Part 57
(cf. 3:3-6), i.e. their dependence on YHWH's favour, (i) Famine (v. 6; cf. 8:11). 'Places', paired with 'cities', may indicate cult-centres (cf. Gen 13:3—4; 28:18—19); if so> 'lack of bread' includes sacrificial offerings (cf. Joel 1:9, 13). 'Return' perhaps suggests public mourning rituals (demanded in 5:16) to elicit YHWH's mercy. (2) Drought (w. 7-8; cf. 8:13). 'Drinking' is no longer the heartless indulgence of 2:7; 4:1 (cf. 6:6), but a matter of survival. (3) Other natural disasters (v. 9). Curiously, locusts are mentioned only in passing; they usually constituted a major disaster (cf. 7:1—3; Joel 1—2).
(4) Plague (v. 10). 'Pestilence' either emanates from the rotting corpses or is a supernatural attack (cf. 5:3; Isa 37:36). The reference to Egypt is obscure; possibly an allusion to the plagues tradition; possibly a proverbial saying. Typically, the imagery switches from agriculture to war, another area where Israel should have recognized YHWH's hand (cf. 6:13). (5) Earthquake (v. n). The climactic event is of a different order: the allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah suggests punishment rather than warning. As in Gen 19:24—9, where only Lot and his daughters escape, the emphasis is on the few survivors. 'Snatched' (mussal) echoes 3:12 ('rescues', yassil). In Gen 19:24 YHWH 'rained' sulphur and fire (cf. Am 4:7; 7:4). In the context of Amos, an earthquake may be intended; but any 'act of God' is possible. 'Overthrow' (hapak, cf. Gen 19:25, 29) introduces an important new verb. v. 12, summons to Israel: the solemn address suggests a cultic occasion (cf. w. 4—5). 'Your God' (eloheka) reinforces this; the title is used for the first time (cf. 8:14; 9:15; contrast 2:8). But the God awaiting them is not a benevolent deity gratefully accepting gifts. The true nature of the religious situation, with its reversal of expectations, merely hinted at here, is spelled out in 5:18-20. v. 13, doxology: in the style of a liturgical praise-song, YHWH is celebrated as Creator and his 'name' evoked (cf. 2:7). This is the first of three 'hymnic/ judgement doxologies' (Crenshaw 1975; cf. 5:8; 9:6). Provenance and dating are disputed; they function to demonstrate YHWH's supremacy over nature, as well as in history, v. 13 is so structured that the central element, flanked by two powerful acts, is YHWH's 'revealing' of his 'thoughts'. This universalizes 3:7 (although with different vocabulary). 'Darkness' prepares for the Day of YHWH in ch. 5.
w. 10—13, the wages of sin: perversion of justice (v. 7) becomes explicit. The gate(way) is where, in an Israelite walled town, legal cases were conducted (cf. Ruth 4:1-12). The objects of 'their' hatred are not the innocent poor, as in 2:6—7, but honest judges. 'Hate' recurs later with YHWH as subject (5:21). The consequence of disregard for honest speaking is that the poor continue to be exploited (v. n); it is for this, ultimately, that punishment is decreed. The form is connected with treaty and law-code curses (e.g. Deut 28:30; Murray 1992: 62-7). 'Gate' forms an indusio, so that w. 10, 12 frame v. n, with its assurance of punishment for oppressors, v. 13 is enigmatic. It may be related to what precedes, i.e. honest men know they will not succeed in giving or receiving justice ('evil' (ra'd) implies 'disastrous'); or a general comment, perhaps from the writer's perspective (it is Amos's central verse; contrast Hos 14:9). w. 14—17, 'it may be...': YHWH and 'good' are now equated, so Bethel and Gilgal constitute 'evil'. Israel's complacent 'speaking' contrasts with YHWH's words of judgement, v. 15 sums up the situation: hating bad and loving good do not require cultic acts, but justice. The tentative hope for mercy (v. 15/7) is reminiscent of Jon 3:9. 'It may be' occurs in Amos only here and may be ironic: historically, the northern kingdom did not survive. Alternatively, it may point forward to 9:8/7—10, the survival of a (Judean) 'remnant', 6:1, 6 having universalized the scope of 'house of Joseph'. If so, this verse is of crucial importance to
(5:1—17) Death and Life This complex chiastic passage (de Waard 1977; Smalley 1979: 121-2), Amos's literary and theo-
AMOS 586
Sakkuth...' (cf. Harper 1904/1979: 137). There may be a deliberate link with 2:4: 'your images which...' perhaps supplies names for Judah's 'lies'. The identity of the deities is uncertain. NRSV's 'Sakkuth' assumes an Akkadian astral deity perhaps associated with Saturn (Borger 1988; Paul 1991: 195); 'Kaiwan' is better attested as Saturn; both names require us to repoint MT The picture is probably of carrying statues in a procession, v. 27 gives the most explicit statement of Israel's fate so far (contrast with 2:13). 'Beyond Damascus' is, however, still vague, suggesting somewhere north-east of Samaria/ Jerusalem, appropriate to both an Assyrian and a Babylonian deportation.
the thought of the book of Amos. w. 16-17, a penitential ceremony (cf. Joel 1—2): the theme of mourning is resumed, forming an indusio with w. 1—2. The Hebrew could mean 'let there be wailing'; this makes sense of 'therefore' (v. 16) and reinforces 'perhaps' (v. 15). Punishment, certainly, is unavoidable (v. 17). YHWH's presence, confidently presumed in v. 14, is now terrifying (cf. Ex 12:12, 23). (5:18-6:14) Cultic and Political Triumphalism Attacked Although there is continuity, a new section is established by two 'woe' exclamations (5:18; 6:1; cf 5:16/7). (5:18-20) The Day of YHWH This originated as a cultic celebration of YHWH as Israel's victorious king (see ABD ii. 82-5). But triumphalist expectations are reversed. As in 2:13, normal and abnormal combine. 'Fled' (v. 19) echoes 2:14. The simile suggests inescapability (cf. 9:2—4), reinforced by the repetition (5:18, 20) of the light/dark motif (cf. 4:13; 5:8).
(6:1-7) Callous Carousing and its Outcome In 1:2 YHWH's 'roar' reverberated from Sion; now, Sion merits YHWH's anger: both kingdoms commit the same sins (contrast 2:4 with 2:6). v. i repeats the 'woe' of 5:18, with a vivid picture of a feast; the theme of misused wealth is resumed (2:6, 4:1). v. la accuses the complacent: 'feel secure' suggests ill-judged confidence ('trust', cf. Hos 10:13; PS 146:3). v. ib is difficult; it perhaps suggests ordinary Israelites approaching their leaders for justice. 'First of nations' (re'sit haggoyim) is sarcastic; 'nation' recurs with great effect in 6:14. In 3:9 foreigners were summoned to 'see' Samaria's sins. Now (v. 2), Israelites are to go abroad ('abar, cf. 5:5, 'cross over'; 7:8; 8:2, 'pass by') and 'see' foreign places (cf. 1:3-2:3). Calneh and Hamath are (northern) Aramean city-states, Gath a (southern) Philistine city: a new all-inclusive 'pilgrimage' balances the three forbidden shrines (two northern, one southern) of 5:5. The Hebrew is uncertain; probably the idea is that Israel should learn from the downfall of once powerful nations (Calneh, Hamath, and Gath fell to Assyria in 738, 720, and 711 respectively; see NJB note). As in 1:3—2:6, Israel is assessed as other nations (cf. 9:7). The reference to David (v. 5) is obscure, but may suggest hubris. Wine flows freely (cf. 4:1); 'bowls' suggest drinking 'by the bowlful' (REB) or sacrilegiously using containers reserved for sacrificial drink-offerings. 'Finest' (re'sit) echoes v. i (NRSV: first) and anticipates v. 7 (ro's, 'head'; NRSV: first); it provides a double entendre, as re sit are often 'first fruits' (e.g. Ex 23:19). This concentration of vocabulary capable of cultic usage suggests that the 'orgy' is a marzeah, a ceremonial meal associated with funerals (Barstad 1984: 128-42; King 1988: 137-61; cf. Andersen and Freedman 1989: 566-7). A funeral-feast here should be for the 'ruin' of Joseph/Israel (5:1—2,16—17; cf. 5:15; ?Gen37:23~8), but this feasting is, again, at the expense of the most vulnerable. The punchline (v. 7) delivers the verdict expected since v. i. The theme of exile reappears; punishment fits crime through wordplay and assonance: 'revelry' (mirzah) puns on 'bowls' (mizreqe)', the 'loungers' (w. 4, 7) are the 'first to go into exile' (herd'sgolim); this echoes 'first of nations' (re'sit haggoyim, v. i) and forms an indusio for the whole passage.
(5:21—7) Repudiation of Heartless Religion (cf. Isa 1:11—17). If the day of YHWH belonged with the cult, the abrupt return to rituals makes sense. 'Despise' has occurred before (2:4), of Judah's 'despising' (NRSV: reject) YHWH's law. The annual pilgrim feasts are categorically rejected, although in other texts they are said to be divinely ordained (Ex 23:14-17; Deut 16:16); the technical term hag (implied in 4:4-5; 5:4-5) occurs for the first time (cf. 8:10). The text of v. 22 is uncertain, but rejection of various sacrifices continues, together with accompanying hymns and music, anticipating 6:4-6, especially 6:5. The lessons of 5:4-7, 10-15 are again summed up in an allembracing demand for justice and righteousness (v. 24; cf. 5:7). w. 25—7 are often regarded as an intrusion, presupposing a different cultural and historical background, but in the literary organization of both section and book they are significant. With w. 21—3 they form a cultic envelope, within which v. 24 is central. 'Exile' recalls the defeat of 5:1—3. v. 25 mentions the Exodus period, midway between 2:10 (cf. 3:1) and 9:7. Clear references to idolatry occur only here and in 2:4; 8:14. In v. 25 YHWH addresses the 'house of Israel' directly, as in 5:4. The problem is whether the answer 'yes' or 'no' is expected (cf. Ezek 20:10-26, a positive evaluation; Jer 7:21-3, a negative one; Exodus and Leviticus suppose all legislation to have been given at Sinai; cf. Ex 24:3—8). As Jer 7:22 is the only text which could be taken to deny a desert cult, it is likely that a post-exilic writer/reader would understand v. 25 as inviting the answer 'yes'. The Hebrew word order makes 'sacrifices and offerings' emphatic ('was it only sacrifices ...'). In the wider context of Amos this may reinforce the motif of orthodox practices rejected by YHWH because they were not backed up by 'justice and righteousness' (w. 23-4; cf. 4:4-5; 5:5). So apparently virtuous activities have only merited a grimly appropriate punishment (the chiastic structure of w. 25—6 equates 'Sakkuth' and 'Kaiwan' with 'sacrifices' and 'offerings'). But the verb-tense in v. 26 and the thrust of the sentence remain unclear and much debated (see Harper 1904/1979: 136—8). NRSV understands a future judgement oracle: Israel will worship foreign deities as a punishment (cf. Deut 4:28). Others understand a past tense, suggesting idolatry in the postwilderness period (e.g. Stuart 1987: 355); there could even be a hint of the 'sin in the desert' motif (cf. Num 25:1—5). But judgement may come only in v. 27. A statement about the present is more likely in v. 26: 'nowadays you take up
(6:8-14) Futile Success v. 8, YHWH's second oath (cf. 4:2); Jacob's 'pride' (only here, and, differently, 8:7; see Andersen and Freedman 1989: 410) is probably the arrogance of the addressees of 6:1-7. YHWH specifically 'hates' (cf. 5:21) the 'strongholds' (their final appearance), the symbols of oppression last mentioned in 3:11 (hence 'pride' is made specific). YHWH's action, 'delivering up' the whole city, resembles the act for which Gaza was to be annihilated (1:6). Realistically,
587 AMOS
guilty and innocent perish together (contrast with 9:10). w. 910, bringing out the dead (cf 5:3). It is unclear how many people are trying to remove 'bones' (MT; NRSV: body), and why (some think, unconvincingly, of plague); what 'burning' implies (cf. 2:i?);and why YHWH's name may not be invoked (contrast 4:13; 5:8; 9:6); but evidently burial proceedings are involved. 'Taking up' recalls 'taking away' in 4:2; perhaps also 'taking up' the dirge in 5:1 (nasa' each time).
fulfilment of 6:14. In v. 2 the locusts have done their worst (for 'eat', 'akal, cf. 1:4, 7,10,12,14; 2:2, 5). Amos considers the affliction excessive. Previously he has been YHWH's ambassador to guilty Israel; now he is Jacob/Israel's ambassador to an angry God. 'Jacob' deserves pity, like 'Joseph' (6:6). Amos sees 'Jacob' as 'small'—very different from the nation's selfperception (6:13). 'Stand' (lit. arise) recalls 5:2; also 6:14, where YHWH 'raises' not Israel but a foe. The result of Amos's intercession is the cancellation of what might have happened (cf. Moses, Ex 32:9—14), reversing previous threats. Scholars who assign the visions to a historical Amos usually date them before the prophecies in chs. 1-6 (e.g. Andersen and Freedman 1989: 65-9); there are, however, no temporal links with what precedes; the visions, whatever their prehistory, are satisfactorily read as parallel accounts of Israel's judgement.
Linked to w. 9-10 by the catchword 'house', v. n expands v. 8. The destruction of the houses, suggesting earthquake, fulfils 3:15: 'great' and 'little' are a merismus, meaning 'every', w. 12-14 resume the themes of political overconfidence and perversion of justice. The questions in v. 12 (formally matching 3:3—6, the second involving an emendation) suggest selfevidently stupid activity. Perverting justice is equally counterproductive: it turns things upside-down (hapak, again, cf. 4:11, 'overthrew'; 5:7, 'turn'). 'Poison' is rd's, a homonym of the word for 'head' or 'first', which dominated 6:1—7: a grim pun. The perverters of justice (v. 13) are apparently boasting about military successes. Lo-debar and Karnaim are Transjordanian towns recaptured from Aram in the eighth century by Jeroboam II (cf. 2 Kings 14:25—8). For an evaluation of this period of Israelite recovery, in which Amos's activity is set (1:1), see Miller and Hayes (1986: 307-9). Lo-debar sounds like 'Lodabar', 'No-Word/Thing' (MT's vocalization); Karnaim means 'horns', a symbol of strength (cf. i Kings 22:11). There is a blasphemous ring to the first-person forms; such hubris discounts YHWH's responsibility for Israel's success (cf. 2:910). 'Strength' recalls 2:14 where Israel's army is already doomed. Punishment is by surprisingly normal means: instead of intervening personally, YHWH incites another 'nation' (goy). Lebo-hamath and the Wadi Arabah represent the northern and southern limits of Israelite territory, encompassing both Israel and Judah (2 Kings 14:25). The 'nation' is unnamed (only with hindsight to be identified with Assyria or Babylon; but see AM 7:1). Also surprising is the relatively mild punishment: Israel will be 'oppressed', not annihilated. The end of national expansion is, however, certain. The dramatic placing of goy forms an indusio with goyfm (6:1), marking the end of the immediate section and, with the stress on foreigners, perhaps the wider one (chs. 1-6).
(7:4—6) Fire NRSV's 'shower offire' adopts a plausible emendation of difficult Hebrew. 'Fire' may represent summer heat, drought, or lightning, but is also YHWH's punishing fire, promised in the Oracles against the Nations (cf. i Kings 18:38; Ex 9:23—4). Here, not merely buildings are 'devoured' but the world-ocean ('the great deep'), the source of the waters (cf. 5:8; 9:6). The dialogue in 7:1-6 is something new in Amos: previously YHWH has either made decisions or explained actions. Now Amos glimpses YHWH's forward planning (cf. 3:7) and intervenes to object. YHWH gives no reasons for his (temporary) change of heart: Amos's reasoning suffices. (7:7-9) Tin YHWH resumes control; there is no further intercession or reprieve. The Hebrew is difficult to interpret; MT's 'anak probably means not 'plumbline' (NRSV) but 'tin' (Auld 1986:18-20). YHWH stands 'near' or 'on' a city wall (cf. 1:7, 10, 14), plated with metal (?). The wall suggests supernatural strength (cf. Jer 1:18; 15:20; Zech 2:5), but the actual substance in YHWH's hand is the puzzling focus. Auld (1986: 20) suggests that as 'anak is a Mesopotamian loanword, not the usual Hebrew word for tin, it might suggest the military capability of an invader. Tin was a precious metal needed for the manufacture of bronze weapons; here, God has the potential to destroy his people. But the vision's interpretation may also involve punning on similar sounding words for 'groaning', so that T am setting 'dnak' might sound like T am setting groaning in the midst...' (Andersen and Freedman 1989: 756-9; Stuart 1987: 373); this interpretation is reinforced by the wordplay in 8:1-3, verses which are formally close to w. 7—8. v. 9 switches to the cult-centres, destined for destruction in 3:14. 'High places', originally Yahwistic shrines, became synonymous with forbidden practices; 'sanctuaries' suggest major cult-centres (7:13). Tradition associates Isaac with Beersheba (cf. 5:5; 8:14). v. 9 ends with an explicit threat, different from earlier ones. The dynasty of Jeroboam II (cf. 1:1) foundered in £.745 BCE (Soggin 1993: 238). In line with the Oracles against the Nations (but unlike 6:14), YHWH himself is the aggressor.
Visions, Interpretations, Words of Judgement and Salvation (7:1-9:15)
First four interpreted visions explore Israel's fate (7:1—9; 8:1—3; a 'mantological anthology', Fishbane 1985: 447-59; 520-1; cf. Jer 1:11-14; Zech 1:7-6:8; Dan 7-12). A central narrative (7:1017) demonstrates why judgement is irrevocable.
(7:1—3) Locusts Amos now speaks in his own voice. The setting is late spring; with no rain expected until autumn (cf. 4:7), locusts are catastrophic. If the 'king's mowings' were a tax, it would ruin the rural population; but the king's advantage is short-lived (7:9). Although starting a new section, v. i connects with 6:14. There is assonance between 'oppress' (laqas, 6:14) and 'latter growth' (kqes, v. i), between 'nation' (goy, 6:14) and 'locusts' (gobay, v. i). Here, the connection is more than aural: the locusts could be the goy; they symbolize invading armies (and vice versa) in Joel 1:4, 6—7; 2:2—11 (esp. 1:6 where they are called goy). v. i perhaps functions as immediate
(7:10—17) Amos and Amaziah Alternating firstand thirdperson material occurs also in Hos 1—3; Isa 6—8. Such narratives, in their received form, are literary rather than (auto)biographical; they are a recognizable genre, functioning to establish a prophet's authority (Auld 1986: 25), though they may, of course, be based on earlier, and authentic, material. An 'adversarial centrepiece' also occurs in other mantological
AMOS
25:13—15), another perversion of justice, v. 6 quotes 2:6; more self-condemnation. (8:7-10) YHWH's Final Oath (cf. 4:2; 6:8), 'pride' is probably a divine title, so meaning 'himself; but it also ironically echoes 6:8 where YHWH 'hates' Jacob's 'pride' (i.e. arrogance). 'Never' occurred in 1:11 (Edom's undying enmity); again YHWH exhibits a trait elsewhere condemned (1:9, 6:8). YHWH's oath establishes cosmic order (Murray 1992: 1-13); here, sin undoes this order with disastrous effects: earthquake ('tremble') and flooding (cf. 5:8; 9:6). v. 9 picks up 4:13; 5:8, 18—20, perhaps evoking a solar eclipse. The mourning theme reappears (v. 10; first in 1:2, where 'wither' could also be 'mourn'; so NJB, cf. 5:16/7). 'Turn' is hapak, cf. 4:11; 5:7, 8; 6:12. 'Feasts' (haggim) are those repudiated in 5:21, so it is cult-centres that are overthrown. A different kind of ritual results (cf. Joel 1:5-14; 2:12-17; burlesqued in Jon 3:49); praise-hymn becomes dirge (cf. 5:1). The inclusion of 'baldness' (i.e. shaving of forelocks) indicates a stance different from Deut 14:1. For 'mourning for an only child', cf. Jer 6:26; Zech 12:10. (8:11-14) A Theme Reworked Drought and thirst are now related to prophetic silence and misdirected oaths. The timeformula of v. ii recurs only in 9:13 (see Wolff 1977: 324—5). 'Send' echoes 1:4, 7,10, 12; 2:2, 5; 'famine' evokes 4:6—8. But this famine is spiritual, not physical, perhaps to be connected with 2:12, 7:12-13, a powerful comment on the importance of the prophetic words without which YHWH's designs cannot be known (3:7). w. 12—14 rework 4:6—11 (cf. 'wander', 4:8). 'Seeking' interprets 5:4, 6, 14, and identifies 'living' with YHWH's prophetic word. But, as often in Amos, people come to their senses too late. Those destined for punishment are not perverters of justice (8:4—8), but 'young women' (betulot, cf. 5:2, 'maiden') and 'young men' (bahurim, cf. 2:11, 'youths'). Their 'fall' recalls 5:2. They, like YHWH, have been swearing oaths (in reaction to YHWH's silence?). NRSV's 'by Ashimah' adopts an emendation giving the name of an Aramean goddess, cf. 2 Kings 17:30 (Barstad 1984: 157-81). MT has 'asmat, 'sin/guilt(-offering)'; this also fits, either suggesting the 'calves' at Bethel and Dan (i Kings 12:28—30); or constituting a sarcastic Judean comment on the ineffectiveness of any northern sin-offerings. In any case, 'asmat would sound like 'asimdh (NJB). Dan appears only here in Amos (cf. Judg 18). For 'your god', cf. 2:8. For Beersheba, cf. 5:5. 'Way' (derek) is obscure; emendations give 'beloved' (a divine title) or 'pantheon'. If derek is retained, it could mean either 'power' (another divine title, Soggin 1987:140-1), 'processional route' (REB), or 'pilgrimage' (NJB). The general sense is clear: heterodox or idolatrous practices at sanctuaries (even southern ones) lead to death: a new emphasis. (9:1-10) Final, but Mitigated, Judgement (9:1-4) A Fifth Vision (cf. Ezek 9), this differs formally from the others, though there are links with 7:7-8 (cf. Isa 6:1-4; I Kings 13:1); cf. 2:8. The sanctuary is unnamed, so could be either Bethel or Jerusalem, or both. 'Shake' is the verb from which earthquake (1:1) is derived. YHWH's attack on survivors recalls 1:8; the impossibility of escape 2:14 (cf. g:8a). w. 2—4 are comparable in artistry to 1:1—2:6; 3:3—8; 4:6—11. The language is hyperbolic (cf. Ps 139:7—12), with many crossreferences. 'Carmel' recalls 1:2, its 'top' (ro's) as vulnerable
anthologies (e.g. Zech 3:1-10; 11:4-16; see Larkin 1994: 22333); for the relationship of these verses with i Kings 13, 2 Chr 25:14—16, see Ackroyd (1977: 71—87). Here, the confrontation between Amos and Amaziah justifies YHWH's decision to punish. The central theme is again opposition to prophets (cf. 2:12). In v. 10 'sent' contrasts with what YHWH intends to 'send' in chs. 1—2. Ironically, Amaziah places Amos 'in the very centre' of the kingdom, YHWH's position in 5:17; 7:8. Amaziah introduces Amos with the 'messenger' formula
('Thus ... has said'), giving his words prophetic authority. He acknowledges Amos's prophetic standing, addressing him as 'seer' (cf. 1:1), but by forbidding him to prophesy at the national shrine (v. 13), Amaziah effectively silences him in the very place about which the prophetic word was given. Amos's refusal (v. 14) of the name 'prophet' (naW—not used by Amaziah, nor in 1:1; cf. Hab 1:1; Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1) is disconcerting, whether the ambiguous Hebrew refers to present (NRSV, NJB) or past (REB). In 2:12 a nabi' is one of YHWH's greatest gifts; he knows YHWH's thoughts (3:7). Amos seems to distinguish between prophecy as paid profession (cf. 'earn your bread', v. 12), and individual call (v. 15; cf. 2:11-12; 3:8; Zech 13:5; Auld 1986: 34), though he accepts the activity of 'prophesying' (v. 15). His occupations situate him outside court and cult (cf. 1:1). The shepherd called from his flock has intertextual echoes with Moses (Ex 3), perhaps also David
(Ps 78:70; 2 Sam 7:8); cf. Elisha (i Kings 19:19-20). But a tension remains between this passage and chs. 2—3. This is characteristic of other places in OT which deal with the nature and role of prophets; at the time of the formation of the prophetic corpus the problem was evidently not resolved (see Carroll 1983: 25—31; Overholt 1990: 3—29, 51—4; Auld 1990: 31-2, for an ongoing debate.) Amos's commission is surprising: he must prophesy to 'my people' (rare in Amos, cf. 7:7), yet the addressees of 2:6—6:14 are the powerful rich, not the whole people (contra Carroll 1992: 38, 275). Finally
(w. 16-17), Amos demonstrates the effects of opposing YHWH's prophet: he prophesies! Amaziah must 'hear'
(cf. 3:1, 13; 4:1; 5:1): his own words, echoing 2:12, convict him. His children suffer the fate prophesied for Jeroboam's family ('house', 7:9); their 'fall' recalls 5:2. His own exile will take him where he (rather than the land) will be ritually unclean (cf. his wife's defilement), incapable of exercising priesthood. His own words (v. n) form an indusio with v. 17: Israel will indeed be exiled. (8:1-3) Ripe Fruit Formally and thematically this vision matches 7:7-9. 'Summer [i.e. ripe] fruit' (qayis) sounds positive (cf. 2:13). But 'end' is qes; the pun on qayis effects the meaning. 'Songs' recalls 5:23; 6:5, but are now shrieks over the dead (cf. 5:16-17). 'That day' suggests the day of YHWH
(5:18-20). 'Be silent!' recalls 6:10, suggesting a scene so terrible that even mourning must cease.
(8:4—14) Judgement Re-Emphasized
(8:4—6) Sharp Practice Condemned 'Hear' links v. 4 with 3:1, 13; 4:1; 5:1, but, by picking up vocabulary from 2:7, also recalls Israel's first indictment (cf. 5:11). Self-condemnation is typical of this book (5:14; 6:13; 7:10). Impatience with cultic constraints contrasts with enthusiasm for religious observance (4:4—5). 'Be over' is fabar, cf. YHWH's refusal to 'pass by' (7:8; 8:2). The practices envisaged are illegal (Lev 19:35-6; Deut
589 AMOS
'Who does this' perhaps authenticates a daring eschatological prophecy (cf. Isa 9:7?).
as the 'heads' (ro's) in v. i. 'Taking' (v. 2) contrasts with 7:15, where YHWH 'took' Amos. The 'sea-serpent' recalls the 'snake' in 5:19 (both nahas). For YHWH 'commanding', cf. 6:11. YHWH's gaze for 'harm' (ra'd) and not 'good' recalls 'good' and 'evil' (raf) in 5:14-15. For YHWH's eyes cf. 9:8 (usually a sign of favour, e.g. Ps 33:18—19; 34:15; their withdrawal spells disaster, e.g. Isa 8:17). This passage intensifies the theme of YHWH's all-embracing power (cf the Oracles against the Nations and doxologies).
(9:13—15) Paradisal Promise v. 13 chiastically reverses 8:11 (cf. 9:11; 8:13). Finally, harvest language is entirely positive. For unending fertility cf. Lev 26:3-6 (where, however, obedience to Torah is required). For the richness of the promised land cf. Deut 8:7—10; for 'overtake', now used positively, cf. 6:3; 9:10. 'Flow' comes from the same root as 'melt' in 9:5; again, a peaceful image substituted for a terrifying one (cf. Hos 14:5-7; Joel 4:18). v. 14 reverses 9:4: 'my people' are no longer objects of wrath. YHWH restores, but the people rebuild (contrast with 9:11); the curse of 5:11 is annulled ('cities' replace 'houses'); the replanting of vineyards brings the drink motif to a happy conclusion. The third promise puts right all the damage detailed in 4:9; 'eat' loses its menace. Finally (v. 15) YHWH himself'plants' Israel; a farmer God balances a herdsman prophet (1:1). 'Upon their land' reverses 7:17. Resettlement is permanent (cf. Ezek 39:25—9); the gift of the land recalls 2:10. The final prophecy (salvation) is authenticated by 'says YHWH' as was the first prophecy (judgement 1:3, 5). The ultimate word is 'your God' (eldheka). This title first occurred in 4:12, a summons to a terrifying encounter. In 8:14, it was addressed blasphemously to other deities. Now it can be used without presumption or fear. Epilogue From the perspective of post-exilic Jews, centred on the Jerusalem cult, the northern kingdom had been destroyed for ever, Judah was part of the Persian empire, but life beyond judgement had been experienced, and better things were hoped for (even if 5:13 hints at the reality; cf. Neh 9:36—7?). Yet the past remains relevant; hence, in this prophetic book, judgement is not softened with unconditional hope until the end (unlike Hosea, Micah), although it is hinted at occasionally. By reading their own history as an eighth-century prophecy about the northern kingdom, those responsible for Amos as we know it were able to express convictions about past, present, and future. Amos is a brilliantly crafted text; when it is read backwards from its postexilic closure (whatever its earlier stages), and outwards from its theological centre (ch. 5), it works on several levels simultaneously; this, despite tensions and ambiguities, substantially makes sense of its unique blend of warnings, exhortations and promises.
(9:5-6) Final Doxology The appropriate response to 9:1-4 is 'mourning' (cf. 5:16). v. 6a is obscure but has creation elements. 'Upper chambers' requires emendation (MT lit. stairways). In Hebrew cosmology this is the region above the sky, where YHWH lives and controls the waters, v. 6b repeats 5:8/7; cf. 4:13.
(9:7—80) Exodus Revisited Key moments from earlier sections are reworked. Israel is addressed directly for the first time since 6:14. 'People of Israel' last occurred in 4:5; before that only in 2:11; 3:1. The comparison with the 'Ethiopians' subverts 3:2, as do the exodus stories, relativizing Israel's trump card. Israel's exodus recalls 2:10; 3:1; Aram's 1:5. Philistine origins have not appeared earlier ('Caphtor' is usually identified with Crete), v. 7 reinforces chs. 1-2: Israel will be treated no differently from other nations (does this also annul 3:1*8 rationale for punishment, opening the way for v. Sfo's escape-clause?), v. 8a echoes 9:2-4. 'The 'sinful kingdom' may be Israel (cf. 7:13) or, generically, any sinful kingdom (cf. 6:2).
(9:8^-10) Selective Punishment v. 8fc, with the abrupt and unique 'except' fulfils the hope of 'it may be...' (5:15/7). The 'House of Jacob' (cf. 3:13), the 'remnant of Joseph' (5:15), will, after all, survive. Harvest imagery reappears (cf. 2:13). 'Shake' is nucf as in 4:8; 8:12 ('wander'). The image is of winnowed grain (cf. 1:3) passed through a sieve which retained pebbles and dross (Sir 27:4); v. 10 explains the 'sieving' as war. A distinction is now made between sinners ('pebbles') and (by implication) the innocent. The 'sinners' are those of 6:1-6 ('overtake' is the same verb as 'bring near', 6:3); cf. 8:4—6.
(9:11—15) Future Glory
(9:11—12) National Restoration Judgement now unequivocally yields to salvation. When 'on that day' last occurred (8:14; cf. 2:16; 8:3), the sinful young people had 'fallen', never to 'rise'. Here, YHWH himself'raises' the 'fallen', reversing 5:2, 8:14. Hence, the mysterious 'booth of David' matches 'maiden Israel'; both represent the nation. Perhaps restoration of the united kingdom is suggested (2 Sam 8; cf. Hos 1:11; 3:5). 'Booth' may continue the harvest motif, referring to temporary shelters at harvest-time (Isa 1:8; cf. Jon 4:5); but a military context is also possible (2 Sam 11:11; i Kings 20:12). 'Breaches' (cf. 4:3), 'ruins' and 'rebuild' suggest reconstruction of a city. 'Rebuild' is the same as 'build' in 9:6: YHWH constructs places for himself on earth as in heaven. The purpose (v. 12) is to 'possess' (lit. inherit, cf. 2:10) the territory of others. The situation of chs. 1-2 is radically changed. Edom (cf. Ob 1-4; in post-exilic times a quite substantial 'remnant'!) replaces the 'Amorites' (2:10). 'All the nations' echoes 9:9, reversing that situation. 'Calling by name' can be a legal formula expressing ownership: as all nations are YHWH's, he has them in his gift.
Ackroyd, P. R. (1977), 'A Judgment Narrative between Kings and
Chronicles: An Approach to Amos 7.9-17', in G. W. Coats (ed.), Canon and Authority (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 71—87. Repr. in P. R. Ackroyd, Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1987), 196-208. Andersen, F. I., and Freedman, D. N. (1989), Amos: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2^A. Auld, A. G. (1986), Amos, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield: JSOT).
(1990), 'Prophecy in Books: A Rejoinder', JSOT48: 31-2. Barstad, H. (1984), The Religious Polemics of Amos: Studies in the
Preaching of Am. yb-8; 4, 1-3; j, 1-27; 6,4-7; 8,14, VTSup 34 (Leiden: Brill). Barton, J. (1980), Amos' Oracles Against the Nations: A Study of
Amos 1.3-2.5, SOTS MS 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
(1995), Isaiah 1—39 (Sheffield: Academic Press).
OBADIAH 590
Borger, R. (1988), 'Amos 5,26, Apostelgeschichte 7,43 und surpu II,
King, P. J. (1988), Amos, Hosea, Micah—An Archaeological Commen-
tary (Philadelphia: Westminster). Larkin, K. (1994), The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the
180', ZAWioo/i: 70-81. Bovati, P., and Meynet, R. (1994), La Fin d'lsrael: Paroles d'Amos (Paris:
Cerf). Carroll, R. (1983), 'Poets not Prophets', JSOT27: 25-31.
Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology (Kampen: Kok Pharos). Miller, J. M., and Hayes, J. H. (1986), A History of Ancient Israel and
(1990), 'Whose Prophet? Whose History? Whose Social Reality? Troubling the Interpretative Community Again: Notes Towards a Response to T. W Overholt's Critique', JSOT48: 33-49. Carroll R., M. D. (1992), Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin-
Judah (London, SCM). Murray, R. (1992), The Cosmic Covenant, Heythrop Monographs, 7
(London: Sheed & Ward). Nogalski, J. (1993), Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (Berlin:
American Perspective, JSOT Sup 132 (Sheffield: JSOT). Coggins, R. J. (1994), 'The Minor Prophets: One Book or Twelve?' in S.
de Gruyter), 74—122. Overholt, T. W. (1990), 'Prophecy in History: The Social Reality of
Porter et al. (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (Leiden: Brill), 57-68. Collins, T. (1993), The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the
Intermediation', and '"It is Difficult to Read"', JSOT 48: 3-29, 51-4. Paul, S. M. (1991), Amos, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress). Smalley, W. A. (1979), 'Recursion Patterns and the Sectioning of
Prophetical Books (Sheffield: JSOT), 59-87. Coote, R. B. (1981), Amos amongthe Prophets (Philadelphia: Fortress). Crenshaw, J. L. (1975), Hymnic Affirmation of Divine Justice: The Dox-
Amos', The Bible Translator, 30/1:118—27. Soggin, J. A. (1987), The Prophet Amos: A Translation and Commentary
ologies of Amos and Related Texts in the Old Testament, SBLDS 24 (Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press). Davies, P. R. (1989), 'Prophetic Literature', in J. Rogerson and P. R.
(London: SCM).
(1993), An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah, 2nd edn. (London: SCM). Stuart, D. (1987), Hosea-Jonah, WBC 31 (Waco, Tex.: Word), 274-400. Waard, J. de (1977), 'The Chiastic Structure of Amos V 1-17', VT27:
Davies (eds.), The Old Testament World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 274-92. Fishbane, M. (1985), Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford:
Clarendon). Harper, W. R. (1904/1979), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
170-7. Wolff, H.-W. (1977), Joel and Amos, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fort-
Amos and Hosea (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark).
ress), 89-392.
30. Obadiah REX MASON
2. Literary Connections. One of the remarkable features of Obadiah is the number of connections with other biblical books. The closest is between w. 1/7—5 an(^ Jer 49:9> 14—16 with more general connections between v. 9 andjer4g:22 and v. 16 and Jer 49:12. For a synoptic arrangement of these passages see Mason (1991: 89—90). Scholars have often debated which one of these is the original. However, it is now recognized that it is much more likely that there was a stock of prophetic oracles (perhaps current in temple worship) and that prophets drew from such a common source and adapted it for their own use. This is the view of Ben Zvi who has most fully and recently explored the issue (Ben Zvi 1996: 99—114). Another close parallel is between v. 17 and Joel 2:32 (HB 3:5). Other echoes of more general prophetic concepts are examined in the commentary.
A. The Prophet. 1. The Man. Perhaps it is fitting that the prophet who has given his name to the shortest book in the OT has the briefest Press Notice—merely his name. Indeed, we might not even know that, since it means 'One who serves
(or worships) YHWH', and so it might be a descriptive title. Perhaps this brevity is because he was unknown to the latest editors of the book, or they thought he was so well known to his readers that no details were necessary (Ben Zvi 1996: 14— 19). It is also possible the title was given to an anonymous prophecy to bring the number of the smaller prophetic collections up to twelve (Ackroyd 1992).
2. His Times. No biographical or chronological details are given to us. Nor is it easy, for reasons explained below, to deduce the historical situation of his activity from the contents of the book.
3. Allusive and Ambiguous Characteristics. Apart from actual textual problems (dealt with as they occur in the commentary) there is a strange 'allusive', sometimes even ambiguous quality to Obadiah. It was said above that it is difficult to pinpoint historical events from the text. This is partly because it is often unclear whether a past or future event is being described. The tenses of the Hebrew verbs are not much help here since a perfect tense, usually denoting an event completed by the time of speaking, can be used in the sense of a 'prophetic perfect', a future event which is seen by the prophet as so certain that it can be described as if it has already happened. Again it is not always easy to know if a future tense is alluding to what is yet to happen, or is a colourful way of describing a past event. We shall see this is a particular problem in w. 12-14 where the Eng. versions differ considerably
B. The Book. 1. Genre. The title 'The vision of Obadiah' places the book firmly within the category of 'prophecy' in the Old Testament canon (e.g. Isa 1:1; Nah 1:1). The phrase 'concerning Edom' allies it with the Oracles Against the Nations (OAN), a type of prophetic oracle which occurs in most of the prophetic books of the OT. The fact that at v. 15 the book switches to promises of salvation for Jacob in no way conflicts with this designation since oracles of judgement upon Israel's foes and salvation for them frequently occur together and, indeed, the OAN is (usually) a form of 'salvation oracle' for the people of God (Barton 1980: 3—7). If they were sometimes used in a cultic setting they may not only have been intended to announce such promises but actually to help bring them about (see Bic 1953 and, more temperately, Coggins 1985).
59i OBADIAH
in their rendering. Nor is it always clear who is addressing whom. Further, attacks on apparently particular peoples such as Edom/Esau turn out to be attacks on very general human attitudes such as self-confidence, boasting of one's own wisdom, betraying promises, while a specific nation appears to be taken as some kind of symbol for pagan nations in general. Ben Zvi makes a good deal of this aspect of the book arguing that it means we cannot use it for making historical inferences
especially the reference about being 'driven to the border' by her enemies (v. 7). So e.g. Wellhausen (1892); Bewer (1911). Wellhausen's suggestion that Obadiah might be 'commentary' on Mai 1:2-5 is interesting. For a detailed history of Edom and the Edomites see Bartlett (1989), and for the place of Edom in the biblical literature see Dicou (1994). The fact is, as has been said, that the text is not detailed enough to locate its historical context, and we have to allow for a development of the text in which material that once related to one situation is found to have relevance and force in others, and in which the lessons of one incident are found to have more general and even universal significance.
(1996: esp. 260-7).
4. Contents and Structure. There is some disagreement on the subdivisions to be found within this short text, but the plan I follow is set out in the commentary. This, broadly, agrees with Snyman's divisions (1989). Slightly different analyses may be found in Dick (1984), Clark (1991), and Ben Zvi
(1996). These are based on their recognition of literary and rhetorical markers. It is open to question whether or not, where earlier prophetic material is being used later, some of these markers may have achieved a purely conventional force, and so it seems better to divide by the development of the argument as far as this can be traced. Whatever the date and origin of the individual sections, they have been crafted together skilfully by means of link-words and other literary devices, probably well on in the post-exilic period.
(i ah) Superscription See OB B.I. 'Vision' is a technical term meaning 'prophetic revelation' or 'prophetic message'.
(ic-5) An oracle threatening (or reporting) an attack against an apparently impregnable enemy.
(i bed) Although the parallel in Jer 49:14 and LXX have the singular, 'I have heard', the plural 'we' suits this context better. It may suggest the sense of the prophet's identity with his hearers but is far more likely to be an allusion to the 'council of Heaven', admission to which was the sign of a true prophet (cf. Jer 23:22; i Kings 22). The call to battle is a literary device (Bach 1962).
5. Theology. The book of Obadiah has often been dismissed as purely a piece of vindictive hate against Edom, a hatred incited by memories of Edom's failure to help when Judah was in trouble. We may presume this certainly lies behind some of the original prophetic material which has been incorporated into the book, but we shall see how the issues have been broadened out, so that 'Edom' has become a symbol, not only of all pagan nations, but of certain sinful human characteristics (Coggins 1985; Cresson 1972; Mason 1991; Ben Zvi 1996). Ultimately, what is hoped for is the rule, not so much of Israel as a nation, but of God, in whose kingdom such things will have no place.
(v. 2) First-person speech of YHWH shows it is he who is actually attacking the power: the human confederates, 'the nations', are only his instruments.
(v. 3) This human power typifies human pride. The height and apparent inaccessibility of its strongholds which God brings down is a familiar prophetic theme, particularly of Isaiah (2:6-19, cfEzek 35). The power is unnamed in these verses but some see in the use of the word 'rock' an allusion to the name of the Edomite city Sela (cf. 2 Kings 14:7). Irony marks the question of the power 'Who will bring me down to the ground?'—the answer comes in v. 4.
6. Place in Canon. In the HB the book is placed immediately after Amos and this is often thought to be because it was seen as a commentary on Amos 9:11—12.
(v. 4) For the same imagery see Num 24:21 and cf. Isa 14:12—15.
C. Israel and Edom. The relations between Judah and Edom were turbulent over a long period, yet there was a strong note in the patriarchal traditions of their relatedness. Here, and elsewhere, Esau and Jacob are depicted as brothers (Bartlett 1977). David is said to have subdued Edom (2 Sam 8:12). There is a record of their successful rebellion in the time of Jehoram in the ninth century BCE (2 Kings 8:20-2). Some early conservative scholars dated Obadiah to this occasion (e.g. Keil 1866; von Orelli 1893). The Chronicler records Edom as taking advantage of pressure on Ahaz in the eighth century (2 Chr 28:16-19). A sense of betrayal by Edom when the Babylonians invaded Judah and captured Jerusalem in 586 BCE is marked in some exilic and post-exilic literature, e.g. Ps 137:7, Lam 4:21. A considerable number of commentators have assigned Obadiah to this occasion, usually dating it shortly after the event (e.g. Rudolph 1971; Weiser 1974; Allen 1976). Later, the Edomites were subject to pressures from the incursions of the Nabateans and were pushed up into the region of the Negeb, a region therefore later known as Idumea. Some scholars have dated Obadiah to this time in view of the (future, as they see it) threat to Edom in w. ic—io and
(v. 5) NRSV follows many when it marks a break between w. 4 and 5 because of the 'concluding' prophetic formula at the end of v. 4, 'says the LORD'. Yet see OB 8.4. v. 5 really continues the thought of the threatened downfall of the apparently impregnable city. There is a play on words here. The verb which gives the noun 'grape-gatherers' also means to fortify a city or, literally, to make it 'cut off, inaccessible'. It also forms the first three letters of the name 'Bozrah', an Edomite town
(Am 1:12; Isa 34:5—7).
(w. 6—9) The application of the threat to Edom The tenses throughout are past, but see OB 8.3, c. v. 6, Edom is here called 'Esau' just as Judah/Jerusalem is referred to as 'Jacob' thus linking the relations between the two countries to the patriarchal stories which portray them as brothers. In these Esau is the 'elder brother' and it is Jacob who cheats him. Yet this book shows that God 'chooses' the younger and the trickster, and why. It is a theme also found in Mai 1:2-5 and in the NT (Rom 9:6—13 and, in a general way, in the parable of the Prodigal Son), w. 7-9, it is an irony that Edom's allies betray them.
OBADIAH 592
those who dispossessed them' (so NRSV). v. 18, God, in his judgement against 'Esau' and all she stands for will make use of'the house of Jacob' and (for the first time in this book) 'the house of Israel'. Perhaps this is to suggest that the 'remnant' will represent the 'true Israel'.
Edom, for all its wise men (v. 8) has shown extraordinary folly in its military alliances, the futility of which in the face of YHWH's judgement is another familiar prophetic theme (e.g. Isa 31:1-3). The Hebrew has only 'your bread' in v. jd. NRSV follows a suggestion of Davies (1977) here, but the word alone may suggest this anyway. The meaning of the word 'trap' is uncertain but there is no doubt of the general thrust. The last phrase, 'There is no understanding of it', is another ironic dig at Edom's vaunted wisdom, and is echoed in v. 8, which says that God will destroy such wisdom and understanding as might be there. 'Teman', another Edomite town, gives its name to Edom as a whole here. (w. 10-14, I5^) The reasons for Edom's fate Usually the grounds of accusation are given before the announcement of judgement in prophetic oracles of this nature (Westermann 1967:142—62), but this order gives added dramatic force, v. 10, NRSV follows many in seeing the last word from v. 9, 'for the slaughter' as really the beginning of v. 10. Note that it is the betrayal of fraternal obligations which is at the heart of the accusation. This opens up a wider concern of YHWH's judgement than any merely one-off historical incident between two nations. The irony is that Edom's 'allies' behave in the same way to her. v. n, Edom is charged with lack of action so perhaps the 'slaughter and violence' done to Jacob (v. 10) was that Edom allowed it to happen by such callous indifference, w. 12-14 have a series of lines all beginning with a construction which would normally be rendered as a prohibition, 'Do not gloat' etc. (see REB, JB, and NIV). Since most commentators feel that this reflects a situation which has happened and of which the prophet was an eyewitness they translate it as NRSV has, 'You should not have gloated'. Again, however, there may be a studied ambivalence here suggesting that this now embodies a timeless truth about just and compassionate behaviour towards 'brethren' (see Ben Zvi 1996: 144-6). Note also the recurrent theme of'the day' in these verses. In this case it is YHWH's 'day' of judgement against Judah for their sins. But that in no way excuses Edom or the 'nations' who will know their own 'day' (w. 8,15»), which will also be a 'day' of salvation for God's people ('my people', v. 130, my emphasis), v. 15/7, the simplest explanation is that this summarized w. 10-14 wrth its theme of a divine lex talionis against Edom. (w. 150, 16-18) The day of YHWH Now 'the day' is a day of judgement for 'the nations', of which Edom is taken as typical, and of salvation for the people of God. v. 16, Judah is now addressed. The imagery of judgement as 'drinking a cup' is a familiar one, cf Ps 75:8 (HB 9). In a reversal of roles it will now be 'the nations' which drink it. v. 17 parallels Joel 2:32 (HB 3:5). The Hebrew word for 'remnant' is a feminine singular noun. By rendering it as 'those who escape' NRSV makes 'it shall be holy' refer to the city. The text, however, here and in Joel, suggests that it is the 'remnant' which will be holy. Thus the reader is not being incited to wallow in a sense of nationalistic revenge and superiority but in a belief in the overthrow by God of all that is represented by Edom/the nations, that is of all evil, and the establishment in his kingdom of only that which is holy. The same Hebrew word, pointed differently, can mean either 'will possess their possessions' or 'dispossess
(w. 19-20) Geographical details of the possessions of God's people This is a prosaic and laboured addition to the book trying to give the readers some details of just what will be 'their possessions'. NRSV renders the text as it stands, but it appears to be in such disorder that it is very difficult to know just what is being predicted. There is a similar expansion in Zech 14:10—11, in a chapter which also stresses the 'kingship ofYHWH' as v. 21 does here. Parallels with Joel and Zech 9-14 may suggest that this represents the latest part of Obadiah.
(v. 21) Conclusion Again a Hebrew word may be pointed differently to mean 'those who have been saved', so NRSV, or 'saviours' (NRSV marg.). It is interesting thatthe author, in his picture of the future, goes back to the era of the Judges before the monarchy in Israel. The only king here is YHWH. The kingdom is his, not Israel's.
Ackroyd, P. R. (1992), 'Obadiah, Book of, ABD, v. 2-4. Allen, L. C. (1976), The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah,
NICOT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans). Bach, R. (1962), Die Aufforderungen zur Flucht und zum Kampf im
alttestamentlichen Prophetenspruch, WMANT 9 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag). Bartlett, J. (1977), The Brotherhood of Edom', JSOT 4: 2-27.
(1989), Edom and the Edomites, JSOT Sup 77 (Sheffield: JSOT). Barton J. (1980), Amos's Oracles against the Nations, SOTSMS 6 (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press). Ben Zvi, E. (1996), A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah,
BZAW 242 (Berlin: de Gruyter). Bewer, J. A. (1911), 'Obadiah,' in J. M. P. Smith, W. H. Ward, and J. A.
Bewer, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, ICC (Edinburgh: T. £T. Clark). Bic, M. (1953), 'Zur Problematik des Buches Obadja', Congress Volume,
Copenhagen, VTS (Leiden: Brill), 11-25. Clark, D. J. (1991), 'Obadiah Reconsidered', Bible Translator, 42: 326-
36. Coggins, R. J. (1985), 'Judgement between Brothers: A Commentary
on the Book of Obadiah', in R. J. Coggins and S. P. Re'emi (eds.), Israel among the Nations: A Commentary on the Books of Nahum, Obadiah, Esther, ITC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, and Edinburgh: Handsel), 65-100. Cresson, B. C. (1972), 'The Condemnation of Edom in Postexilic
Judaism', in J. M. Efrid (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), 125—48. Davies, G. I. (1977), 'A New Solution to a Crux in Obadiah 7', VT27:
484-7. Dick, M. B. (1984), 'A Syntactic Study of the Book of Obadiah', Sem-
itics, 9:1—29. Dicou, B. (1994), Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist, JSOT Sup 169
(Sheffield: JSOT). Keil, C. F. (1866), Commentary on the Minor Prophets, BKAT 4. ET
(1880). Mason, R. (1991), Micah, Nahum, Obadiah, Old Testament Guides
(Sheffield: JSOT).
593 JONAH
Orelli, C. von (1888), Die zwolf Ueinen Propheten ausgelegt. ET (Edin-
Weiser, A. (1974), Die Propheten Hosea, Amos, Obadja, Jona, Micha,
burgh: T. &T. Clark, 1893). Rudolph, W. (1971), Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, KAT 13/2 (Giitersloh:
ATD 24 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Wellhausen, J. (1892), Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, v. Die Kleinen Proph-
Mohn). Snyman, S. D. (1989), 'Cohesion in the Book of Obadiah', ZAW101:
eten (Berlin: Reimer). Westermann, C. (1967), Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, tr. H. White
(London: Lutterworth); German original, 2nd edn. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1964).
59-71-
31. Jonah PETER J. M. SOUTHWELL
1. We read in 2 Kings 14:23-7 of a Galilean prophet called Jonah, son of Amittai, who successfully predicted a national expansion for Israel in the reign of Jeroboam II (786—746 BCE). The book of Jonah, which appears on literary, linguistic, and historical grounds to have been written in the fourth century, tells a story about this prophet designed to show the limits of mere nationalism as an expression of the purposes of God. Faced with the challenge of addressing God's word to the great Assyrian city of Nineveh, Jonah flees the task. Brought back and recommissioned by God he at length undertakes it, only to be dismayedbythecomprehensive repentance of the Ninevites and consequent forgiveness by God, whose nature is always to have mercy. Jonah's error was to magnify God's wrath at the expense of his compassion.
Other prophets had addressed foreign nations (cf. Am 1:32:3; Jer 46-51, etc.) but none had been sent in person to preach exclusively to a powerful foreign city. For our writer, God's concern is not with the Jews only but with Gentiles also (cf. Zech 8:23; Mai 1:11). However, the task was daunting: 'arise', Jonah was told, and so he did, but only to flee in the opposite direction (1:3)! Tarshish may have been Tartessus in Spain, in the far west, and there is humour in the way the writer depicts the outcome of the prophet's encounter with God, in such contrast with e.g. Isaiah (6:8 'Lord, here am I; send me').
The humorous note is maintained as the chapter develops, depicting a constant succession of descents. Thus the Lord 'hurled a great wind' down to the sea (1:4); the cargo was hurled into the sea (1:5); Jonah had gone down to Joppa, then down into the heart of the ship (1:2, 5) and was thrown down into the sea (1:15), only to descend into the belly of a great fish (1:17; 'the belly of Sheol' 2:2), all to indicate the invincible power and purpose of the Lord in heaven over the lives of those who disobey him. The sailors begin to discern this, for Jonah was not reticent about telling them of his God 'the LORD ... who made the sea and the dry land' (1:9, a bold statement of faith under the circumstances), and when the tempest ceased they worship Jonah's God with vows and sacrifices offered not in the sanctuary in Jerusalem but (by traditional Heb. standards irregularly) on board ship—the reluctant prophet's first 'converts' (1:16), whose allegiance to his God he had won by his willingness to offer his life for them
2. Passages of the Old Testament known to our author appear to include Jer 18:8 ('if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it')—cf. Jon 3:10—and Joel 2:13—14, which significantly includes the phrase 'and relents from punishing' cited in Jon 4:2 (cf. 3:9) despite its being absent from the original Hebrew formulation of God's character in Ex 34:6-7. There are also echoes of the Elijah story (i Kings 19:4—5, cf. Jon 4:6—8) and of Ezekiel's lament over Tyre (Ezek 26:16, cf. Jon 3:6; Ezek 27:25—9,cf. Jon 1:3—6). That the book is hazy about the details of the city of Nineveh and also contains a sufficient number of Aramaic expressions to locate it comfortably after the period of Ezra (see below) both indicate, as also do its quotations, a context in the postexilic era, more particularly in the period of Judah's increasing awareness and acceptance of foreigners in and after the fourth century. This book is of a different order from the other prophetic books, having the form of a story rather than being a collection of prophetic oracles.
(1:12). Gradually the character of his God was becoming clearer to, and delineated in, the prophet himself.
The world of our writer is a cosmopolitan one, in which fleeing from one's god (v. 10), offering prayers to many gods (v. 5), casting lots (v. 7), propitiatory human sacrifice (v. 14), and offering heterodox worship to an alien deity (v. 16) are all part of the life of the seagoing people of whom he writes with such sympathetic insight and perhaps also with experience of the life of a busy port. Little of the narrative of the OT relates to life at sea—the Hebrews were not a seafaring nation (cf. i Kings 9:27 where Phoenicians had to teach them seafaring skills)—but it is the author's aim to tell his readers that amidst all the superstition and, by Jewish standards, religious irregularity of such a way of life, the God of Israel, maker of sea and dry land alike, is sovereign over the affairs of men, and may attend to their prayers.
(1:1-16) Like the book of Joel and unlike those of e.g. Hosea and Amos this book lacks any biographical or chronological background to the divine commission. The word of the Lord came: how, when, and where are less important than its startling content—Jonah is to preach judgement to Nineveh. At the time of Jeroboam II Nineveh was not the capital city of Assyria, though later (in the reign of Sennacherib, 704—681) it became so, but in the mind of our author it stood for all the wickedness which had been endemic in the Assyrian empire. Its 'king' (3:6) is not named and its size (3:3) is expressed in appropriately exaggerated terms. The text here is focused not on history but on morality.
(1:17-2:10) As we might expect with this God who is gracious and merciful, deliverance from the sea was provided for the runaway prophet (v. 17), in the form of a 'large fish' which swallowed him. This is the best-known of all the episodes in
JONAH 594 the story, and the one which occasions Jesus' prediction in Mt 12:38—41 that the Son of Man would also be delivered after three days and nights in the heart of the earth, as a sign to his generation of God's favour upon him. Jesus' imagery, and that of Jonah here, is brutal in its intimation that before deliverance there may come humiliation and agony, but though 'weeping may linger for the night... joy comes with the morning' (Ps 30:5). God is perceived in his role of creator both here (of the fish) and in 4:6-7 (the bush and the worm), ever active in achieving his redemptive purposes for the human race, just as he is perceived in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 43:1) and in Jn 5:17 ('My Father is still working, and I also am working'). 'He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep' (Ps 121:4).
in the narrator's vivid phrase (reminding us of the depths to which the prophet had been sent by God), spewed out upon the dry land, presumably near his Galilean home (v. 10).
(3:1—10) We now reach the heart of the story. God persists in his gracious purpose towards sinful Nineveh and again calls Jonah to the task of warning its people of impending judgement. This time he obeys the call and reaches the outskirts of the fabulously large city (w. 1—3), 'a three days' walk' across. Our writer has already exhibited considerable narrative skills, using irony, humour, assonance, and alliteration, and to these he now adds hyperbole. Faced again with so vast a task, this time Jonah, undaunted, faithfully proclaims the message he was given in what must be the shortest prophetic oracle on record (and the only one in this book): 'Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown' (v. 4). Interestingly, the Greek tradition here reports 'three more days' but is unsupported by any other versions or Hebrew MSS. The variation may be caused by the Greek translator's awareness of the three-day journey with which Jonah was faced. (For a suggestion that 4:5 belongs here see below.) His preaching had its effect (v. 5) in city-wide repentance indicated by a fast. Even the city's king (w. 6-9), whom the narrator may have believed to have been one of Assyria's emperors (though he never says so), sits in sackcloth and ashes ordering repentance, fasting (even for animals), and prayer, to attract the compassion of Israel's God and to avert his wrath. In Mt 12:41 Jesus cites this story to shame his own impenitent Jewish contemporaries. The result here was, as Jer 18:8 would lead the post-exilic reader to expect, that God 'changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it' (v. 10). The king's words in v. 9 ('Who knows? God may relent and change his mind...') echo those of the only slightly earlier Joel, where (2:13-14) we learn that because God 'relents from punishing' there is hope for the penitent and fasting sinner. Jonah's mission, which was God's also, was a success, despite his original fears and the narrow nationalism ascribed to his prophetic ministry in 2 Kings 14:25, upon which the rest of this story depends for its dramatic effect.
Jonah's ensuing prayer presupposes his deliverance (2:2,6) and has been thought by some to be a later insertion into the book. Certainly, its poetic structure interrupts the prose narrative sequence of 2:1, 10. There are precedents, however, for proleptic anticipations of deliverance in the Hebrew psalter itself (e.g. Ps 40:1, 13), and this provides an appropriate indication of the prophet's new, grateful, and ultimately more obedient frame of mind in the ensuing sections of the story. The language of his song of thanksgiving is derived largely from existing psalms (e.g. cf. 3:4; 120:1; 118:5 wrth Jon 2:2> and Ps 31:22 with 2:4; 69:1 with 2:5, etc.) thus reminding the reader that the God of our deliverance is the God whose promises were daily sung in Zion.
The phrase 'the belly of Sheol' (meaning the very depths of the earth, where the shades of the dead are assembled) is not to be found elsewhere in Hebrew poetry, and vividly expresses the poet's despair in his life-threatening predicament. Even there, however, God has heard him (cf. Ps 139:8 'if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there'). In w. 3-6 the writer piles metaphor upon metaphor to accentuate the horror and terror of his plight, echoing some traditional formulae (e.g. Ps 88:7, 'you overwhelm me with all your waves'; Ps 69:1, 'the waters have come up to my neck'; Ps 103:4, 'who redeems your life from the Pit') as well as his own vivid imagery. His faith stands in contrast to that of other psalmists, who doubt God's ability to reach into the realm of death (cf. Ps 6:5; 88:5-7, 10-12). Our writer believes that God dwells in the temple in Jerusalem (v. 7) and from there hears those who pray towards his house (for this practice cf. Dan 6:10, where thrice-daily prayer is offered), a view particularly appropriate to the scattered Jewish communities of the post-exilic Diaspora. Idolatry (v. 8) was a mark of apostasy amongst Jews living abroad, but vows and sacrifices could still be offered to the God of Israel in Zion (v. 9), just as the mariners had done in 1:16, and as Jonah appears to be intending here. He echoes Ps 50:14 ('Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High'), with its ensuing note of deliverance
(4:1-11) This nationalism, however, has notyetbeen cured, for Jonah is hurt and angry at the non-fulfilment of his prediction (w. 1—3) and, in a rebuke to his God reminiscent of Jeremiah's daring accusations (e.g. 20:7), he claims that from the beginning he had known that God's proverbial compassion (Ex 34:6—7) detracted from his justice. Unfulfilled prophecy is a problem addressed by biblical writers in a number of places, but it is unwarranted to see it as the principal subject-matter of the book, the climax of which (4:11) is about God's universal compassion. Like Elijah (i Kings 19:4) he prays for death, but his reasons are less noble than Elijah's, being marked by selfpity and petulance. There is also a hint of sheer exhaustion in v. 5, which some have thought to transfer between 3:4 and 5 as it suits that context well, whereas here it interrupts the narrative sequence (God himself is about to create a shelter for him, v. 6) and we have already been told (3:10) what Jonah is here waiting to learn. No surviving manuscript or version makes the transposition, however, and if accepted it would be a copying error at a very early stage of the story's literary transmission.
('Call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me') and its prior dismissal of the necessity of animal sacrifice ('Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?'). 'Deliverance belongs to the Lord' (v. 9) is an echo of Ps 3:8 and is a triumphant climax to this remarkable expression of faith against all the odds. All this God heard; he spoke to the fish (this is not the only place in the OT where he uses a sub-human creature to achieve his purposes, in the life of a recalcitrant prophet, cf. Num 22:28-30), and Jonah is,
595 MICAH
present in the NT (e.g. Lk 23:34 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing'; i Tim 1:13 T received mercy because I had acted ignorantty in unbelief), and implied in Ezek 18:28 'because they considered and turned away from all the transgressions that they had committed, they shall surely live; they shall not die', where the word 'considered' implies seeing the truth of the situation at last. The prophet's task, as that of all God's people, is simply to speak his message wherever he may be sent. The outcome, so the book of Jonah is telling its readers, is God's responsibility, and his alone. As another Jewish writer with a similar theological problem was led to conclude, 'O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor?" ' (Rom 11:33-4, cf13340:13).
God, however, challenges Jonah to review his attitude (v. 4), and, being Lord both of the sea and of the dry land by Jonah's own admission (1:9), now uses the fruits of the dry land ('a bush', v. 6, which translates a Heb. word of uncertain meaning, though attested in Assyrian also; and a worm, v. 7) as he had earlier used a creature of the sea, to teach Jonah a lesson. The lesson was that Jonah cared more about his pleasure in the sheltering plant which he had not cultivated than about God's concern for a huge city of people and their livestock which he had cared about for years (w. 9—11). As claimed for Assyrian kings (and attested on their building inscriptions), the Lord is the good shepherd of all his sheep, as the Hebrew kings themselves recognized (e.g. Ps 23), and Jonah here, like Jesus' followers in Jn 10:16, needs to learn he has sheep in other folds also. Their sin is born of ignorance ('who do not know their right hand from their left', v. n), and their repentance was welcome to a merciful God. Such theology is also
32. Micah H. G. M. WILLIAMSON
A. The Man and his Message. 1. Very little can be deduced from the book of Micah about the man who stands behind it. There is no account of a 'call', and at 3:5—8 he even seems to deny to himself the title of prophet. From the few details at 1:1 (see Commentary) and elsewhere we may surmise that he spoke on behalf of his fellow landowners and elders of a typical country town against the excessive burdens which the centralized militarizing policy of the Jerusalem establishment was imposing upon the people. Against surface appearances, he denounces these policies as leading to injustice (2:12; 3:1—3) and so interprets them as 'transgression' and 'sin' (1:5; 3:8). Appeal to only one aspect of the nation's religious traditions (2:6-11; 3:11) will not prevent them from receiving their just deserts.
at a number of points in the text (Jeremias 1971). Such a living 'word ofthe LORD', however, could never be exhausted by a single event, and so new material which looked beyond the judgement (not instead of it) came to be added. The explicit development and reversal of Micah's own themes (see esp. ch. 4) indicate that this was not an arbitrary extension, but was regarded as a development of what lay already latent in the book.
2. Finally, the whole was set in a universal and proto-apocalyptic context (see esp. 1:2 and 5:15), the word to Judah now being applied to the whole earth and all its peoples. It is in this final context that the book reaches us, and we do best to read it from that perspective. It is not that later additions to Micah's words need to be stripped away, but rather that the words of
2. Such a message fits most comfortably in the first part ofthe reign of Hezekiah, when intensive preparations for rebellion against Assyrian domination were undertaken. Yet it seems that Micah may earlier have spoken out against the northern kingdom (1:6), whose capital Samaria fell some twenty years previously. An extended ministry may thus be envisaged (again, see MIC 1:1), but the way in which such earlier material is reused to address the later situation in ch. i suggests that what we have now of Micah's words comes from a relatively brief period at the very end ofthe eighth century BCE.
Micah need to take their place as a historical example ofthe timeless 'word ofthe LORD' (1:1), which is the book's true title.
C. Outline Title (1:1) God's Dealings with his People as a Warning to the Nations (1:2-5:15)
One Nation's Judgement is Another Nation's Warning (1:2-16) Judah and Jerusalem Condemned (2:1-3:12)
B. The Book and its Formation. 1. Much ofthe book as we now have it comes from periods long after Micah's day. This is not based on a dogma that someone like Micah could not envisage any future hope, but rather on the style and thematic content of the work which suit later periods best. (Recent attempts, such as Hillers (1984) and Shaw (1993), to defend authorial unity do not seem convincing.) Micah's uncompromisingly negative message (3:12) was still remembered at the time of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians and the exile of part of its population (cf Jer. 26:17—19), and his words began to be read as having found fulfilment at that time, leaving its mark
Man Proposes, but God Disposes (2:1—5) A Prophetic Disputation (2:6-11 with 12-13) Cannibalism in Court! (3:1-4) Prophets for Profit (3:5-8) Concluding Judgement (3:9—12) Israel among the Nations (4:1-5:15)
Peace at the Last (4:1-5) A Positive Role for the Remnant (4:6-7) The Instrument of God's Rule (4:8—5:6) A Negative Role for the Remnant (5:7—9) No Peace for the Wicked (5:10-15)
MICAH 596
been reinterpreted in the second half of the verse to apply to the northern and southern kingdoms respectively (see too v. 13/7), while the sin is described as more narrowly religious
God and Israel (6:1-7:20)
God's Requirement (6:1—8) Crime and Punishment (6:9—16) Lament for the Loss of Society (7:1-7) Concluding Confession, Appeal, and Confidence (7:8-20)
(w. 5/7, 7), thus aligning it with the causes of the eventual Babylonian Exile as perceived by the Deuteronomists. w. 8-9 are the hinge on which the chapter turns. 'For this' refers back to the fall of Samaria, but Micah's lament is due to the fact that a like fate awaits Judah and Jerusalem (v. 9), as vividly portrayed in w. 10-16. The Hebrew text of w. 10-16 is exceptionally difficult (cf. the different Eng. translations), but its general sense is clear enough; cf. Na'aman (1995). About twelve towns in the vicinity of Micah's home in Moresheth in the Judean Shephelah are listed, and threatening remarks made about them on the basis of wordplay, e.g. 'in Beth-leaphrah' (faprd) roll yourselves in the dust (fdpdr)'. This feature probably accounts for the selection of towns, so that it would be hazardous to try to construct a military line of advance out of them. In 701 BCE Sennacherib destroyed most of the towns of Judah and threatened Jerusalem (w. 9,12), so that Micah's distress (v. 8) at this impending doom is intelligible. There was a partial exile to Assyria at this time (v. 16), but inevitably later readers will have seen a more complete fulfilment of this prophecy in the Babylonian Exile.
Title (1:1)
Although Micah often appears to speak on his own authority
(e.g. 3:1), the book as a whole is characterized by its editor as 'The word of the LORD'. 'Micah' is a shortened form of mikayd (cf. Jer. 26:18), meaning 'Who is like Yah?', a name possibly echoed at the end of the book (7:18). His identification by domicile, Moresheth(-gath; cf. 1:14), suggests that his ministry was mainly conducted away from home, almost certainly in Jerusalem. On the basis of the material which can most plausibly be ascribed to him, it has been suggested that he was a local elder, responsible in particular for justice