When Jesus is tempted by the Devil in the wilderness in Luke 4, he quote scripture to the Father of Lies. Fascinatingly, he quotes Deuteronomy every single time. Jesus references Deut 8:3, 6:13, 6:16. The Devil quotes Ps 91:11-12. To me, it illustrates the centrality of Deuteronomy for first century Judaism, but it also shows that Jesus and the early apostles shared this mentality. Deuteronomy was to them the linch-pin of the Old Testament. For us, I think it is easy to overlook the importance of Deuteronomy. There’s a lot of controversy in the biblical academy about the origin of Deuteronomy, especially regarding the date of its writing. Regardless of what position you adopt on the dating issue, it is widely known that Deuteronomy was the central text for Jews after the Exile. The ate, drank and breathed Deuteronomy. We Christians often overlook this key book. But Jesus’ very own words point us back to it. May Deuteronomy be more widely studied and learned (and maybe even quoted to the Devil)!

The long-awaited, much anticipated, critically acclaimed Ultimate Greek Cheat Sheet #2 is here! Now you can have all the verb endings for ancient Greek on one page. I hope you enjoy this resource. I will add it as a permanent link in the sidebar. It is copyrighted, so do not distribute it without my permission. I hope it will prove to be an invaluable resource for you all in your study of Greek. Conjugate away!

I was thinking about prayer as a Catholic and how we (at least we Americans) have a tendency to objectify prayer. What I mean by that is that we have a tendency to reduce prayer to a set of objective activities or realities. We reduce prayer to a prayer-book or a rosary or a set of prayers or even to the Mass. Prayer becomes a ritual to be endured because it is good. We focus on the objective contexts for prayer, the tools we use for prayer, the churches we pray in, etc. rather than focusing on the One to whom we are praying.

So I am suggesting that we focus more on the subjective qualities of prayer. Here’s what I mean: every objective context for prayer, whether it be Mass attendance, a rosary, a Bible study, a prayer book–whatever, is merely a means to an end. The end of course is unity with God, a deep loving union with Jesus. The subjective qualities of prayer are simple, but easy to overlook. They include our emotional and physical dispositions. That is, if I come to prayer extremely sleepy, I’m probably not going to benefit much spiritually. If I come to prayer straight from a heated argument, I probably won’t be able to focus and receive the grace offered to me in the prayer context.

Catholics used to talk a lot about “recollection,” the calming of the mind and body in preparation for prayer. I think it is time for us to return to the idea of recollection and emphasize the subjective appropriation of the objective graces offered to us in prayer. It is not enough to recite prayers vocally and attend Mass in the minimal sense of being physically present. We must be attentive to God’s word. We must bring our whole selves with us and present ourselves before God. It is not too complicated, but it is hard to wrap words around the concept without seeming to devalue the objective realities. It is more important for a Christian to subjectively receive and appropriate the graces offered in just a few prayer-contexts than to flood himself with prayer-contexts which he can’t appropriate.

Our American Catholic tendency is to fill time with prayer-events, rather than to focus on the one prayer-event at hand and sincerely open our hearts to receive what God has for us in that particular event. Yet if we fail to open ourselves to the grace offered in any one particular event, just going to more events will not help us. Prayer is a necessarily subjective experience because it is the stuff of a relationship. Prayer in that sense, is analagous to the conversations spouses have with one another. If they fail to sincerely express themselves and to sincerely listen to one another in those conversations their relationship will fail. As Christians, we must embrace our relationship with our our Heavenly Spouse and bring our whole selves to Him in prayer–sincerely listening to Him and honestly expressing ourselves to Him.

I never knew this before, but there is a verse of Acts that has been excised from the text by most scholars. The verse gives Philip’s response to the Ethiopian eunuch’s request for baptism. It reads:

“Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God.'” Acts 8:37 ESV

The verse is apparently only attested by the Erasmus manuscript of 1527 and a handful of Old Latin texts. The Erasmus text actually reads a little differently:

“Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may be saved.’ And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God.'”

The KJV is one of the only English versions that use the verse. Most English Bibles include the verse in a footnote. If you google “Acts 8:37,” look out! There are a whole bunch of KJV-only websites that claim any Bible without Acts 8:37 is counterfeit. Hence the important question arises: Is Acts 8:37 part of the canon according to the Church?

The verse appears in the original Vulgate, but now the Church omits the verse in the Nova Vulgata, which is the new and improved Vulgate published under Pope John Paul II in the 1980’s. The official text approved by the Holy See does not contain the verse. The weird thing is that the Catechism references the verse in paragraph 454.

Pius XII sets the tone for Catholic teaching on textual criticism regarding questions like this. He teaches that we are to accept the best in textual criticism in this paragraph 17 from Divino Afflante Spiritu:
“The great importance which should be attached to this kind of criticism was aptly pointed out by Augustine, when, among the precepts to be recommended to the student of the Sacred Books, he put in the first place the care to possess a corrected text. “The correction of the codices” – so says this most distinguished Doctor of the Church – “should first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know the Divine Scripture so that the uncollected may give place to the corrected.”[23] In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.”

So, it seems that Acts 8:37 is on the outside looking in. As far as I know the Church has not definitively pronounced on the issue and I don’t think she ever will because the verse is not that important. But it is interesting that the canon is a little fuzzy around the edges. First, we accepted it in the Vulgate, now we have put it out of the canon in the Nova Vulgata and yet it still gets quoted in the Catechism. There’s a very interesting discussion of the manuscript support for the verse at this Baptist site. So I think the verse is still in question, but probably is not canonical. Weird, huh?

Many Bible scholars and commentators spend endless amounts of energy trying to figure out who wrote what parts of the Bible. They argue about whether Paul wrote all of the Pauline epistles, whether John wrote John, whether Matthew wrote Matthew, etc. Sometimes it seems like they’re chasing after questions that cannot be answered.

So my question arises: Is it really important to know who wrote what? I mean, the Bible is the Bible. We’re supposed to read it, believe it and obey it. So why bother about who wrote what?

The Vatican II fathers state their position on the Bible’s inspiration with these words: “In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.” (Dei Verbum 11) They subsequently lay out their position on how important it is to know who wrote what. The bishops teach that Bible scholars are to figure out what the “sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.” (12) They go on to say that we should look for literary forms including “prophecy, poetry or some other type of speech.” (12) Also, we should be attentive to “customary and characteristic styles of perceiving, speaking, and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the customs men normally followed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.” (12)

Ok, so the Council fathers don’t say we should know exactly who wrote what all the time. But they do emphasize the importance of knowing the historical context in which the writer lived. Bible scholars should be familiar with the customs and traditions of the cultures of the sacred authors. This becomes a BIG issue. For example, some scholars think Moses himself wrote the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) c. 1200 BC. But other scholars think these books were pieced together from older materials, edited many times and finally came to their full form during the Exile, c. 500-600 BC. That’s a difference of 600 years! How are we supposed to discover the customs, traditions and characteristic writing styles of the author(s) of the Pentateuch when scholars can’t even put together which millenium it was written in?

So, from my perspective, it is important to know who wrote what and when he wrote it. But that’s only important for the sake of discovering what the text means. Regardless of who wrote what parts of the Bible, it’s still the Bible. And it is meant to be heard, read, believed and obeyed. It is good to know who wrote it only so we can more fully believe it and obey it. But even if we have no idea who wrote it, when it was written or where it was written–we are still called to obey it and dedicate our whole lives to living out its message.

This is where a lot of Bible scholars fall off the cart. They think they’ve figured out that so-and-so didn’t write such-and-such and their immediate conclusion is then, “Wow. Now that piece of the Bible doesn’t have as much authority.” But this is a logical error. The Bible’s authority is not bestowed by the human author, but the Divine Author. God’s authorship is the one that really counts. When we do research and reach conclusions about the historical circumstances surrounding the Bible, that’s great. But when we let our research change our morals, that’s a tragedy. The Bible is a gift from God, but it is not to be abused by our study of it. Studying the Bible ought to lead us to deeper prayer, more profound faith and a fuller Christian life.

Here’s my outline I just pieced together of 1 Peter:
1:1-2 – Epistolary Opening
1:3-7 – Narratio #1
1:8-9 – Exordium
1:10-12 – Narratio #2
1:13-4:19 – Probatio
________1:13-21 – Be holy as I am holy.
________1:22-25 – Love one another because of the Word.
________2:1-12 – Living Stones, Be holy
________2:13-17 – Christian conduct in Pagan Society
________2:18-25 – Instructions to Servants
________3:1-6 – Instructions to Wives
________3:7 – Instructions to Husbands
________3:8-12 – Instructions to all
________3:13-22 – Suffer for doing good
________4:1-11 – Don’t live for the flesh anymore
________4:12-19 – How to suffer persecution
5:1-10 – Exhortatio
________5:1-4 – To presbyters
________5:5 – To the youth
________5:6-10 – To all
5:11 – Benediction
5:12-14 – Epistolary Close

There is an enigmatic reference in Revelation 11:8 (sometimes I think ALL of Revelation is enigmatic!) to “the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.” (ESV) If everything was easy, we would identify this place as Jerusalem because that’s where Jesus was crucified. But, of course, Revelation is a little more complicated than that. You see, “the great city” is referred to elsewhere (17:18; 18:10,16,18,19,21). Assuming that “great city” means the same thing everytime it is mentioned, it is identified with the whore of Babylon (17:18), great wealth (18:16,19) and Jerusalem (11:8).

Most scholars assert a strong identification between they symbolic Babylon and the Roman Empire. Yet a few scholars, including Scott Hahn and Edward Sri, identify Babylon with Jerusalem. I will be studying this today, so I’ll develop the theme in later posts. Developing…

The USCCB recently started podcasting the daily Mass readings. Check it out here.

Also, according to the NAB website, they are planning to roll out a revision of the entire Old Testament in 2007. The NAB was originally published in 1970. The New Testament was revised in 1986 and the Psalms were revised in 1991. Hopefully the OT revision will bring some welcome improvements.

I’ve found 2 Timothy to be the most personal of all the Pauline epistles, yet not as moving as 2 Conrinthians. Paul relates his suffering, his expectation of death and you can feel his physical discomfort when he asks that Timothy bring his cloak. I’ve done a brief outline, mainly because I couldn’t get my hands on Witherington’s new commentary just published on November 30, 2006. So I hope you find it useful. Let me know if you have questions or additions about it.

2 Timothy
1:1-2 – Epistolary Prescript
1:3-7 – Exordium
1:8-3:17 – Narratio
1:8-11 – Paul’s testimony and teaching
2:1-7 – Suffering: soldier, athlete, farmer
2:8-13 – The word of God is not bound
2:14-19 – End quarrels; the apostates
2:20-21 – Vessels: honorable and dishonorable
2:22-26 – Flee passions and quarrels
3:1-9 – Men who oppose the truth
3:10-19 – Hold fast; Scripture
4:1-8 – Exhortatio
4:1-5 – Preach and keep on preaching
4:6-8 – Paul’s faithful witness
4:9-21 – Closing Instructions
4:22 – Benediction

I’ve been away from the blog for a few days because of final exams. My last one was today—Hebrew! It was probably the hardest exam I have ever taken. The prof. himself described it as “nasty.” Here’s a paper I wrote on the book of Amos for my class on the prophets. I get into the message of Amos as a call to abandon pagan worship in the Northern Kingdom and return to YHWH and his king in Jerusalem. I hope you enjoy it! I’ll respond to any comments you leave on this post.

King on the Throne, Temple in Jerusalem, Justice in the Gate:
An Analysis of Two Themes in Amos

Mark Giszczak
Dr. Timothy Gray
Prophets
Augustine Institute
10/18/06

1. Introduction. The book of Amos presents yhwh’s judgment on the northern kingdom of Israel. I will focus in on two themes: Israelite worship and Davidic kingship. I will present a few representations of scholarly thought on Amos’ rejection of Israelite worship. Then I will examine passages regarding Israelite worship and show how scholars misrepresent the passages’ significance. I will argue that these passages reveal a categorical rejection of Israelite worship by yhwh through Amos. Next I will examine the theme of Davidic kingship in Amos. Amos completely rejects the politico-religious establishment of Israel as inherently corrupt. Yet his proposed solution for the corruption of Israel is the accession of a Davidic king who will bring true yhwh worship to the people by destroying the Northern sanctuaries and re-centering worship in Jerusalem. The reunification of the kingdom and the reestablishment of proper worship is a necessary precondition for social justice.

2. Israelite worship. The historical-critical process on Amos began with Julius Wellhausen’s assessments of the Israelite cult in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel. He claims that the prophets reject the Israelite cult not because there was more than one sanctuary or because the people worshiped at the wrong place. Rather the prophets’ “zeal is directed not against the places, but against the cultus there carried on, and, in fact, not merely against its false character as containing all manner of abuses, but almost more against itself, against the false value attached to it.”^₁ Elsewhere, Wellhausen states “The sin of the people is the cult—that is, the false estimation itself, the illusion, that through it Yahweh could be sought and found and connected with Israel. Of a foreign service or illicit practices Amos says nothing. He does not take Bethel, Gilgal and Beersheeba as idolatrous sanctuaries, but rather as the glorious places for the cult of Yahweh.”² Other scholars have continued along this line of thought. For example Shalom Paul states:

“Amos delivered a devastating diatribe against the nation’s disordered concept of the wholesale panacea of the cult—the opium of the masses. For him, as for many of the other classical prophets, cultic zeal could neither engender public weal nor atone for infringements upon the moral law. Ritual can never be a surrogate for ethics. ‘God requires devotion, not devotions,’ right more than rite. When the cult became a substitute for moral behavior, it was severely denounced and condemned.”³

Andersen and Freedman take a similar tack in their important commentary. They state that “the shrines and ceremonies, sacrifices and songs here denounced and renounced were, after all, instituted by Yahweh and expected by him. …It is when they establish justice in the gate that the Lord will be gracious (v 15); when righteousness rolls down Yahweh will listen, look, smell and accept their worship (v 24).”⁴ These commentators represent a general consensus on the spiritual significance of Amos’ sayings about Israelite worship. The consensus is that yhwh established the rites they practice, but the people overemphasize their importance, causing them to neglect social responsibility. If the people seek yhwh through proper social practices, then his judgment will be lifted. But I will show that Amos absolutely denounces the Israelite cult as inherently corrupt. He does not push for social or religious reform of the northern kingdom. Rather, he advocates a destruction of Israelite worship, the reunification of the kingdom and the re-centering of worship in Jerusalem.

3:14 …on the day I punish Israel for his

transgressions,

I will punish the altars of Bethel,

and the horns of the altar shall be cut off

and fall to the ground (ESV)

In this oracle, Amos rejects the altars of Bethel. The plural form indicates not only a multiplication of altars, but a multiplication of gods. Yet most commentators prefer reading the plural word as a singular.⁵ The people have forsaken pure yhwh worship for syncretism if not blatant paganism. The horns of the altar were a sort of asylum in ancient Israel. A criminal could grab hold of one of the horns in order to be protected from his pursuers.⁶ Therefore, if the horns are cut off, there is no safety for transgressors.

4:1 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan,
who are on the mountain of Samaria,
who oppress the poor, who crush the needy,
who say to your husbands, ‘Bring, that we may drink!’

Scholars have debated what Amos means in context by “cows of Bashan.” Some have conjectured that this term refers to wealthy women in Samaria who do evil things.⁷ There is a textual difficulty since the grammar Amos gives is impossible—the addressee keeps switching back and forth from being 3^rd person feminine plural to 3^rd person masculine plural.⁸ The word translated as “husbands” in the ESV is ?donîm, the same word used for “my Lord” (?donay) to refer to yhwh elsewhere in the OT. Since this oracle falls right after an oracle against the “House of Israel” (3:13), I contend that the term “cows of Bashan” refers to the whole people o
f northern Israel and that ?donîm refers to their “husbands” or “lords”: the bull gods of the syncretistic sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan (cf. 1 Kgs 12)⁹.

4:4-5 Come to Bethel and transgress;

to Gilgal, and multiply transgression.

bring your sacrifices every morning,

your tithes every three days;

offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving of that

which is leavened,

and proclaim freewill offerings,

publish them;

for so you love to do, O people of

Israel!

Here Amos categorically rejects the sanctuaries at Bethel and Gilgal. He mocks the sacrifices of the people and parodies their liturgical action. He rejects the offerings because of their illegality, they are offered at the wrong place by the wrong people. Instead of Levites and priests offering the sacrifices, they are offered by royally appointed “priests” who are not part of the tribe of Levi or the house of Aaron. For Jeroboam I “appointed priests from among all the people, who were not of the Levites” to staff the shrine at Bethel (1 Kgs 12:31). yhwh rejects the leavened offerings of the people as especially bad because of prohibitions against burning yeast (cf. Exod 23:18, Lev 2:11, 7:12). Amos insists that worshiping at Bethel or Gilgal is intrinsically sinful. He implies therefore that the Israelites should return to Jerusalem to worship yhwh who “roars from Zion.” (1:2)

5:4b-6 Seek me and live

but do not seek Bethel

and do not enter into Gilgal

or cross over to Beersheba

for Gilgal shall surely go into exile,

and Bethel shall come to nothing

Seek the Lord and live,

lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph,

and it devour, with none to quench it for Bethel.

In this oracle, the Lord demands a seemingly impossible feat: to seek Him, but not at any of the sanctuaries in Israel. Commentators have offered various explanations. The most common interpretation is that Israel was committing unjust social practices, so their worship was considered hypocritical. By changing social practice and doing “justice and righteousness” they could find yhwh “wherever they worship and on whatever terms”¹⁰ This perspective sidesteps Amos’ absolute rejection of the sanctuaries at Bethel, Gilgal and Beersheba. He does not call for reform or change. Rather, he completely rejects these places and their modes of worship. Then Amos threatens that the Lord may “break out like fire in the house of Joseph,¹¹/ and it devour” (5:6). The only notable time this has happened in Israel’s history is in Lev 10:2 when Nadab and Abihu are consumed by fire coming forth from “before the Lord.” In fact, linguistically the two scenarios are quite similar. In Lev 10:2 the fire “comes out” (y?s?a’, ?????) and “consumes” (’?kal, ?????) Nadab and Abihu. Similarly in Amos 5:6, fire is threatened to “break out” or “rush out” (s??lah?, ?????) on the house of Joseph and “devour” it (’?kal, ?????). The first verbs, y?s?a’ and s??lah? respectively, are not identical yet synonymous. The second verbs in each passage are exactly the same. The sons of Aaron were punished for liturgical disobedience—for offering “unauthorized” incense before the Lord. Amos’ focus is then on the impropriety of the Israelite’s worship, their liturgical disobedience of seeking the Lord at the wrong place. The sin for which Amos condemns them in 5:4-6 is specifically liturgical. The sin is the cult, as Wellhausen says, but the cult is the wrong cult. The Israelites are not participating in true yhwh worship, but have invested in false gods (5:26), a false priesthood (1 Kgs 12:31) and false sanctuaries (3:14, 4:4, 5:5-6, 7:10, 7:13, 8:14).

5:21-27“I hate, I despise your feasts,

and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.

Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,

I will not accept them;

and the peace offerings of your fattened animals,

I will not look upon them.

Take away from me the noise of your songs;

to the melody of your harps I will not listen.

But let justice roll down like waters,

and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”

Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? You shall take up Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun your star-god—your images that you made for yourselves, and I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,” says the Lord whose name is the God of hosts.”

Amos 5:21-27 uses the most powerful language in the whole b
ook. Following Wellhausen’s lead, commentators have consistently asserted that in this passage “Amos demanded justice instead of worship, that is, a supplanting of cultic religion by correct behavior on the part of human beings freed from the obligations of external ceremonies.”¹² Shalom Paul states the consensus position clearly in a footnote saying that “the entire attack here is leveled against the established authorized cult and not against any pagan practices.”¹³ But I argue directly to the contrary. This oracle is a rejection of the Israelite cult in toto. The prophet is not merely calling for a spiritual reformation of the people and a return to good social behavior. He is calling for a complete jettisoning of the established cult. For the established cult celebrates the wrong feasts, offers the wrong sacrifices and is represented by the wrong priests and even worships the wrong gods. The oracle rolls to a crescendo in vv.25-27. This prose section accuses the people not of overly elaborate cultic rituals, but of blatant pagan worship. While many historical-critics have attempted to “excise”¹⁴ this verse from the text, none have accomplished it without resorting to extreme revisions of the text.¹⁵ The accusation of idolatry is clear. The cult at Bethel where Amos prophesied indulged in pagan worship and perhaps mixed the worship of yhwh with that of other gods. The idolatry and whatever syncretistic worship that may have occurred was totally objectionable to yhwh. Again, the implication that Amos makes to the people is that they should worship in the right place (Jerusalem) with the right priests (the sons of Aaron).

7:9 the high places of Isaac shall be made desolate,

and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste,

and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.

This passage demonstrates another condemnation of Israelite worship as a whole. Yet commentators again shy away from the logical conclusion. Paul writes that “the ‘high places’ (????) that ‘shall become desolate’ (?????) do not refer to unauthorized sites of worship of the Lord or to high places that served as centers for idol worship.”¹⁶ Yet his position disregards the fact that the vast majority of the 105 times the term “high places” is used in the OT refer distinctly to pagan places of worship.¹⁷ Andersen and Freedman have established that the name “Isaac” v.9 refers to the “northern kingdom only.”¹⁸ Thus in this verse the prophet equally judges “the high places” with “the sanctuaries of Israel” and “the house of Jeroboam.” All three are set for destruction. The Lord intends to carry out his wrath on them all.

7:10-13 Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, “Amos has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel. The land is not able to bear all his words. For thus Amos has said,

“’Jeroboam shall die by the sword,

and Israel must go into exile

away from his land.’”

And Amaziah said to Amos, “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, and eat bread there and prophesy there, but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom.”

Amaziah carries an official title as “priest of Bethel” (7:10). Andersen and Freedman state that his title “points to a head priest of a specific shrine.”¹⁹ He is the “official representative of the state priesthood.”²⁰ The paradox is that Amaziah is not a priest at all in Amos’ theology, which is why Amos feels free to place an exacting curse upon him in v.17. Regardless of the curse, Amaziah sends Amos away from the Bethel sanctuary permanently. He thus fulfills the prophecy of 2:12 that Israel “commanded the prophets,/ saying, ‘You shall not prophesy.’” Amaziah’s speech against Amos is fascinating. He gives two reasons for Amos’ banishment. First, Bethel is “the king’s sanctuary.” This phrase is unique in the OT and denotes the “personal sanctum sanctorum of the king’s cultic activities.”²¹ Amaziah’s rejection is not merely a religious statement, it is clearly political. The shrine at Bethel was a mode of uniting the people of Israel behind Jeroboam II. When that unifying factor is being disturbed by a pesky prophet, the king wants him removed in order to maintain the political advantage of peaceful worship. By stressing that it is the king’s sanctuary, the text implies that it is not yhwh’s. Even the name of the sanctuary takes on an ironic significance, for “Bethel” means “house of God,” but this temple is the house of a king. Second, Bethel is “a temple of the kingdom.” The lack of a definite article implies that Bethel was not the only sanctuary in the northern kingdom. Again, Amaziah emphasizes the political dimension of worship. The temple belongs to the king and kingdom, not to yhwh. Amaziah and Jeroboam through Amaziah show their true colors as rejecters of yhwh and his prophet.

8:14 Those who swear by the Guilt of Samaria,

and say, ‘As your god lives, O Dan,’

and, ‘As the Way of Beersheba lives,’

they shall fall, and never rise again.

Amos mentions three pagan deities in this verse. The “Guilt of Samaria” is variously interpreted, but most commentators mention that it may refer to the goddess Ashimah or Ashmat.
^{f=”http://beta.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=37011762#sdendnote22sym” name=”sdendnote22anc”>22} The god of Dan is not named in Amos, but the verse “most likely refers to the worship of the Lord in the form of a bull image set up in Dan.”²³ Archaeologists have uncovered a second century BC inscription in Dan that reads “To the God Who Is in Dan.”²⁴ The third deity mentioned is the “Way of Beersheba.” There is controversy regarding the lexical meanings of these phrases and which ancient Near Eastern gods they should be associated with. Amos rejects the oaths sworn by the worshipers of the pagan deities at Samaria, Dan and Beersheba. He even quotes the oath formulas of the latter two. Swearing an oath by a particular god was an acknowledgement that the god sworn by was the god of the speaker.²⁵ Thus to swear by another god was to substantively reject yhwh. Amos’ purpose remains clear: he condemns the Israelites for their worship of pagan gods and their improper syncretistic worship of yhwh. Again Amos implies by his condemnation that the Israelites should abandon other gods and illegal shrines to worship yhwh in Jerusalem, the proper center of religion and kingdom.

3. Davidic Kingship. Now we will move to discussing the importance of Davidic kingship as a theme in Amos. First, I will show the significance of Amos’ being a Judahite and the thematic importance of 1:2. Then I will discuss the role of the king as the establisher of worship. Next I will examine the phrase “justice and righteousness” and the king’s role in establishing social justice. Finally, I will present Amos’ vision of an ideally restored kingdom in 9:11-15.

Amos is from Tekoa in Judah, presumably a Judahite by birth since he has a secular occupation (7:14). Amos is called out of Judah to prophesy to Israel (7:15). It is not perfectly clear from the text, but it can be inferred that Amos maintained his residence in Judah and only came to the northern shrine at Bethel during important religious events. The theme of the whole book is captured by one verse, “The Lord roars from Zion/ and utters his voice from Jerusalem;/ the pastures of the shepherds mourn,/ and the top of Carmel withers” (1:2). Amos himself can be seen as the roar of the Lord, for indeed he is coming forth from the region of Zion to the north bringing yhwh’s message. From Tekoa, Amos probably would have even traveled through Jerusalem to get to Bethel. Lion and roaring imagery comes up a few other times in Amos and hearkens back to the Judahite lion of Gen 49:9 (cf. Amos 3:4, 8, 12; 5:19). Amos represents yhwh’s fierce lion-like rage to Israel.

Politics and religion were always linked in the ancient Near East. The king’s duty and his boon was to set up centralized worship under his patronage.²⁶ This practice led to peaceful rule and a unified people. Hence, to establish his kingdom, Jeroboam I had to draw the northern Israelites away from worshiping at Jerusalem so he set up his rival shrines (1 Kgs 12). Jeroboam’s shrines more effectively divided the kingdom than any military action could have done. Not only did he reject the Jerusalem temple, but he reintroduced golden bull worship and he appointed non-Levites to be priests in these new sanctuaries. The northern shrines were politically charged sites. When Amos, as a Judahite, calls for their abandonment and destruction, he advocates not only a religious change, but a political act. This political act is accomplished quite forcefully by Josiah in 1 Kgs 23.

The king’s established place of worship served as the foundation for social justice. “Justice and righteousness” is used as a phrase several times in the OT to denote the accession of a new king. In 1 Kgs 10:9 the queen of Sheba praises Solomon for his kingship by telling him that yhwh “has made you king, that you may execute justice and righteousness” (cf. 2 Chr 9:8). Jeremiah refers to King Josiah as he who did “justice and righteousness” (Jer 22:15). Jeremiah also prophesies of a future Davidic king saying, “I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land” (Jer 23:5; see also 33:15). Ezekiel calls on the “princes of Israel” to execute justice and righteousness in the land (Ezek 45:9). Many other OT passages associate justice and righteousness with kingship.²⁷

The theme of justice and righteousness surfaces three times in Amos: 5:7, 6:12 and 5:24. Also, in 5:15 the prophet calls for the house of Israel to “establish justice in the gate.” Most commentators simplify Amos’ meaning. For example, Andersen and Freedman state that “the true search for God…begins in the heart…and in the practice of justice and righteousness….It is the people who, following this prescription, will transform the sanctuaries, beginning with Bethel; and only then will it be possible to find Yahweh at those places in which his name is hallowed.”²⁸ Jeremias refers to justice and righteousness as “internally established qualities.”²⁹ Yet these interpretations fall short of the full picture that Amos presents. Justice and righteousness are lacking in the land of Israel, not simply because people are behaving poorly, but because there is no king. Amos refers Jeroboam II as the king of Israel (1:1; 7:1, 10, 13), yet these references carry an ironic tone. For if Jeroboam were truly the king and acted as such, there would be justice and righteousness in the land. Yet justice and righteousness are lacking because the wrong cult is practiced and the wrong king is ruling. Justice and righteousness have been perverted by the false leaders of Israel. When Amos calls for justice to “roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream,” (5:24) he is not making abstract moral statements, but calling for the reunification of the kingdom under a Davidic king.

The final oracle 9:11-15 presents Amos’ vision of the reunited kingdom.³⁰ On this idyllic day the people will be united under a Davidic king for his sukkah will be repaired and rebuilt. They will dwell securely in the land and eat its fruit. Amos does not merely pour out judgment on the people of Israel. Rather, he calls them back to fidelity to yhwh. After the famine (8:11) and exile (5:5; 5:27; 6:7; 7:11) the people will be brought back to the land and dwell peacefully under the Davidic king. v. 9:11 is very important in relation to the other political language in Amos. In 7:9, yhwh promises to bring the sword against the house of Jeroboam. This phrase can be taken as simply referring to Jeroboam II, the current ruler. On the other hand, it could easily refer to Jeroboam I and
his whole dynasty. The phrase may be best interpreted as a double-entendre. The contrast between the house of Jeroboam and the booth of David is stark. While some commentators cite the assassination of Jeroboam II’s son Zechariah as the fulfillment of the oracle in 7:9,³¹ Amos prophesies not simply for the end of the Jeroboamite dynasty, but the end of the northern kingdom as a political establishment. He hopes for the full reuniting of the kingdom under the proper and true king. Once the Davidic king is fully empowered he can reunite the worship of Judah and Israel in the Jerusalem temple, the proper and true sanctuary. Once the worship is established, “the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it” (9:13). The king will establish justice and righteousness in the land so that the poor will not be trampled (2:7, 5:11, 8:4) or defrauded. Rather there will be abundance of food and land.

4. Conclusion. Amos is not an innovator. He calls the people back to fidelity to yhwh and his law. Yet historical-critics often limit Amos to calling for social reform. Jeremias summates the consensus that the core of Amos’ message is that he “demanded justice instead of worship, that is, a supplanting of cultic religion by correct behavior on the part of human beings freed from the obligations of external ceremonies.”³² But Amos was not simply citing “universal moral principles.”³³ Rather, he views himself as from within the traditions of Judah and Israel, from within the Mosaic covenant. Therefore he does not call for mere social reform nor for a reorientation toward acceptable religious practices. He denounces the northern cult as inherently corrupt and calls for its destruction. He calls for an end to syncretistic and pagan practices and the reunification of the kingdom. Amos desires political reunification under one Davidic king. He sees this kingship as the only road to the legitimate establishment of true yhwh worship. As long as there is political division, religious practices will be corrupted in the north. The Davidic king is meant to bring about a religious reunification in the one temple at Jerusalem. Once these reunifications have occurred, oppression and inequality will cease and justice will be established in the gate (5:15).

___________________________________

Works Consulted

Andersen, Francis and David Freedman. Amos. The Anchor Bible v.24a. New York: Doubleday, 1989.

Carroll R., M. Daniel. Amos—The Prophet & His Oracles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.

Jeremias, Jörg. The Book of Amos. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998.

Mays, John Luther. Amos. The Old Testament Library. Philadephia: Westminster, 1969.

Möller, Karl. A Prophet in Debate: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament series, v.372. New York: Sheffield, 2003.

Park, Aaron W. The Book of Amos as Composed and Read in Antiquity. Studies in Biblical Literature, v. 37. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.

Paul, Shalom M. Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991.

—————. “A Literary Reinvestigation of the Authenticity of the Oracles Against the Nations of Amos.” In Maurice Carrez, Joseph Doré and Pierre Grelot, eds. De la Tôrah au Messie. Paris: Desclée, 1981. 189-204.

Wolff, Hans W. Joel and Amos. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

_____________________