; the covenant people of Yahweh stand under divine judgment just like the other nations.”
Stuart goes one step further when he states that “the systematic excoriation of the repeated...covenant violations of Israel's neighbors, including Judah, yields in like manner to a lengthy denunciation of Israel's sins, demonstrating that Israel itself has become, in effect, a nation foreign to Yahweh ...Significant about the oracles against foreign nations is their unmistakable implication that Israel's God has a covenant relationship with nations other than Israel.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments