Amos 4:1-13: “Yet You Did Not Return to Me”

March 4, 2013

This is the second of Amos’s three prophetic speeches against Israel. They each begin with “Hear this word” (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). The first announced God’s coming visit in judgment against Israel while the third will voice lament. The second highlights divine patience and persistence in seeking to turn Israel from its sins.

While this second speech remembers Yahweh’s incessant attempts to hinder Israel’s sins, it also boldly announces that God’s patience has reached a limit. Even as Yahweh, through the prophet Amos, runs through a series of divine acts (4:6-11) intended to produce repentance, Yahweh sarcastically encourages Israel to continue its opulent lifestyle and idolatrous worship (4:1-5). God has had enough. The time for repentance is finished. Judgment is coming (4:12-13).

Yahweh Addresses Israel’s Wealthy Elite (4:1-5).

Amos begins where his last sermon ended–at Bethel and in the summer/winter homes (3:14-15)–but in reverse order. The connection between the end of the previous oracle and the beginning of the present one forms a B-A-A’-B’ structure. Amos moves from Bethel to “winter/summer homes” and then from “Bashan/Samaria” to Bethel. The allusions of 3:14-15 are explicit in 4:1-5.

Wealthy women who live in their winter and summer homes are like “cows of Bashan.” They are well-fed and lounging in luxury where their husbands or servants are pictured as wait on them. It is a life of ease in their “great houses” filled with ivory. But this wealth was acquired through the cruel oppression of the poor and needy. They have much because they have taken from those who have little (cf. Amos 2:7).

Amos mocks their religious observances. Bethel (Jeroboam I’s new worship center where he erected a golden calf) and Gilgal (apparently a worship center at the very place where Israel first camped in Canaan; Joshua 5:9) are places where Israel assembled to worship Yahweh though in idolatrous fashion. They practiced Torah. In fact, they practiced Torah in hyper-fashion.

Animal sacrifices were not required every morning, but they brought them every day. Tithes were only required every three years but they brought some every third day (Deuteronomy 14:28). They even burned leavened bread for their Thanksgiving sacrifices when only unleavened was required (Leviticus 2:11; 7:12-15). They publicly announced their Freewill offerings when that was not required (Leviticus 22:18-25). Whether Israel actually practiced this hyper-”obedience” is immaterial or whether Amos is mocking their devotion, Amos’s description ridicules their motive.

Israel worships Yahweh in this manner only to display their wealth. Yahweh rejects their worship, at least in part, because they gained their wealth by oppressing the poor. Their worship–even hyper-worship–had become a form of rebellion (transgression). They feigned the love of God while at the same time they failed to love their neighbor (poor).

Consequently, the women who now luxuriously recline in their great houses will be taken by fishhooks into captivity through openings in Samaria’s breached wall (4:2-3). Assyrians were known for using hooks in the noses of their captives to lead them into exile (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:11). The metaphor, however, is even more chilling. These women will be dragged out their great houses like fish out of the sea. They will be “cast out into Harmon” (Amos 4:3). Harmon is apparently some distant and unwelcome place, but contemporary scholarship has not been able to identify it. Some, however, think the name is a version of “Hermon” which would then refer to the peak that overlooks the fields of Bashan. It might mean that the women who, metaphorically, grazed Bashan in peace and splendor are now removed to the desolate peak of Hermon.

Yahweh Remembers the Warnings (4:6-11).

Five times Amos repeats the formulaic phrase: “yet you did not return to me, declares the Lord” (Amos 4:6, 8, 9, 10, 11). It is the final two lines in each of the descriptions of God’s interaction with Israel as Yahweh attempted to turn Israel from their sins. But Israel would not return to God.

Yahweh used famine (4:6), drought (4:7-8), crop devastation (4:9), disease and war (4:10), and tragic disasters (4:11) to persuade Israel. Each of these events originated in the will of God. “I gave” (4:6), “I withheld” (4:7), “I struck” (4:9), “I sent” (4:10), and “I overthrew” (4:11) clarify that God is responsible for these “evils” (cf. Amos 3:6).

While Yahweh intended them as warnings, Israel did not heed them. Perhaps they did not even recognize them as such. Israel failed to see the hand of God in these disasters and discern their meaning. The “evils,” however, should have reminded them of God’s past dealings with the nations in their own history. Such disasters should have become occasions for self-evaluation and introspection. Instead, they look elsewhere for their meaning.

Famine, drought, locust, pestilence like in Egypt and disasters like Sodom and Gomorrah are signals for how God has previously engaged nations as their own history recounts. The memories of Egypt and Sodom underscore God’s acts. Israel should have known but failed to listen to the voice of God in these moments.

God acted in Israel, as Yahweh had among the nations at various times, in order to lead them to repentance. The Apocalypse reminds us that God still moves among the nations for similar purposes (cf. Revelation 9:20-21; 16:9-11). Though we are unable to discern without prophetic insight the nature of God’s actions in the world, moments of pain and hurt are always appropriate for prayer, fasting and introspection. Being with God or returning to God are redemptive responses to “evils” in our lives.

Yahweh Announces Judgment (4:12-13).

As if to relieve all doubt, Yahweh announces that this is a divine judgment. “I will do this to you,” says the Lord. The coming disaster is no mere coincidence or freak of nature. It is an act of God.

The time for repentance , however, is now over. When the Lord says “prepare to meet your God, O Israel,” this is no invitation to repentance or even covenant renewal. Rather, as Paul notes in the Hermeneia series (p. 151), this is “a summons to a final battle.” Every previous attempt by Yahweh to turn Israel and renew the covenant with them was ineffective. This final encounter is not redemptive but punitive. When Israel meets God in this moment there will be no parley, no truce, and no delay. Judgment is imminent.

The successive uses of the “declares Yahweh” followed by the summons to meet God issues in a doxology (Amos 4:13).  The praise articulates the majesty and power of God. Yahweh is the Creator who formed the mountains and the winds. Yahweh is the most high God who walks upon the hills. Yahweh created them and reigns upon them.

The concluding reference to the one who “treads upon the hills” is a metaphor for a conquering king. God moves along the ridge line of the greatest heights and  watches the battle. The Creator God has summoned Israel to battle and God will see it to its final end. The God who created the mountains will turn morning into darkness for the nation of Israel. [Some translations read the dawn breaks the darkness.

Yahweh did not hide this from Israel. Over and over again, Yahweh warned Israel about her fate. But she did not listen. Now the prophet, speaking for Yahweh, announces what Yahweh intends to do.

The Creator God who formed Israel, her covenant God Yahweh, will now destroy her.

Her destruction is a warning to Judah…and to us.

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

David Lipscomb: Forgiveness and Unity After the Civil War

April 13, 2012

September 11 means something to us. It raises questions about forgiveness, war and our future.

I don’t think that date meant anything particular to David Lipscomb, but on that date in 1866 Lipscomb addressed the problem of war and forgiveness (Gospel Advocate 8 [11 September 1866] 579-583). How do we forgive those who sought our lives in war? Ought we to forgive them even if they have not repented? How can we make peace with others while memories of violence, horror and hostility fills our minds?

Nathan W. Smith asked Lipscomb this series of questions: “If, then, it is true God forgives none but those who repent, does he require more of us? Does he require us to forgive those who have injured us, in word and deed, and who give no signs of repentance? Let those who think I am wrong, show it by the word of the Lord if they can. I am willing to pray for our enemies, to do good to those that hate us, and if our enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; but to forgive those who injure us, without any repentance, I am not willing to do so, unless it can be shown that my Lord requires it.” (p. 579).

Lipscomb’s fundamental response is: Yes, of course, we should. The Christian “should be possessed of that kind, forebearing [sic] and forgiving spirit that the Savior exhibited to his murderers and crucifiers, and that allows him to return no ill, to cherish no bitter, vindictive feelings, but ever to do good to our enemies, and under all circumstances return good for evil. Christ’s feelings, work, suffering for the human family while it was yet in sin and rebellion, is the model for our treatment of the impenitent sinners and offenders” (p. 582).

As Christ-followers, we forgive those who seek to crucify us just as Christ forgave his enemies. Does this apply to our own September 11 just as, according to Lipscomb, it applied to combatants in the Civil War, both north and south?

Lipscomb encouraged forbearance, making amends, healing and disengagement from worldly powers. In particular, he prays that “peace and harmony will be restored to our divided and sundered brotherhood” and “too many sacrifices cannot be made to attain this happy state.”

Forgiveness only takes one–I forgive my enemies. Reconcilation takes two–a mutual search for peace. But reconcilation cannot happen unless forgiveness comes first.  That was true for Lipscomb postbellum and it is true for us post-September 11.

********

Below are the last couple of pages of Lipscomb response to Smith’s question (pp. 582-83).

“His full and free acceptance of the penitent, obedient believer as righteous and a coheir with himself in the honors and glories of the universe, is our pattern for the treatment of the repentant wrong-doer. Taking Christ as our model in these things as others, is the only infallible guide to right. In our country there is a class of crimes and wrongs that have been committed by professed Christians in the name of and as subjects of the world powers of earth, that are more difficult to settle than any others. Our connection with civil governments and the partizan feelings that enter into these questions, greatly embarrass them. War, strifes, politics, worldly governments are all corrupt and corrupting. War is wholesale murder and robbery. Whoever votes for, encourages, or in any manner excites war, is just as guilty for all the crimes that are legitimately the consequences of that war, as is the individual who personally commits the crimes. Again, in war, such as we have passed through, men engaged in the conflict upon each side from equally honest motives. The different teachings in political science, their surroundings, and above all, their interest, real or supposed, (for this is usually the controlling influence in politics and with nations,) led them to different courses of action. For professed Christians of one part or one section to suppose that all the honesty of sentiment or purpose was confined to their party or section, exhibits a remarkable degree of narrowminded bigotry. Men were equally honest in their views of duty on each side. And when once they entered the contest, violence, plunder and slaughter were the necessary results. The individuals then became the mere instruments in the hands of the power controlling them. So we are inclined to think that the sin was in yielding themselves instruments of an unrighteous power. So, too, we think that no individual who has himself entered the service of a world-power ought to complain of another who has merely served a different one. One these questions of difference in which, from our standpoint, both parties did wrong, the greatest forbearance should be exercised. Both parties acted as they thought best, and one party had, religiously as much right to act upon his convictions as the other. In the same neighborhood and in the same church, one had been taught to believe that the supreme authority was vested and should rest in the State. Another held, from equally satisfactory grounds, that the paramount obligation of the citizen was due the general government, and each acted on his convictions in the matter. In carrying out their convictions, each party acted as all men do when engaged in war. The wrong, we repeat again, was not in the acts that were performed, but in Christians putting themselves under the control of ungodly powers. That individual may have made excuses of their position, and taken advantage of their opportunities to exhibit a depraved and corrupted heart, and to have indulged in crimes and wreaked vengeance on those who were at their mercy, is true, and such should be dealt with according to the spirit they exhibited, yet we should be careful that no party spirit controls us in this. Yet to cherish prejudices against individuals, is not exactly fair. Forbearance, Christian forebearance, is what is needed now to allay the passions, heal the divisions and strifes, and put us in a condition that we may all be brought to see our wrongs, and that we may be prepared to avoid those difficulties in the future by keeping ourselves free from entangling alliances with the world-powers. Every one should strive to see how much of wrong he had done and make amends for it, and to see how much he can overlook and forgive in his brother. Thus peace and harmony will be restored to our divided and sundered brotherhood, and as one people in the Lord we may labor and toil and rejoice in the Lord. Too many sacrifices cannot be made to attain this happy state, provided we do not sacrifice God’s truth and God’s authority.”

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

Job 42:1-6 — Did Job “Repent”?

October 14, 2011

Something climatic happens in Job 42:1-6 when Job responds to Yahweh’s second speech.

Some believe that Job is unmoved.  He has heard God and is not convinced. He maintains his defiant stance since God has not answered his questions. This is a rather recent critical position taken by several in the Academy (cf. Curtis, JBL [1979] 497-511).

Some believe Job is penitent. Job experiences a conversion. He acknowledges his sin–at least the sin of arrogance or the sin of justifying himself and putting God in the wrong–and submits to God. This is a rather traditional position (cf. Newell, WTJ [1984] 298-316]).

Others, a minority report, suggest that both of these misread Job.  I accept this minority report and hope to explain a version of it in this post.

Yahweh’s first speech silenced Job (Job 40:4-5). He confessed his finitude (“I am of small account”) and promised silence (“I lay my hand on my mouth”). Yet, Job does not seem content; he does not embrace God in doxology. He simply gives up his complaint (“I will proceed no further” ), but he does not appear satisfied. There is, at least, no indication of that. It is as if Job is saying, “I hear you and I recognize your creative wisdom and power, but….” And the “but” is left unexpressed.

But Yahweh expresses it. Job still wonders about the reign of evil in the world. Has God lost control? Where is the justice of God? Or, has God turned toward evil himself? Yahweh’s second speech addresses these questions. Yahweh says, “I am sovereign over evil and chaos.”

Job’s response to the second speech comes in two parts. First, Job praises Yahweh (42:2-3). Second, Job embraces Yahweh’s presence (42:4-6).

Job praises Yahweh (42:2-3). Job acknowledges that God is Almighty and that his every purpose will be accomplished. Interestingly, “purpose” is the same term Job used in 21:27 when he was talking the divine “schemes” against him. Job recognizes that he cannot disrupt God’s plans, purposes, or intent, even if he does not like them.

Job responds to Yahweh’s question, “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?” (cf. 42:3; 38:2). Job doxologically confesses that God’s purposes are “too wonderful” for him. Job uses the same term present in Psalm 139:6,14; it is a term Job himself had previously used in a doxological context in Job 9:10. He confesses God’s wondrous acts as well as his ignorance of their meaning and significance. Job knows he does not understand God. He has confessed this earlier as well (9:11; 12:13; 23:8′ 26:12).

So, what is new? Nothing here is new. It is rather a renewed confession, a remembrance of what Job already knew and confessed.  What is new is what comes next.

Job embraces Yahweh’s presence (42:4-6). Again, Job quotes Yahweh (cf. 42:4; 38:3; and, interestingly, both of these quotations of Yahweh go back to Yahweh’s first speech). In this second response, Job is responding to both speeches. His quotation is an acknowledgement that he cannot answer Yahweh’s questions. Job knows his limitations. But then the climactic confession appears: “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes see you” (42:5).

This is the turning point. Here Job confesses his encounter with Yahweh.  Previously, Job had only heard of Yahweh or had only listened to Yahweh through the various ways in which Yahweh spoke to the patriarchs. Now something is different; Job has experienced something new. Now, Job has “seen” God.

We might take the verb “see” in a literal sense, that is, he saw God in the whirlwind. He saw the theophany.  Thus, Job’s hope was fulfilled. He had hoped to see God in the flesh again (19:26), and he did.  I think that is at least true, but it is more than that.  ”See” is also a metaphor for experience. Job has experienced Yahweh.  It is a theophanic encounter with or experience of God.

I have often referred to this as a “sanctuary” experience.  It is what the Psalmist in Psalm 73 experienced. He questioned God until he entered the sanctuary of God (73:16-17). It is what Habakkuk experienced. He questioned God until God appeared to him (expressed in the theophanic hymn of Habakkuk 3). It is the “nevertheless” of Psalm 13:5.  We cry “how long?”, but in our experience of God we “nevertheless” trust in God’s gracious purposes.

What happened in these instances is occasioned by the oppressive nature of the chaos or evil which burdened believers. They expressed that burden in lament. They cried, “how long?” or “why?” or “where are you?” Their questions were legitimate and faithful. This is also true of Job’s laments. But God showed up; he came to these lamenters. And they changed. This did not deligitimze their lament. Rather, it moved their lament to praise. They moved from lament to comfort. This is what happens to Job.

Job changes. Job, according to most English translations, repents. But repent is too strong for this word and leaves a false impression.  This is not the normal Hebrew term for “repentance” in the sense of a sorrow for sin or a turning away from sin.  Rather, this verb (nhm) fundamentally means a change of mind. Job changed his mind, just as God is depicted as changing his mind within the narrative of Scripture (cf.Exodus 32:12; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; 1 Chronicles 21:15). There is nothing inherent in the word that denotes a change from evil to good, a kind of repentance as we normally think of the English term.

Job changed his mind, but from what to what?  I think the intertextual cue is how this Hebrew root is used in Job itself. The friends came to “comfort” Job (2:11); Job hopes that his bed would “comfort” him (7:13); Job calls his friends miserable “comforters” (16:2); Job questions whether his friends can “comfort” him (21:34); Job himself was one who “comforts mourners” (29:25); and in the Epilogue Job is “comforted” by his friends and family (42:11). Everywhere this root is used in Job, it always means “comfort” unless Job 42:6 is the exception.

So, why do translaters call it “repent” here? They believe that Job has somehow sinned in his addresses to God in the dialogue. Job must repent if there is to be resolution.  But if we do not assume that Job has sinned, then we might simply recognize that Job is comforted in this text.

However, Job’s language before he acknowledges his “change of mind” is problematic. The verb “I despise” has no object in Hebrew.  What does Job despise? What does he reject?   Job had previously used the term in how he had not “rejected the cause” of his servants (31:13), and how God had despised the work of his hands (10:3), and how Job had loathed his own life (9:21; cf. also 7:16). But without an object in 42:6 it is difficult to determine what Job despises/rejects except by context.

If we understand that Job has changed his mind, particularly that he has been comforted, perhaps what he now does is “despise” his case (or perhaps reject his lament). He gives up his lawsuit against God (“retract,” NASB). He will not press charges. Or, perhaps it is language that voices humility such as “I melt away” (NEB). I don’t think Job is recanting everything he said (as the NLT translates it) but is rather “letting go” of the lawsuit, “letting go” of lament, or humbling himself before God (“I am little/I melt [before you]“). He is letting go of whatever resentment (psychological) or legal proceedings (forensic) he had against God.He will no longer lament; he will no longer mourn.

Job’s encounter with God comforted him. Giving up his lawsuit or humbling himself before the divine theophany, Job is “comforted over [my] dust and ashes.” Perhaps “dust and ashes” is a metaphor for his mourning (a possible meaning of 30:19) or  ”dust and ashes” is a metaphor for the finitude of humanity who returns to dust and ashes in death (cf. Gen. 18:27). Either way, Job is consoled in his mortal humanity or in his mourning. Indeed, we may read Job 42:6 as Job’s reject and change of mind about mourning–he will now leave the place of mourning he has occupied since 2:11 and return to life (cf. Patrick, VT [1976], 369-371).

Living in a chaotic world, Job’s finitude and ignorance generated unanswered questions, nagging doubts, and bewildering situations. His encounter with Yahweh changed him. Yahweh’s theophany spoke about sovereignty, wisdom, and care which generated peace, praise. and comfort. Job was comforted despite unanswered questions because the presence of  Yahweh assured him. Job turned from mourning to comfort. Job’s lament moved to praise.

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 942 other followers

%d bloggers like this: