Amos 1:11-2:3 — Amos Addresses Edom, Ammon and Moab

January 16, 2013

Amos continues his prophetic word against the sins of the nations in Amos 1:11-2:3. He first addressed Damascus, Gaza and Tyre (Amos 1:3-10) which lie to the north and southwest of Israel and Judah.  Now he addresses Edom, Ammon and Moab which lie to the east and southeast of Israel and Judah.

The pattern of his rhetoric remains the same for all six nations.

Address:  ”The Lord Says”

Proverb:  ”Because of the three transgressions of … and because of four, I will not cause (him/it) to return.”

Sin:  ”because…”

Consequence:  ”Therefore….”

Conclusion: “The Lord God has spoken” (not always present).

This rhetorical pattern stresses the sin and the consequence. Only one sin is identified even though many others are presumed (“three, even four…”). The identified crime becomes the central ethical condemnation (1:11, 13; 2:1). The identification of the sin becomes the key element of the oracle itself followed by its consequences.

The consequences, however, are essentially the same–fire will burn destroy the cities/citadels (1:12, 14; 2:2). These nations were ravaged by an invading force. Future Assyrian campaigns will do just that in the 740s-700s BCE.

What are the sins?

  1. “because [Edom] pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity, and his anger tore perpetually, and he kept his wrath forever” (1:11)
  2. “because they [Ammon] have ripped open pregnant women in Gilead, that they might enlarge their border” (1:13)
  3. “because they [Moab] burned to lime the bones of the King of Edom.” (2:1)

1.  Edom “pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity” (1:11). In earlier proverbs, Edom is identified as a nation which bought slaves from Tyre and Philistia (Gaza). Edom enslaved his own brothers–Israel and Judah (1:6, 9). Moreover, Edom opted for violent aggression against his brothers. This may refer to Edom’s plundering of Jerusalem and Judah in alliance with Philistia and Arabs in 2 Chronicles 21:16-17, but it may characterize the perpetual hostile relationship between Edom and Judah throughout the eighth and ninth centuries BCE.

The full statement by Amos is instructive as we note the parallelisms involved.

he pursued his brother with the sword

and cast off all pity

he maintained his anger perpetually,

and kept his wrath forever.

The description “cast off all pity” extends the accusation that Edom pursued violent aggression against Judah. The term “pity” comes from the root which means “womb.” This alludes to the brotherly relationship between Edom and Judah. Edom lost all natural brotherly affection for Judah. Edom pursued violence rather than peace. Moreover, Edom betrayed their fundamental kinship–it was “brother” against “brother.”

Even more, Edom pursued violence out of intense anger. The imagery is vivid.  Edom’s anger incessantly “tore” Judah like a lion tears its prey (cf. Psalm 7:2). Edom sought to devour and decimate Judah like a predator. Further, Edom did not seek resolution to its anger; it refused to let go of it. Instead, Edom “kept his wrath perpetually.”  The term “kept” is often used to describe a shepherd who watches over and keeps his flock. In other words, Edom nurtured and fed this anger against Judah. Edom needed some anger-management that would give an opening for peace.

Edom fueled their anger against Judah rather than seeking peace-making and resolving their anger. They pursued violence rather than peace. Amos highlights and condemns that sin.

2.  The Ammonites “ripped open pregnant women in Gilead” for territorial gain (1:13). The Ammonites descended from Lot’s youngest daughter and were thus related to Israel. In fact, Israel was told to respect their cousins. They were to respect Ammon’s territorial integrity (cf. Deuteronomy 2:19). However, Ammon was not satisfied with their gift from God. They coveted more territory and the economic gains that would accompany such an acquisition. Enlarging borders is about  power, economics and historic status.

Greed often generates violence and sometimes extreme heinous acts. The killing of pregnant women was not unusual in the ancient world (or sometimes even in the modern one; e.g., Nazi Germany or on the American frontier against Native Americans). Hazael of Syria (2 Kings 8:12) and the Israelite King Menahem (2 Kings 15:16) both utilized this tactic in the eighth century BCE. Apparently it was designed not only to promote fear but to eliminate potential descendants. Killing pregnant women not only terrorized others but it also, at least in part, secured the future of the territorial gain.

The image of ripping open the bellies of pregnant women is nauseating.  It is little wonder that it is singled out as a war crime worthy of punishment. It is the destruction of two lives; it interrupts a genealogical line. It destroys hope and instills terror.

3.  Moab “burned to lime the bones of the King of Edom” (2:1). This seems a rather odd atrocity to stress. It does not seem comparable to the sins of Edom and Ammon. This should alert us to think carefully about why this is significant.

Lime is a kind of plaster that is used in buildings and on floors. Many examples are known from the ancient world that predate Amos ranging from Egypt to Malta as well as other places in the world. Apparently, Moab dug up the bones of the kings of Edom, crushed them and mixed them with lime plaster. The ashes of Edom’s king were used as wall plaster or floor tiling.

This is not merely grave robbing (though that was probably part of it). Rather, it is the desecration of the bones of the dead. It is a hate crime. By disinterring and crushing these bones Moab disrespected the humanity of Edom’s king.

Moreover, the problem is not simply one of disrespect, but it is the ungodly use of human remains. Humans are created in the image of God. Their bodies are important. Their bodies deserve honor. Turning human remains into “lime” is similar to the Nazi use of Jewish hair and skin for their own comfort. Moab’s motive was probably nationalistic and is justly categorized as a hate crime. Moab hated Edom and thus used the bones of their king as lime. It is an ultimate disrespect.

Amos condemns malevolent violent aggression, territorial expansion, and the desecration of the human body. Edom, Ammon and Moab–three important nations bordering Israel and Judah–are called to account for their actions by a shepherd from Judah. It is not merely their actions against Judah and Israel, however. The ethic that Amos employs is applied to how they treat each other (e.g., Moab against Edom). Amos applies a universal ethic to the nations.
We do not have to look to far or long to see the same sins in the modern world. Hatred fuels violence in the Middle East by both Israelis and Arabs. The killing of regnant women is part of territorial and religious terror in parts of the world and present in the United States as part of domestic violence cases. Many remember the desecration of fallen soldiers in Somalia as well as the exploitation of dead bodies for political purposes in Iraq. Humanity’s sins continue. They have not abated.
Yahweh says, according to Amos, the he will not revoke the punishment such sins deserve.  Let the nations who have ears to hear, hear what the Spirit through Amos says to the nations.

4 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Amos 1:3-10 – Amos Addresses Damascus, Gaza and Tyre

January 9, 2013

International ethics are important to Amos.  He condemns violent aggression (perhaps even torture and wanton killing), enslavement of populations, and the slave trade.

The oracles against the nations are intricately structured. They each follow the same rhetorical pattern.

Address:  ”The Lord Says”

Proverb:  ”Because of the three transgressions of … and because of four,  I will not cause (him/it) to return.”

Sin:  ”because…”

Consequence:  ”Therefore….”

Conclusion: “The Lord God has spoken” (not always present).

This rhetorical pattern stresses the sin and the consequence. Only one sin is identified even though many others are presumed (“three, even four…”). The identified crime becomes the central ethical condemnation (1:3, 6, 9). The identification of the sin becomes the key element of the oracle itself with its subsequent consequence.

The consequences, however, are essentially the same–fire will burn destroy the cities/citadels (1:7, 10, 12). The cities will be razed to the ground by an invading force. Future Assyrian campaigns will do just that in the 740s-720s BCE.

What are the sins?

  1. “because they have threshed Gilead with threshing sledges of iron” (1:3)
  2. “because they carried into exile a whole people to deliver them up to Edom” (1:6)
  3. “because they delivered up a whole people to Edom and did not remember the covenant of brotherhood.” (1:9)

1. Damascus (Syria, also called Aram) “threshed” Gilead. The region known as “Gilead,” the Transjordan area of Israel, was claimed by Damascus as well as Ammon. Damascus and Samaria (Israel) fought over this area for a hundred years or more.

The names Hazael and Ben-hadad, two kings of Aram, are also known from 2 Kings 8. There Elisha announces the coming death of Ben-hadad but weeps over the future that Hazael will bring to Israel. He wept because he knew “the evil that [Hazael] will do to the people of Israel.” In particular, Hazael will “set their fortresses on fire…kill their young men with the sword, dash in pieces their little ones, and rip up their pregnant women” (2 Kings 8:12).

Some believe that the Syrians used threshing tools with iron teeth to torture or kill prisoners, pregnant women and children. Threshing-sledges with iron (or basalt) are large boards (7×3 feet usually) pulled by oxen to separate the grain from the chaff.  It is possible that Syrians ran over people–men, women, and children–with these boards. Such atrocities would not be unknown in the ancient world. C+B-Agriculture-Fig10-SyrianThreshingSledgeOthers believe the “threshing” is a metaphor for Israel’s defeat at the hands of Syria (cf. 2 Kings 13:7 for an example). Whichever is the case, Amos condemns Damascus for their violent aggression against Israel.

2.  Gaza sent whole communities into exile to Edom. Gaza represents the alliance of Philistine cities–Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron [Gath is not named here]–in southwestern Palestine. This is Judah’s traditional enemy on its southwest border.

Literally, the text says they “shut up” the “whole” into “captivity.” The Philistines assaulted surrounding communities. They enslaved their inhabitants and sold them to Edom. The community or people to which Amos refers is Judah. They enslaved local populations–probably those located in the lowlands or Shephelah of Judah among others. perhaps more (cf. 2 Chronicles 21:16-17)–and removed them to Edom (which is located southeast of Judah). This was apparently a common practice in that region (cf. 1 Samuel 27:8-12).

Philistia removed Judeans who lived in the lush farmland of the Judean foothills to the desert regions of Edom (cf. Joel 3:4-8). They sent them into “captivity” (or exile). Amos condemns raiding communities and capturing those populations in order to sell them in the international slave trade. He condemns forcibly removing populations from their homeland.

3.  Tyre also sent whole communities into slavery. The language about Tyre is almost exactly the same as how Amos describes Gaza. Tyre is condemned for the same sin as Gaza–the deportation and sale of whole communities (cf. Joel 3:4-8; Ezekiel 27:13). The difference is that Amos adds a further comment on the transgression:  they “did not remember the covenant of brotherhood.”

The “covenant of brothers” probably refers to a treaty between nations whether imposed (as upon a vassal) or negotiated. Kings who entered treaties with each other typically thought of themselves as “brothers” (cf. 1 Kings 9:13–the brotherhood between Hiram of Tyre and Solomon of Israel). Israel and Tyre had cooperated with each other from the time of David and Solomon, and that cooperation or treaty-relationship probably continued throughout the existence of the northern kingdom.  However, at some point, Tyre–like Philistia in the south–betrayed this treaty relationship and enslaved whole Israelite communities.

Tyre was an important commercial center in the Ancient Near East (cf. Isaiah 23:8). Their commercial interests included the slave trade, even selling Judeans to Greeks far from their homeland (Joel 3:6).

Amos condemns violent aggression (perhaps even torture and wanton killing), enslavement of populations, and the slave trade. Damascus, Gaza and Tyre–three important cities in the region of Israel and Judah–are called to account for their actions by a shepherd from Judah.

We need only look at the history of nations, including the United States, to know that these kinds of atrocities have happened over and over.  Humanity continues to witness these atrocities at the hands of those who rule the nations. If Amos’s preaching bears witness to his insistence that nations need to acknowledge their sin, should not our preaching do the same?

Yahweh says, according to Amos, the he will not revoke the punishment such sins deserve.  Let the nations who have ears to hear, hear what the Spirit through Amos says to the nations.

3 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Amos Addresses the Nations: Amos 1:3-2:3

January 7, 2013

The first section of Amos startles us. The editorial heading prepared us to hear a word from Yahweh to Israel. Instead, the first six of eight proverbial sayings are addressed to regional nations. How does a Yahwehist prophet speak to the nations, on what basis, and about what? To be sure, he does finally get to Israel (2:6-16) after he also addresses Judah (2:4-5). Nevertheless, his starting point is surprising.

But this is not all that startles us. Amos does not address the imperial powers at all. There is no mention of Assyria or Egypt. They are not even on his radar. Instead he addresses the nations that are contiguous with Israel and Judah–six regional powers:  Damascus (Aram), Gaza (Philistines), Tyre, Edom, Ammon and Moab. Amos focuses on Judah and Israel’s immediate neighbors, the people with whom they would have daily interaction.

The nations addressed are: Damascus (NE of Israel), Gaza (SW of Judah), Tyre (NW of Israel), Edom (SE of Judah), Ammon (E of Israel) and Moab (E of Judah). His list goes back and forth between Israel and Judah, and north-south/east-west with its directions. It is difficult to discern an order here but some have suggested that it is like a tightening circle. Amos is strangling Israel and Judah with a rope. And Israel is the last in the list to whom Amos addresses the message of the book.  Israel is not alone–others are accountable as well. But Israel is Amos’s focus.

This opening section should give us pause. Amos does not address the nations as covenant people.  There is no appeal to the Torah or to divine expectations from some kind of “special revelation.” Nevertheless, his words are stern, unyielding, and determinative. Amos thinks he is in a position to assess the morality of the nations.

On what basis does Amos do this? It is not the Torah per se. Rather, it is because Yahweh is the God of all nations, not just Israel and Judah. God has invested in humanity as a whole. God has expectations and designs for humanity scattered among the nations.

What is clear, however, is that the nations have pursued agendas and practices that are not consistent with God’s design for humanity . In particular, they have embraced torture, indiscriminate killing, and slavery.  They have committed crimes against humanity.

There is something, Amos seems to assume, within the human being or something about their existence within the creation that demands humane treatment, encourages mercy and condemns war crimes. There is something about humanity itself which condemns inhumanity.

Curiously, he does not mention idolatry, at least overtly. He is focused on the war footing and abusive relationships among the nations rather than their cultic religions. This is sufficient for their condemnation no matter what else is involved.

Indeed, Amos knows that the nations are filled with other transgressions. He begins every oracle with a proverb:  ”For three transgressions of X, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment.” Proverbially, he knows there are y four transgressions which means he knows they are numerous. But Amos only names one in each case, and the one he names is a war crime of some sort; they are about human inhumanity to other humans.

Each of the nations were created out of humanity. God empowered these nations, set their boundaries, and raised up their rulers. God intended each of these human communities to live out the image in which they were created. But they did not. Instead, the nations favored their own security, power, and wealth, and they pursued those interests through violent and inhuman means.

God still addresses the nations through Amos. The divine intent and the principles embedded in our function as the images of God still remain. Nations are called to live out that divine intent and embody those principles. And nations, even the United States of America, are still judged by these principles.

The message of Amos is still relevant, and Amos continues to address the nations. But nations continue their inhumanity, torture and indiscriminate killing; humans continue to enslave other humans. Consequently, as with Israel and Judah’s six neighbors, their judgment is certain.

3 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Sermon on the Mount and the Epistles, David Lipscomb Prioritizes

March 12, 2012

It may sound rather strange to some ears, but at the turn of the 20th century there was some debate among Churches of Christ whether the Sermon on the Mount was intended for Christians. For example, Lipscomb was asked on one occasion whether he could “show that it s a Christian duty to try to obey everything taught by Christ in the sermon recorded in Matthew 5-7 and in Luke 6?” Giving away their own heremeneutical perspective, the querist further asked, “Should not Christians in this age go to the Epistles, rather, for teaching as to their duty?” (See Shepherd, ed, Queries and Answers [Cincinnati: F. L. Rowe, 1918], 384.)

James A. Harding, who shared Lipscomb’s convictions on this point, contended that the Sermon of the Mount is kingdom ethics against those who would deny its applicability to Christians (see, for example,“To Whom Was the Sermon on the Mount Addressed?  A Reply to Dr. Holloway,” Christian Leader and the Way 20.14 [3 April 1906], 8-9, “Bro. Devore’s Criticism and My Reply,” Christian Leader and the Way 21.8 [19 February 1907], 8-9 and “A Reply to Bro. Miller’s View Concerning the Sermon on the Mount,” Christian Leader and the Way 21.11 [12 March 1907], 8-9). It seems that the undermining of the Sermon of Mount as belonging either the Jewish dispensation or only applicable to the apostles was not too rare among Churches of Christ at the beginning of the 20th century.

While there is legitimate concern that some are devaluing Paul in order to exalt the Gospels in our own day, our history within Churches of Christ is one that exalts Paul over the Gospels. It is part of our original DNA as Alexander Campbell taught that “neither are the statutes and laws of the Christian kingdom to be sought for in the Jewish scriptures, nor antecedent to the day of Pentecost; except so far as our Lord himself, during his lifetime propounded the doctrine of his reign” (Christian System, p. 123). The exceptions quickly disappeared among some, and so much so that even the Sermon on the Mount was thought to only apply to the twelve or were versions of kingdom ethics for Jews or disciples prior to Pentecost.

Lipscomb responded, in part, that “the Sermon on the Mount is the summing up, the announcement of the great principles that were to govern in his kingdom. The Epistles and all the teachings of the apostles are a reiteration of his teachings and the application of them to the affairs of life as they arose.”

“So the Sermon on the Mount is the presentation of the great fundamental principles of the Christian dispensation, and the Epistles are the application of these principle to the conditions of life by the Holy Spirit. Then there is not a single principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount but what is reiterated and applied in the Epistles…these teachings of Christ were to make men like God, that they might be fitted to dwell with him. Do not all Christians need to be trained into a fitness to dwell with God as much as the apostles did?” (Queries and Answers, p. 384).

The Gospels are foundational and the Epistles are applications. Lipscomb is thinking about ethics, I surmise. I wonder if we should not think this way in terms of the Christian faith itself. The Gospels describe our faith as following Jesus, that is, participating in the ministry of Jesus. The Epistles (e.g., Paul) illustrate and apply how to do that in a Greco-Roman context. The Gospels lay the foundation and the Epistles guide our way.  There is no need to choose one over the other. Instead, we hold both together and correlate their theological function.

Theologically, we might put it this way: the Gospels are foundational exhortations to participate in the story and the Epistles are concrete applications for concrete situations rooted in the ministry and work of Christ.

I think Lipscomb would have agreed to some extent.  He writes: “One can find the principles and duties of life presented in the Epistles; he can find these principles much more concisely and connectedly set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. It is like a lawyer taking the laws, and then searching the decisions of the courts construing and applying the laws. The Sermon on the Mount is a presentation fo the principles that prevail in heaven. They are given that man may practice them here and by this fit himself to live in heaven.”

The centrality of the Sermon on the Mount is at the heart of Lipscomb’s political and ethical orientation.  Here are a couple of other examples from Civil Government (pp. 57-58 and 133).

     Christ having resisted successfully these tempting offers of the devil, and having shown his true loyalty to God, the angels of God came and ministered unto him. He then lays down the principles that must govern in his kingdom. They are epitomized in 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Matthew. These principles are diverse from and antagonistic to the principles that have obtained and must ever obtain in all human governments. No human government can possibly be maintained and conducted on these principles laid down for the government of Christ’s subjects in his kingdom. The spirit that prompts the practice of the principles is opposed to the spirit needful for the maintenance of human governments. The two spirits cannot dwell in the same heart, nor the same temple, or institution. A man cannot be gentle, forgiving, doing good for evil, turning the other cheek when one is smitten, praying “for them that despitefully use and persecute” him, and at the same time execute wrath and vengeance on the evil-doer, as the human government is ordained to do, and as it must do to sustain its authority and maintain its existence.

      The sermon on the Mount, embraced in the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of Matthew, certainly contain the living and essential principles of the religion the Savior came to establish, those which must pervade and control the hearts and lives of men, without which no man can be a Christian.

3 Comments | Stone-Campbell, Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Job 29-31 — Job’s Monologue

October 4, 2011

Whatever the nature of the pause in Job 28, the narrator resumes Job’s voice in Job 29-31. This is Job’s final speech (“the words of Job are ended,” 31:40). It divides into three sections: (1) Job remembers the past (Job 29), (2) Job protests the present, and (3) Job swears out a writ (Job 31). Job reminisces fondly, protests loudly, and demands that God hand down an indictment.

This is a stunning monologue. The movement from past scenes of joy and friendship with God to the present horror of seeming divine abandonment is gut-wrenching. Then the movement from mourning and weeping (30:31) to oaths of self-imprecation that seek divine vindication is equally hair-raising.

Fond Memories (Job 29)

Job longs for the past, the “months of old, as in the days when God watched” over him (29:2). Those where the days when….   Job begins sentences in 29:3, 5, 6, & 7 with the Hebrew preposition that is translated “when.”  In those days and months:

  • Job walked in darkness by God’s light
  • God’s friendship was with him
  • His children still surrounded him when the Almighty was with him
  • His steps were washed with milk (i.e., prosperity)
  • He was seated at the city gate
  • Young and old respected him
  • Nobles and Princes were silent in his presence

The language retells the prologue in some ways. It includes Job’s renown, his children, his prosperity, and his friendship with God.  He stresses how others waited for and received his counsel (29:21-25). They remained silent as they waited for Job to speak. They honored him as a chief among them, “like a king among his troops.”

And Job remembers that he feared God and shunned evil as well (1:1, 8; 2:3). Job remembers that he was “commended” and “approved” by those who heard and saw his life (29:11), and he states the rational:  ”because I delivered the poor…” (29:12). This approval, I think, even includes God because Job was dedicated to a way of living that embodied the fear of God.

What kind of life is that, according to Job? The wise person cares for the poor, orphan and widow (29:12-13). This is “doing right” (righteousness and justice) and Job wore it like a garment (29:14). He aided the lame, blind, needy and stranger. Job’s life was oriented toward justice and he opposed the unrighteous so that they would “drop their prey from their teeth” (29:17). This is wisdom ethics, and Job lived it. So, Job lived with the hope of rest and long life (29:18-20).

Significantly, the last word of this fond remembrance is the word “comfort.” What the friends failed to do as “miserable comforters” (16:2) Job provided to mourners (29:25). What Job provided to others is what he now seeks from God.

Present Protest (Job 30)

“But now…..”  Those words alert us to a shift in Job’s voice. Three times Job calls attention to the contrast (30:1, 9, 16) with wa’attah (“but now” or “and now”). The present stands in strong contrast with the past.

The first section (30:1-8) laments the lack of respect Job receives even from the children of those who deserve no respect.  ”Job has exchanged the respect of the most respectable,” Anderson writes (Job [Tyndale series], p. 235), “for the contempt of the most contemptible.” The second section(30:9-15) describes their contempt and Job’s own crumbled reality as his “prosperity has passed away as a cloud” (30:15). Job, according to the NRSV/ESV rendering, attributes this to divine action–”God has loosed my bowstring and humbled me.” [God is actually supplied; it is not in the Hebrew text. However, it is an appropriate rendering since the move from plural to singular is best understood as a reference to God.]

The third section is the most harrowing of all (30:16-16-31). It moves from talking about God in the third person (30:16-19) to directly addressing God (30:20-23). The language is vivid and stark. Job has experienced violence at God’s hand and has become as “dust and ashes” before him. Job cries and God does not answer. “You have turned cruel to me,” Job protests; “with the might of your hand you persecute me” (30:21).

Job accuses God. He knows God has done this to him and he expects God to ultimately bring him to death (30:23). These accusations remind me of the recent BBC movie “The Trial of God.” It is the story of Auschwitz inmates who put God on trial. The movie surveys multiple theodic responses to their suffering. The final speech is a protest, and it is a protest that God is not good (Trial of God–the Final Speech). Yet, when the guards come to collect them for the gas chambers, the Rabbi who gave the climatic speech counsels that they pray. There is no other possible response. Job protests but he prays–his prayer is a protest but his protest is also a prayer.

Job laments that even though he “grieved for the poor” and helped the needy in their disasters when he “looked for good, evil came” (30:26). Instead of light, he received darkness…and he continues to sit in that darkness, in a “sunless gloom” (30:28). He cries for help but he is treated as a jackal and an ostrich. He can do nothing more than weep and mourn. Now, at the present, this is his life, and this is his protest.

Job’s Testimony (Job 31)

So, what changed? God was friendly to Job when he was righteous, but now God attacks Job. What changed? Job does not think he has changed; he is still committed to righteousness.

This raises one of the significant questions of the drama.  Job voices it in 31:3:  ”Is not calamity for the unrighteous, and disaster for the workers of iniquity?” Calamity is what has befallen Job (30:13) and what the wicked deserve (30:12). God knows Job (31:4) and Job knows what God expects in terms of righteousness (31:2). So, why does innocent, righteous Job suffer what belongs to the unrighteous? If the unrighteous suffer, why does righteous Job suffer?

Job swears an oath concerning his righteousness. He takes an oath of self-imprecation, that is, he curses himself if he has violated God’s righteousness. Most of the chapter assumes an “if…then” form.  If, Job says, I have been unethical, then I deserve punishment; then I deserve the calamity I have experienced.

This form provides the author of Job a wonderful opportunity to catalog wisdom ethics. It is ethics based upon creation theology rather than upon the Torah. It is Yahwehist ethics in the mouth of Edomite wisdom–a wisdom derived from the fear of God within creation and wise living as a human being within God’s good creation. He covers such topics as:

  • lust (31:1)
  • honesty (31:5)
  • adultery (31:9)
  • justice (31:13)
  • care for the poor (31:16-21)
  • attitude toward wealth (31:24-25)
  • love of enemies (31:29-31)
  • secret sin (31:33)
  • ecology (31:38-39)

Given space and time, it would be important to pause over each of these ethical values to hear the wisdom in each. Indeed, each finds its place in traditional wisdom ethics as well as covenantal (Torah) ethics.

What is significant for Job, however, is that he knows what is right and he claims to have lived his life in compliance with God’s values. He fears God and shuns evil, just as God said he did (1:8; 2:3).

The climax of this chapter comes in 31:35-37. Job interrupts his self-imprecations in order to voice his desire. What Job really wants is a divine indictment; he wants to know what he did wrong. He wants to know why God has not done this to him, and if God is going to prosecute him, he wants the bill of indictment.

His oath is his testimony–he has signed it (placed an “X”  [literally, taw--the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet] at the end the document). It is his plea (“Oh” in 31:35 which is how he began the monologue in 29:2). Job has given an honest account, and he now placers it before God. He wants to be heard and he is confident that his life has been an ethical one.

And so end the words of Job (31:40b). They end with a sworn oath that pleads for a divine hearing. Job, like all of us, wants to be heard. Now he will sit and wait for God to answer…or will God answer? And what kind of answer will he give?

1 Comment | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 942 other followers

%d bloggers like this: