As a philosopher, I like to see people putting together thoughts in a logical sequence. For example:
1. All men are mortal. (This is known as the major premise.)
2. Socrates is a man. (This is known as the minor premise)
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (This is the conclusion)
It is a beautiful thing when scientists use reason and experience to reach a conclusion in this way. For example:
1. Spectral lines shift to red when objects are moving away from us.
2. The spectral lines of most objects in the universe shift to red.
3. Therefore, the universe is probably expanding.
Unfortunately, I do not see people who believe in evolution reasoning in this way.
I recently spoke with the husband of a colleague of mine, an engineer. I mentioned to him my desire to hear a reasonable explanation of evolution, using scientific evidence.
"Animals have analogous structures," he said.
Animals have similar structures. Therefore, higher animals are descended from lower animals. Where is the major premise that would allow one to reach that conclusion? He had no answer.
"E. Coli and fruit flies adapt to their environments in the laboratory," he said.
E. Coli and fruit flied adapt to their environments in the laboratory. Therefore, higher animals are descended from lower animals. Where is the major premise? No answer. (This is besides the fact that, after all their adaptations, e. Coli are still bacteria and fruit flies are still flies.)
"Scientists have discovered fossils of a fish with four limbs," he said.
Scientists have discovered fossils of a fish with four limbs. Therefore, tetrapods that walk on land are descended from fish. Major premise? None. (This is besides the fact that there are four-limbed fish swimming around to this day: they use their limbs to push themselves off the bottom of the sea or swamp.)
This is not logic, it is superstition. ("I wore this sweaty cap three saves in a row," thinks the closer, "so wearing a sweaty cap will help me get the next save.)
Now how might someone, using reason and experience, use the example of homologous structures to reach a different conclusion?
1. In the case of works of art and music, similarities in structure usually indicate a common author.
2. Animals have similarities in structure.
3. Therefore, animals probably have a common author--namely, God.
How about fruit flies and e. Coli?
1. An intelligent Creator would create animals capable of adapting to their environments.
2. Fruit flies and e. Coli adapt to their environments in a laboratory.
3. Therefore, fruit flies and e. Coli probably were probably created by an intelligent Creator.
These are not definitive proofs, but at least they make use of actual observations and take the form of a logical series of statements. That is more than can be said for the ideas of evolutionists, at least in the way that I have seen them presented.
Until someone can do better, I'll need to assume that the theory of evolution is unsupported either by reason or experience.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A Plea to Social Conservatives
Social conservatives need to stop focusing on social issues and start focusing on constitutional issues. This is not because the social issues are not important. It is because all the social issues that conservatives care about have become constitutional issues. So if social conservatives wish to prevail, they will need to master the constitutional issues first. At the risk of repeating what some may already know, I will first define how the constitution applies to these social issues and then propose a way of advancing toward the goal of a legal arrangment that reflects conservative moral values.
To begin, let us define what a constitution is. In addition to establishing a government, a constitution sets limits on the powers of that government. The capacity of government to harm the citizens it was designed to protect is the essential underlying assumption of the American system of government and the necessity of constitutionally limited government follows from that. The U.S. Constitution primarily sets limits on the power of the Federal government, but in a few places it places limits on the State governments as well. For our purposes, it is the limits on the State governments that concern us and, in particular, the limits that the Fourteenth Amendment places on the State governments. As we will see, the legal status of every social issue that is of concern to social conservatives has to do with Supreme Court rulings based on this amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the three amendments ratified within five years of the end of the civil war and, like the other two, was designed to address problems arising from the end of that war. In particular, all three were designed to address problems having to do with the rights of the African-Americans who had until recently been enslaved. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) required States to protect the person and property of the newly freed slaves, and the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to African-American men. Because the Fourteenth Amendment is so critical to our discussion, it will be necessary to consider it at some length, in order to place its meaning beyond any doubt.
The Republican Party held a majority in Congress at the end of the civil war and many Republicans were greatly concerned about the safety and well-being of the newly freed slaves in the southern states. The congressional debates in early 1866 are full of of this time are full of details gathered by the U.S. military as to the condition of the freedmen. A congressional committee also began to gather testimony to provide a basis for appropriate legislation. The testimony is full of stories documenting the vulnerable condition of the freedmen. In Louisiana, for example, they were not permitted to own land. If an employer refused to pay them, they had no recourse because they could not make contracts and were unable to sue. In Virginia, the courts refused to punish whites who committed violence against blacks. In many states, black men received harsher punishments for crimes than whites. Many Republicans in Congress were concerned that the abolition of slavery would be of no benefit to the freedmen unless this situation was addressed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed in March 1866, is the remedy that Congress provided for the freedmen. As this act has a direct bearing on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it will be useful to quote the relevant part of this act in full:
To begin, let us define what a constitution is. In addition to establishing a government, a constitution sets limits on the powers of that government. The capacity of government to harm the citizens it was designed to protect is the essential underlying assumption of the American system of government and the necessity of constitutionally limited government follows from that. The U.S. Constitution primarily sets limits on the power of the Federal government, but in a few places it places limits on the State governments as well. For our purposes, it is the limits on the State governments that concern us and, in particular, the limits that the Fourteenth Amendment places on the State governments. As we will see, the legal status of every social issue that is of concern to social conservatives has to do with Supreme Court rulings based on this amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the three amendments ratified within five years of the end of the civil war and, like the other two, was designed to address problems arising from the end of that war. In particular, all three were designed to address problems having to do with the rights of the African-Americans who had until recently been enslaved. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) required States to protect the person and property of the newly freed slaves, and the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to African-American men. Because the Fourteenth Amendment is so critical to our discussion, it will be necessary to consider it at some length, in order to place its meaning beyond any doubt.
The Republican Party held a majority in Congress at the end of the civil war and many Republicans were greatly concerned about the safety and well-being of the newly freed slaves in the southern states. The congressional debates in early 1866 are full of of this time are full of details gathered by the U.S. military as to the condition of the freedmen. A congressional committee also began to gather testimony to provide a basis for appropriate legislation. The testimony is full of stories documenting the vulnerable condition of the freedmen. In Louisiana, for example, they were not permitted to own land. If an employer refused to pay them, they had no recourse because they could not make contracts and were unable to sue. In Virginia, the courts refused to punish whites who committed violence against blacks. In many states, black men received harsher punishments for crimes than whites. Many Republicans in Congress were concerned that the abolition of slavery would be of no benefit to the freedmen unless this situation was addressed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed in March 1866, is the remedy that Congress provided for the freedmen. As this act has a direct bearing on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it will be useful to quote the relevant part of this act in full:
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Difficulty of Knowing Cause and Effect in the Past and Future
"If, for example," I said, "there is a small child who throws a ball up in the air and is struck in the head. On the next day, if he throws the ball into the air again, his mother might say to him, 'Son, do you remember what happened to you yesterday when you threw the ball into the air? It struck you in the head.' Now, will the child be able to remember what happened the day before and avoid it in the present?"
"Perhaps not, if it is a very small child," he said.
"But if the child is old enough, then he will?"
"Yes," he said.
"Isn't that because it is not too difficult to be able to remember what happened in the past and apply it to the present time" I asked.
"Yes," he said, "that is the reason."
"But what about the future If a boy threw a ball into the air yesterday and it hit him in the head, will it do the same thing a year from now and the year after?"
"I suppose it will," he said.
"Are you as certain of that as you were about the present, that what happened yesterday will happen today as well?" I asked.
"No," he said, "I am not as certain."
"Neither am I," I said. "Perhaps this is because we are accustomed to applying what happened in the past to the present moment, but we are not as used to applying what happened in the past to what will happen in the future."
"Perhaps," he said.
"What, then, about the past?" I asked. "If the boy threw a ball up in the air yesterday and it struck him in the head, would it have done the same thing a year ago and the year before that?"
"I suppose it would have," he said.
"Of which are you more certain, that it would have done so in the past, or in the future?"
"Perhaps not, if it is a very small child," he said.
"But if the child is old enough, then he will?"
"Yes," he said.
"Isn't that because it is not too difficult to be able to remember what happened in the past and apply it to the present time" I asked.
"Yes," he said, "that is the reason."
"But what about the future If a boy threw a ball into the air yesterday and it hit him in the head, will it do the same thing a year from now and the year after?"
"I suppose it will," he said.
"Are you as certain of that as you were about the present, that what happened yesterday will happen today as well?" I asked.
"No," he said, "I am not as certain."
"Neither am I," I said. "Perhaps this is because we are accustomed to applying what happened in the past to the present moment, but we are not as used to applying what happened in the past to what will happen in the future."
"Perhaps," he said.
"What, then, about the past?" I asked. "If the boy threw a ball up in the air yesterday and it struck him in the head, would it have done the same thing a year ago and the year before that?"
"I suppose it would have," he said.
"Of which are you more certain, that it would have done so in the past, or in the future?"
Thursday, September 4, 2008
In Response to Ortberg
A response to "John Ortberg on Religion AND Politics: Why the human race needs an administration of another kind."
In a recent article on "Religion AND Politics," John Ortberg would persuade Christians that we should "vote, be educated, be involved," yet be careful not to take politics too seriously, because politics does not have the power to bring about the "perfection" that is the deepest desire of the human heart. Christians, he says, should also take care not to apply simplistic ideas about right and wrong to politics and, above all, should not presume to think that God favors one political party over another. In saying these things, I would suggest that Ortberg fails to understand the purpose of politics, the value of liberty, and the role that God requires Christians to play in a political system such as ours.
In the first place, the purpose of politics is not to bring about perfection, but simply to make it possible for human beings to live in peace, without being harmed by others or by their own government. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, the reason why "Governments are instituted among men" is to secure "certain unalienable Rights" with which we have been endowed by our Creator. By establishing laws that protect people and by punishing those who harm them, government prevents something that God hates (the misery that wicked human beings would otherwise bring upon their fellow men) and makes possible something that God loves (our enjoyment of the world that He has created).
The Apostle Paul ascribes the same purpose to government. In his letter to the Romans, Paul describes a ruler as "God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (13:4). In "executing wrath," the ruler fulfils the demands of justice and also discourages others from doing harm. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul urges Timothy and his flock to pray "for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence" (1 Timothy 2:2). In this request, Paul acknowledges that it is government that makes it possible for human beings to live out their lives in peace and, in the case of Christians, to live out their lives in a way that is pleasing to God. If governments, as Paul says, are "appointed by God" and a ruler is "God's minister," then Ortberg is wrong to belittle their importance just because they fail to achieve a purpose that God never intended for them.
Yet there is another reason why Christians in the United States need to take politics seriously. In a free society such as ours, Christians share in the exercise of the powers of government and so we ourselves are God's ministers. In the words of the First Continental Congress, “The first grand right, is that of the people having a share in their own government by their representatives chosen by themselves." If, as Paul says, "there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God," then as Americans each one of us is appointed by God to share in the responsibility of government. By our participation in the political process, we do our part to make sure that government fulfils the purpose for which God ordained it. We also do our part to make sure that government itself does not violate the God-given rights that it was established to defend.
Ortberg is also wrong when he suggests that God does not favor any political party. In trying to prove this, Ortberg quotes a passage from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, in which Lincoln observes that the people of the North and the South read the same Bible and pray to the same God. Yet he leaves out the next sentence, in which Lincoln makes it clear that there is little doubt whose side God is on when it comes to the wicked institution of slavery: "If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?" God does take sides in politics: He is on the side of those who want government to secure the rights that He has given to human beings and He is opposed to those who would have government violate those rights. It is not so much that God favors a particular political party; it is that God stands for certain principles and favors the political party that promotes the principles that He Himself approves.
So how does this apply to American politics and the political disagreements of our day? To answer this question, we will need to consider a brief definition of liberty.
The idea of liberty begins with the "self-evident" (and Biblical) truth that God gives all men the three basic rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property--or, in the words of the U.S. Constitution, life, liberty, and property. (In the context of this sacred triangle of rights, the word "liberty" is defined as freedom from physical restraint--that is, not being a slave or being wrongly imprisoned without due process of law.)
This leads to the first requirement of liberty, which is to live under a government that protects the rights of person and property. "Liberty," says Locke, "is to be free from restraint and violence from others." This part of liberty would include the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect the American people from those who would harm us as well as the responsibility of State governments to protect the lives of the unborn.
It leads also to the second requirement of liberty--that of living under a government that does not itself violate the rights of person and property. In the words of James Madison, "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." This part of liberty would require, among other things, that government refrain from taking the property of a few members of society and giving it to the rest--whether in the form of gas rebates or medical care. “The invasion of private rights," says Madison, "is chiefly to be apprehended...from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.”
The third requirement of liberty is that of having a large area of personal choice without interference from government. "Civil liberty," as William Blackstone defines it, requires that people refrain from harming others in their person and property, but otherwise "leaves the subject entire master of his own conduct, except in those points wherein the public good requires some direction or restraint." This part of liberty is not, however, a license to do as we please. As Justice Field explains in the Slaughterhouse Cases, "the police power of the State...extends to all regulations affecting the health, good order, morals, peace, and safety of society." Personal liberties do not, therefore, include a personal choice to take the life of an unborn child, engage in sexual behavior that typically leads to health epidemics, or attend a public high school football game without hearing someone pray--recent Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding.
The fourth requirement of liberty is self-government--that is, having input into the laws under which we live through our representatives in a legislature. This right serves two purposes. In the first place, it protects us from our own government. "Security [for our lives and property]," explains Alexander Hamilton, "can never exist, while we have no part in making the laws, that are to bind us." This right also makes it possible for local communities to live under laws that reflect their own values and judgments. The principle of federalism leaves a large area of authority in the hands of the State governments and provides many opportunities for the people of the several States to live under the laws that seem best to them. As Samuel Adams observed, in a country as large and diverse as the United States, the people "under one consolidated Governmt. can not long remain free, or indeed under any Kind of Governmt. but Despotism." This means that liberty requires that the Federal government stay within its limited jurisdiction, as defined by Article I.8 of the U.S. Constitution, and also requires that the U.S. Supreme Court stop usurping authority that the U.S. Constitution leaves in the hands of the State governments.
The fifth requirement of liberty is constitutionally limited government. The right to a constitutionally limited government is an additional barrier protecting us from our own government. In the words of the Representatives of Berkshire County, "the fundamental Constitution is the basis... of legislation...circumscribing and defining the powers of the rulers, and so affoarding a sacred barrier against tyranny and despotism.” This part of liberty requires that the U.S. Supreme Court understand the U.S. Constitution not as a "living document," but in the same sense in which the people understood it when they ratified it. If the Federal government can redefine its own limits simply by giving new meanings to words, then the Constitution, as Jefferson says, becomes a "blank paper" and the power of the Federal government becomes "boundless." This means, among other things, that the U.S. Supreme Court must stop re-defining the 14th Amendment in such a way as to give itself power over decisions concerning abortion, homosexuality, and the role of religion in a free society--all issues that the U.S. Constitution reserves to the several States.
The sixth requirement of liberty is having a large area of personal responsibility without help from government. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville describes a form of despotism in which government does not harm people, but rather takes care of them. Government "provides for their security, anticipates and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, [and] manages their most important affairs," but the people end up in "slavery" and "gradually fall below the level of humanity." In a free society, government supports the widow and the orphan, but does not otherwise support able-bodied adults who simply choose not to work, nor does it enable people to continue to live irresponsibly without suffering any consequences.
The seventh and final requirement of liberty is independence, or not being ruled by foreigners. In 1776, it became necessary for Americans to throw off the rule of Great Britain and assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The reason why independence is so crucial is that other countries do not have our best interests at heart and our person and property will be in danger so long as they continue to rule us. Now that we have gained our independence, this part of liberty requires, among other things, that the U.S. and not countries like Russia, China, and France must decide what the U.S. needs to do in the defense of its own citizens. It also requires that U.S. judges make decisions based on the American legal tradition, rather than adopting European standards of right and wrong.
The two parties in the United States take nearly opposite positions on each one of these parts of liberty. In fact, one party seeks to preserve liberty as a goal of American politics and the other has more or less abandoned this goal and seeks to replace it with another. If God, in fact, gives the rights of person and property to human beings, it is hard to understand how He can be indifferent to liberty, which is the only political arrangement that has proven capable of safeguarding these rights. If this is so, then it would seem likely that God would favor the political party that stands for liberty to the extent that it continues to do so.
In a recent article on "Religion AND Politics," John Ortberg would persuade Christians that we should "vote, be educated, be involved," yet be careful not to take politics too seriously, because politics does not have the power to bring about the "perfection" that is the deepest desire of the human heart. Christians, he says, should also take care not to apply simplistic ideas about right and wrong to politics and, above all, should not presume to think that God favors one political party over another. In saying these things, I would suggest that Ortberg fails to understand the purpose of politics, the value of liberty, and the role that God requires Christians to play in a political system such as ours.
In the first place, the purpose of politics is not to bring about perfection, but simply to make it possible for human beings to live in peace, without being harmed by others or by their own government. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, the reason why "Governments are instituted among men" is to secure "certain unalienable Rights" with which we have been endowed by our Creator. By establishing laws that protect people and by punishing those who harm them, government prevents something that God hates (the misery that wicked human beings would otherwise bring upon their fellow men) and makes possible something that God loves (our enjoyment of the world that He has created).
The Apostle Paul ascribes the same purpose to government. In his letter to the Romans, Paul describes a ruler as "God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (13:4). In "executing wrath," the ruler fulfils the demands of justice and also discourages others from doing harm. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul urges Timothy and his flock to pray "for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence" (1 Timothy 2:2). In this request, Paul acknowledges that it is government that makes it possible for human beings to live out their lives in peace and, in the case of Christians, to live out their lives in a way that is pleasing to God. If governments, as Paul says, are "appointed by God" and a ruler is "God's minister," then Ortberg is wrong to belittle their importance just because they fail to achieve a purpose that God never intended for them.
Yet there is another reason why Christians in the United States need to take politics seriously. In a free society such as ours, Christians share in the exercise of the powers of government and so we ourselves are God's ministers. In the words of the First Continental Congress, “The first grand right, is that of the people having a share in their own government by their representatives chosen by themselves." If, as Paul says, "there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God," then as Americans each one of us is appointed by God to share in the responsibility of government. By our participation in the political process, we do our part to make sure that government fulfils the purpose for which God ordained it. We also do our part to make sure that government itself does not violate the God-given rights that it was established to defend.
Ortberg is also wrong when he suggests that God does not favor any political party. In trying to prove this, Ortberg quotes a passage from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, in which Lincoln observes that the people of the North and the South read the same Bible and pray to the same God. Yet he leaves out the next sentence, in which Lincoln makes it clear that there is little doubt whose side God is on when it comes to the wicked institution of slavery: "If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?" God does take sides in politics: He is on the side of those who want government to secure the rights that He has given to human beings and He is opposed to those who would have government violate those rights. It is not so much that God favors a particular political party; it is that God stands for certain principles and favors the political party that promotes the principles that He Himself approves.
So how does this apply to American politics and the political disagreements of our day? To answer this question, we will need to consider a brief definition of liberty.
The idea of liberty begins with the "self-evident" (and Biblical) truth that God gives all men the three basic rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property--or, in the words of the U.S. Constitution, life, liberty, and property. (In the context of this sacred triangle of rights, the word "liberty" is defined as freedom from physical restraint--that is, not being a slave or being wrongly imprisoned without due process of law.)
This leads to the first requirement of liberty, which is to live under a government that protects the rights of person and property. "Liberty," says Locke, "is to be free from restraint and violence from others." This part of liberty would include the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect the American people from those who would harm us as well as the responsibility of State governments to protect the lives of the unborn.
It leads also to the second requirement of liberty--that of living under a government that does not itself violate the rights of person and property. In the words of James Madison, "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." This part of liberty would require, among other things, that government refrain from taking the property of a few members of society and giving it to the rest--whether in the form of gas rebates or medical care. “The invasion of private rights," says Madison, "is chiefly to be apprehended...from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.”
The third requirement of liberty is that of having a large area of personal choice without interference from government. "Civil liberty," as William Blackstone defines it, requires that people refrain from harming others in their person and property, but otherwise "leaves the subject entire master of his own conduct, except in those points wherein the public good requires some direction or restraint." This part of liberty is not, however, a license to do as we please. As Justice Field explains in the Slaughterhouse Cases, "the police power of the State...extends to all regulations affecting the health, good order, morals, peace, and safety of society." Personal liberties do not, therefore, include a personal choice to take the life of an unborn child, engage in sexual behavior that typically leads to health epidemics, or attend a public high school football game without hearing someone pray--recent Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding.
The fourth requirement of liberty is self-government--that is, having input into the laws under which we live through our representatives in a legislature. This right serves two purposes. In the first place, it protects us from our own government. "Security [for our lives and property]," explains Alexander Hamilton, "can never exist, while we have no part in making the laws, that are to bind us." This right also makes it possible for local communities to live under laws that reflect their own values and judgments. The principle of federalism leaves a large area of authority in the hands of the State governments and provides many opportunities for the people of the several States to live under the laws that seem best to them. As Samuel Adams observed, in a country as large and diverse as the United States, the people "under one consolidated Governmt. can not long remain free, or indeed under any Kind of Governmt. but Despotism." This means that liberty requires that the Federal government stay within its limited jurisdiction, as defined by Article I.8 of the U.S. Constitution, and also requires that the U.S. Supreme Court stop usurping authority that the U.S. Constitution leaves in the hands of the State governments.
The fifth requirement of liberty is constitutionally limited government. The right to a constitutionally limited government is an additional barrier protecting us from our own government. In the words of the Representatives of Berkshire County, "the fundamental Constitution is the basis... of legislation...circumscribing and defining the powers of the rulers, and so affoarding a sacred barrier against tyranny and despotism.” This part of liberty requires that the U.S. Supreme Court understand the U.S. Constitution not as a "living document," but in the same sense in which the people understood it when they ratified it. If the Federal government can redefine its own limits simply by giving new meanings to words, then the Constitution, as Jefferson says, becomes a "blank paper" and the power of the Federal government becomes "boundless." This means, among other things, that the U.S. Supreme Court must stop re-defining the 14th Amendment in such a way as to give itself power over decisions concerning abortion, homosexuality, and the role of religion in a free society--all issues that the U.S. Constitution reserves to the several States.
The sixth requirement of liberty is having a large area of personal responsibility without help from government. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville describes a form of despotism in which government does not harm people, but rather takes care of them. Government "provides for their security, anticipates and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, [and] manages their most important affairs," but the people end up in "slavery" and "gradually fall below the level of humanity." In a free society, government supports the widow and the orphan, but does not otherwise support able-bodied adults who simply choose not to work, nor does it enable people to continue to live irresponsibly without suffering any consequences.
The seventh and final requirement of liberty is independence, or not being ruled by foreigners. In 1776, it became necessary for Americans to throw off the rule of Great Britain and assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The reason why independence is so crucial is that other countries do not have our best interests at heart and our person and property will be in danger so long as they continue to rule us. Now that we have gained our independence, this part of liberty requires, among other things, that the U.S. and not countries like Russia, China, and France must decide what the U.S. needs to do in the defense of its own citizens. It also requires that U.S. judges make decisions based on the American legal tradition, rather than adopting European standards of right and wrong.
The two parties in the United States take nearly opposite positions on each one of these parts of liberty. In fact, one party seeks to preserve liberty as a goal of American politics and the other has more or less abandoned this goal and seeks to replace it with another. If God, in fact, gives the rights of person and property to human beings, it is hard to understand how He can be indifferent to liberty, which is the only political arrangement that has proven capable of safeguarding these rights. If this is so, then it would seem likely that God would favor the political party that stands for liberty to the extent that it continues to do so.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Amos 1
Amos describes in this chapter many sins against Israel. The surrounding countries are condemned for how they have treated Israel, the northern kingdom of Israel.
The surrounding countries are:
The surrounding countries are:
- Syria
- Philistia
- Tyre
- Edom
- Ammon
Syria "threshed Gilead with implements of sharp iron" (3). Ammon "ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead in order to enlarge their borders" (13).
Philistia "deported an entire population to deliver it up to Edom" (6). Tyre "deliverd up an entire population to Edom" (9). Presumably this entire population is Israel. I wonder if Amos speaks of a past event or the future destruction of Israel, the future judgment of Israel.
Tyre and Edom both violate ties of kinship in destroying Israel. Tyre "did not remember the covenant of brotherhood" (9). Edom "pursued his brother with the sword" (11).
Perhaps this chapter is a vision of the future destruction of Israel at the hands of these surrounding nations. Even if they are instruments in the hands of God, to deliver His wrath upon Israel, still they will be punished.
Syria: "The people of Aram will go exiled to Kir" (5).
Philistia: "The remnant of the Philistines will perish" (8).
Tyre: "I will send fire upon the wall of Tyre, and it will consume her citadels" (10).
Edom: "I will send fire upon Teman, and it will consume the citadels of Bozrah" (12)
Ammon: "I will kindle a fire on the wall of Rabbah, and it will consume her citadels....Their king will go into exile, he and his princes together" (14-15).
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Amos 9, 13-15
13. The LORD gives Amos a vision of the future. It is a future in which there is no waiting for the good things that we must wait for in this life. The good things will come immediately.
Instead of plowing and sowing and waiting and reaping--actually, this would make more sense if it said "the reaper will overtake the plowman"--but it says the reverse.
The treader of grapes overtakes the one who sows seed--that makes more sense as a way of describing immediate results.
"The mountains will drip sweet wine"--I guess that means that we will get wine without having to do the work of producing it.
"The hills will be dissolved"--I'm not sure what that means. Elsewhere I think it refers to the proud being humbled.
14. Here, the LORD says that He will "restore the captivity of My people Israel." Is that referring to a remnant of the northern kingdom--or is it a remnant of the southern kingdom? I thought the northern kingdom was under total condemnation, no one excepted, with no future restoration.
Here the LORD speaks of people returning to the land and planting vineyards, making gardens and enjoy the fruit thereof.
Which ruined cities will they be rebuilding? Those of the northern kingdom?
15. In the final verse, the LORD says that the LORD will plant the remnant back in the land and they will never again be removed from it, the land that the LORD gave them.
Is this a message of hope for the northern kingdom? Is there a faithful remnant? Or will the descendants of the scattered ones be a faithful remnant who will then return?
Instead of plowing and sowing and waiting and reaping--actually, this would make more sense if it said "the reaper will overtake the plowman"--but it says the reverse.
The treader of grapes overtakes the one who sows seed--that makes more sense as a way of describing immediate results.
"The mountains will drip sweet wine"--I guess that means that we will get wine without having to do the work of producing it.
"The hills will be dissolved"--I'm not sure what that means. Elsewhere I think it refers to the proud being humbled.
14. Here, the LORD says that He will "restore the captivity of My people Israel." Is that referring to a remnant of the northern kingdom--or is it a remnant of the southern kingdom? I thought the northern kingdom was under total condemnation, no one excepted, with no future restoration.
Here the LORD speaks of people returning to the land and planting vineyards, making gardens and enjoy the fruit thereof.
Which ruined cities will they be rebuilding? Those of the northern kingdom?
15. In the final verse, the LORD says that the LORD will plant the remnant back in the land and they will never again be removed from it, the land that the LORD gave them.
Is this a message of hope for the northern kingdom? Is there a faithful remnant? Or will the descendants of the scattered ones be a faithful remnant who will then return?
Friday, July 18, 2008
Does God Intervene in History?
John Fea's critique of The Light and the Glory in the July/August edition of Touchstone reminds me of the evolutionist's critique of intelligent design: just as we must confine ourselves to natural causes in understanding the origin of the species, we must do the same when understanding the events of American history.
It may be worth discussing in a bit more detail than Fea does the self-understanding of the participants in the War for Independence.
The Declaration of Independence itself expresses the view that God will be on the side of the Americans in the coming war: they embark on it "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence." God is on the side of the Americans, not because He likes Americans better than he likes the British, but because the Americans are fighting to defend the unalienable rights with which they have been "endowed by their Creator." Fea seems to think that it is a fatal blow to this way of thinking to point out that British Christians were praying for the Americans' defeat. The Founders would no doubt have found it strange for someone to find, as Fea does here, a moral equivalency between liberty and tyranny. If God in fact gives people rights, presumably He prefers that system of government which is best able to secure them. Perhaps He even intervenes in history on the side of those who fight for it.
Fea wants us to dismiss the statements of the participants in these events, because to do otherwise would be to "fail to exemplify the historian's necessary detachment from his subject." Or because it "would be the equivalent of future historians arguing that the events of September 11, 2001 were a punishment from God because their sources--certain prominent television preachers--said so." Yet these statements were made not by preachers but by important Founders such as Washington and Franklin, intelligent men who were directly involved in these events and who (at least in Franklin's case) were not necessarily known for their great faith.
In the Constitutional Convention, for example, Benjamin Franklin speaks of his certainty that God fought on the side of the Americans: "In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor." In his first inaugural address, Washington does the same: "No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency."
Granted, we do not have to believe that what Franklin and Washington say is true just because they say it, but the detachment of a historian does not require us to assume that what they say is not true either. Perhaps we can take the approach of the scientist: in the Declaration, the Americans predict that God will fight on their side because they are fighting for liberty, and in the event, He apparently did.
Note: see also John Witherspoon: "It would be a criminal inattention not to observe the singular interposition of Providence hitherto, in behalf of the American colonies."
It may be worth discussing in a bit more detail than Fea does the self-understanding of the participants in the War for Independence.
The Declaration of Independence itself expresses the view that God will be on the side of the Americans in the coming war: they embark on it "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence." God is on the side of the Americans, not because He likes Americans better than he likes the British, but because the Americans are fighting to defend the unalienable rights with which they have been "endowed by their Creator." Fea seems to think that it is a fatal blow to this way of thinking to point out that British Christians were praying for the Americans' defeat. The Founders would no doubt have found it strange for someone to find, as Fea does here, a moral equivalency between liberty and tyranny. If God in fact gives people rights, presumably He prefers that system of government which is best able to secure them. Perhaps He even intervenes in history on the side of those who fight for it.
Fea wants us to dismiss the statements of the participants in these events, because to do otherwise would be to "fail to exemplify the historian's necessary detachment from his subject." Or because it "would be the equivalent of future historians arguing that the events of September 11, 2001 were a punishment from God because their sources--certain prominent television preachers--said so." Yet these statements were made not by preachers but by important Founders such as Washington and Franklin, intelligent men who were directly involved in these events and who (at least in Franklin's case) were not necessarily known for their great faith.
In the Constitutional Convention, for example, Benjamin Franklin speaks of his certainty that God fought on the side of the Americans: "In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor." In his first inaugural address, Washington does the same: "No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency."
Granted, we do not have to believe that what Franklin and Washington say is true just because they say it, but the detachment of a historian does not require us to assume that what they say is not true either. Perhaps we can take the approach of the scientist: in the Declaration, the Americans predict that God will fight on their side because they are fighting for liberty, and in the event, He apparently did.
Note: see also John Witherspoon: "It would be a criminal inattention not to observe the singular interposition of Providence hitherto, in behalf of the American colonies."
Amos 9, 7-12
7. The LORD denies that He has any special relationship with Israel anymore. They are no longer His chosen people, any more than the Philistines or the Arameans.
8. Israel is described as "the sinful kingdom." The LORD will "destroy it from the face of the earth." Some of the people of Israel will survive: "I will not totally destroy the house of Jacob."
9. God speaks of shaking the people of Israel "as grain is shaken in a sieve." Perhaps this means that the bad ones will sift through, but the good ones will not be destroyed, "not a kernel will fall to the ground." The good ones (relatively speaking) will be scattered "among all nations."
10. The bad ones will be destroyed: "all the sinners of My people will die by the sword." These are the ones who are confident that God will not judge them, "those who say, 'The calamity will not overtake or confront us.'"
11. Amos then turns to the southern kingdom, the house of Judah (I think). God says that He will restore a king to the throne of Judah: "In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, and wall up its breaches, etc."
12. Then this restored kingdom will become an empire: it will "possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by My name."
8. Israel is described as "the sinful kingdom." The LORD will "destroy it from the face of the earth." Some of the people of Israel will survive: "I will not totally destroy the house of Jacob."
9. God speaks of shaking the people of Israel "as grain is shaken in a sieve." Perhaps this means that the bad ones will sift through, but the good ones will not be destroyed, "not a kernel will fall to the ground." The good ones (relatively speaking) will be scattered "among all nations."
10. The bad ones will be destroyed: "all the sinners of My people will die by the sword." These are the ones who are confident that God will not judge them, "those who say, 'The calamity will not overtake or confront us.'"
11. Amos then turns to the southern kingdom, the house of Judah (I think). God says that He will restore a king to the throne of Judah: "In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, and wall up its breaches, etc."
12. Then this restored kingdom will become an empire: it will "possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by My name."
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Amos 9, 1-6
1. Amos sees the LORD standing next to an altar, presumably in a temple, a temple in the northern kingdom of Israel.
The LORD speaks of striking down the pillars of the the temple and bringing them down on those who worship there.
God will bring death upon all the people of Israel, none will escape: "they will not have a refuge who will flee or a refugee who will escape."
2. The people will not be able to escape from this destruction, even if they should get as far as Sheol or heaven. The LORD will find them and drag them back to experience the judgment that awaits all the people of Israel.
3. If even they should try to escape to the top of Mt. Carmel or the bottom of the sea, the LORD will bring this destruction upon them: "I will command the serpent and it will bite them."
4. Even if they should be captured by the enemy, the LORD will make sure that they die: "I will command the serpent and it will bite them."
God has abandoned this people: "I will set My eyes against them for evil and not for good."
5. Amos describes the LORD here as one who brings destruction, who "touches the land so that it melts, and all those who dwell in it mourn."
Amos then repeats the image of the Nile flooding and then subsiding. I suppose this is an image of destruction coming through a place.
6. Amos then describes the LORD as being far greater than we are: He "builds His upper chambers in the heavens, and has founded His vaulted dome over the earth."
The LORD "calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth."
The LORD speaks of striking down the pillars of the the temple and bringing them down on those who worship there.
God will bring death upon all the people of Israel, none will escape: "they will not have a refuge who will flee or a refugee who will escape."
2. The people will not be able to escape from this destruction, even if they should get as far as Sheol or heaven. The LORD will find them and drag them back to experience the judgment that awaits all the people of Israel.
3. If even they should try to escape to the top of Mt. Carmel or the bottom of the sea, the LORD will bring this destruction upon them: "I will command the serpent and it will bite them."
4. Even if they should be captured by the enemy, the LORD will make sure that they die: "I will command the serpent and it will bite them."
God has abandoned this people: "I will set My eyes against them for evil and not for good."
5. Amos describes the LORD here as one who brings destruction, who "touches the land so that it melts, and all those who dwell in it mourn."
Amos then repeats the image of the Nile flooding and then subsiding. I suppose this is an image of destruction coming through a place.
6. Amos then describes the LORD as being far greater than we are: He "builds His upper chambers in the heavens, and has founded His vaulted dome over the earth."
The LORD "calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth."
Monday, July 14, 2008
Amos 8, 11-14
11. God says that there will be a famine in Israel, not of food but of God's word, "hearing the words of the LORD.
Either there will be no prophets or the people will no longer listen to God's written word.
12. People will seek God's word, but will not find it. God will no longer speak to the people of Israel.
13. The young men and women of Israel will faint from thirst in that day of judgment, either literally or they will thirst for God's word.
14. The false god of Israel, the false God of Dan, is one of the reasons that the true God will judge them. This false god is "the guilt of Samaria." Those who swear by this false god will be destroyed, "will fall and not rise again."
Either there will be no prophets or the people will no longer listen to God's written word.
12. People will seek God's word, but will not find it. God will no longer speak to the people of Israel.
13. The young men and women of Israel will faint from thirst in that day of judgment, either literally or they will thirst for God's word.
14. The false god of Israel, the false God of Dan, is one of the reasons that the true God will judge them. This false god is "the guilt of Samaria." Those who swear by this false god will be destroyed, "will fall and not rise again."
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Amos 8, 1-10
1. The LORD shows Amos a vision of summer fruit.
2. This is way of showing Amos that Israel will soon be destroyed and that there is no hope of repentance and rescue.
"The end has come for people Israel. I will spare them no longer."
Perhaps the summer fruit is ripe--so it looks fine now, but soon will be rotten.
3. The destruction will reach the king in his palace: "the songs of the palace will turn to wailing in that day."
Many will die: "Many will be the corpses; in every place they will cast them forth in silence."
4. A crime of Israel: there is no equal protection of the law for the weak and poor. The strong violate the rights of the weak: "Hear this, you who trample the needy to do away with the humble of the land."
5. The merchants cheat and steal from those who do business with them. They sell in quantities less than promised (and so can sell more and make more money): they "make the bushel smaller."
They also use false weights and so again sell less than promised. They also somehow inflate the currency--"make the shekel bigger." (?) When someone inflates the currency, it take more of it to buy the same amount of things.
6. It sounds as if the rich make slaves of the poor (who presumably become debtors): they "buy the helpless for money and the needy for a pair of sandals."
The merchants also sell poor quality wheat, "the refuse of the wheat."
7. Israel is proud and God will punish them for that. He will remember all of their wicked deeds.
8. The punishment of Israel will come: the land will quake "and everyone who dwells in it will mourn."
It will be like the Nile that swells and floods the land and then subsides. (?)
9. Literally or figuratively, God will make the daytime dark "in that day."
10. The people of Israel presently enjoy festivals and singing, but God will turn them into mourning and lamentation.
People will wear sackcloth and will shave their heads.
They will feel the deepest grief, as if they were mourning for the death of an only son.
2. This is way of showing Amos that Israel will soon be destroyed and that there is no hope of repentance and rescue.
"The end has come for people Israel. I will spare them no longer."
Perhaps the summer fruit is ripe--so it looks fine now, but soon will be rotten.
3. The destruction will reach the king in his palace: "the songs of the palace will turn to wailing in that day."
Many will die: "Many will be the corpses; in every place they will cast them forth in silence."
4. A crime of Israel: there is no equal protection of the law for the weak and poor. The strong violate the rights of the weak: "Hear this, you who trample the needy to do away with the humble of the land."
5. The merchants cheat and steal from those who do business with them. They sell in quantities less than promised (and so can sell more and make more money): they "make the bushel smaller."
They also use false weights and so again sell less than promised. They also somehow inflate the currency--"make the shekel bigger." (?) When someone inflates the currency, it take more of it to buy the same amount of things.
6. It sounds as if the rich make slaves of the poor (who presumably become debtors): they "buy the helpless for money and the needy for a pair of sandals."
The merchants also sell poor quality wheat, "the refuse of the wheat."
7. Israel is proud and God will punish them for that. He will remember all of their wicked deeds.
8. The punishment of Israel will come: the land will quake "and everyone who dwells in it will mourn."
It will be like the Nile that swells and floods the land and then subsides. (?)
9. Literally or figuratively, God will make the daytime dark "in that day."
10. The people of Israel presently enjoy festivals and singing, but God will turn them into mourning and lamentation.
People will wear sackcloth and will shave their heads.
They will feel the deepest grief, as if they were mourning for the death of an only son.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Amos 7, 10-17
10-11. A priest of Bethel named Amaziah tells King Jeroboam that Amos is prophesying against Israel and saying that the LORD will destroy Israel and Jeroboam as well.
12. Amaziah tells Amos to go back to Judah and stop troubling the people of Israel.
13. Amaziah tells Amos that Bethel is "a sanctuary of the king and a royal residence" and so it is not a proper place for the kinds of things that Amos is saying.
I assume that this means that Bethel is a place where the King of Israel lives and worships.
14. Amos says that he is not a prophet, so there is no sense in telling him to stop prophesying. He is a farmer and a keeper of herds.
15. He is just an ordinary person speaking out the words that the LORD told Him to say.
16-17. Then Amos delivers a message from the LORD to Amaziah: the judgment of Israel will surely come, in spite of Amaziah's unwillingness to hear of it. Amaziah's wife will be reduced to prostitution, his children will be killed, and he will be carried into exile and die in a foreign land. As for Israel, it will be conquered and the people will go into exile.
12. Amaziah tells Amos to go back to Judah and stop troubling the people of Israel.
13. Amaziah tells Amos that Bethel is "a sanctuary of the king and a royal residence" and so it is not a proper place for the kinds of things that Amos is saying.
I assume that this means that Bethel is a place where the King of Israel lives and worships.
14. Amos says that he is not a prophet, so there is no sense in telling him to stop prophesying. He is a farmer and a keeper of herds.
15. He is just an ordinary person speaking out the words that the LORD told Him to say.
16-17. Then Amos delivers a message from the LORD to Amaziah: the judgment of Israel will surely come, in spite of Amaziah's unwillingness to hear of it. Amaziah's wife will be reduced to prostitution, his children will be killed, and he will be carried into exile and die in a foreign land. As for Israel, it will be conquered and the people will go into exile.
Does God Ever Change His Mind?
This question came up in Sunday school the other day. We were studying the passage in Exodus in which God says He is going to wipe out Israel and then Moses intercedes for them. Someone in the class wanted to make it clear that God never changes His mind.
I brought up the passage in Amos 7, in which it says twice that God changed His mind (vv. 3 and 6). The teacher said that a better translation of the Hebrew verb here would be "relent" (as in turned back from His wrath) rather than "changed His mind" as the NASB has it.
The Hebrew verb is "shuv"--which has a primary meaning of return. There may not be all that much of a difference between "relent" and "change His mind." If God relents, then He returns to a state of not planning on doing what He said He was about to do. In other words, He changes His mind.
Perhaps the problem is that when we human beings change our mind about something, it is because we get better information, or re-calculate what is best and realize we were in error, or decide to indulge a desire against our better judgment, or get struck by a whim, or something along these lines. Clearly this is not what happens when God relents or changes His mind.
Someone pointed out that in most or all of the cases in which God "returns" in this way, it is a decision to postpone or withhold judgment. This reminds me of the story in Froissart, in which the Queen pleads with King Edward III at Calais, that he would show mercy on the 6 nobleman and not execute them, as he was intending to do. The king relented. In another story from the reign of Richard II, King Richard's Queen pleads with the Duke of Gloucester, that he would show mercy on Simon Burleigh, and not execute him. In this case, the Duke is not willing to show mercy and Burleigh is executed.
In the case of Israel in the vision of Amos, or Sodom and Gomorrah or Israel in the time of Moses, the objects of God's wrath are fully worthy of the punishment that God intends to visit upon them, so relenting or changing His mind does not indicate any error on His part. But God delights in mercy and it appears that He is at least sometimes willing to be persuaded to postpone or temper or even withhold judgment when asked. So if God is willing to forgo doing something that is right in itself and perfectly in accordance with His character (execute justice) in order to do something else that is also right in itself and in accordance with His character (show mercy), then there is nothing troubling about this.
To go back to the example of Edward III and Calais, there is something beautiful about the Queen's pleading and the King's yielding that would not have happened if Edward had pardoned the noblemen without being asked. The same can be said of the times in which God yields to the pleading of a Moses or Abraham or Amos, so perhaps it is part of God's beauty that He is willing to change His mind.
I brought up the passage in Amos 7, in which it says twice that God changed His mind (vv. 3 and 6). The teacher said that a better translation of the Hebrew verb here would be "relent" (as in turned back from His wrath) rather than "changed His mind" as the NASB has it.
The Hebrew verb is "shuv"--which has a primary meaning of return. There may not be all that much of a difference between "relent" and "change His mind." If God relents, then He returns to a state of not planning on doing what He said He was about to do. In other words, He changes His mind.
Perhaps the problem is that when we human beings change our mind about something, it is because we get better information, or re-calculate what is best and realize we were in error, or decide to indulge a desire against our better judgment, or get struck by a whim, or something along these lines. Clearly this is not what happens when God relents or changes His mind.
Someone pointed out that in most or all of the cases in which God "returns" in this way, it is a decision to postpone or withhold judgment. This reminds me of the story in Froissart, in which the Queen pleads with King Edward III at Calais, that he would show mercy on the 6 nobleman and not execute them, as he was intending to do. The king relented. In another story from the reign of Richard II, King Richard's Queen pleads with the Duke of Gloucester, that he would show mercy on Simon Burleigh, and not execute him. In this case, the Duke is not willing to show mercy and Burleigh is executed.
In the case of Israel in the vision of Amos, or Sodom and Gomorrah or Israel in the time of Moses, the objects of God's wrath are fully worthy of the punishment that God intends to visit upon them, so relenting or changing His mind does not indicate any error on His part. But God delights in mercy and it appears that He is at least sometimes willing to be persuaded to postpone or temper or even withhold judgment when asked. So if God is willing to forgo doing something that is right in itself and perfectly in accordance with His character (execute justice) in order to do something else that is also right in itself and in accordance with His character (show mercy), then there is nothing troubling about this.
To go back to the example of Edward III and Calais, there is something beautiful about the Queen's pleading and the King's yielding that would not have happened if Edward had pardoned the noblemen without being asked. The same can be said of the times in which God yields to the pleading of a Moses or Abraham or Amos, so perhaps it is part of God's beauty that He is willing to change His mind.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Amos 7, 1-9
1. God shows Amos what He is about to do: namely, bring a plague of locusts upon Israel, in order to destroy the spring crop.
2. When Amos sees the destruction He pleads with God on Israel's behalf, that God would spare Israel.
3. So God changes His mind and agrees to spare Israel.
4. Then God shows Amos another vision--a vision of God destroying the land of Israel with fire.
5-6. Again, Amos asks God not to bring His wrath upon Israel and the LORD agrees.
7. Finally, Amos sees a vision of the LORD standing next to a wall with a plumb line in
His hand.
8. The LORD then tells Amos that He will not postpone His judgment any longer. He will hold up a plumb line in Israel--and presumably this will make it clear how unrighteous the people are.
9. The places of false worship in Israel will be destroyed and then God will bring down the King of Israel, Jeroboam, by means of a conquering enemy.
2. When Amos sees the destruction He pleads with God on Israel's behalf, that God would spare Israel.
3. So God changes His mind and agrees to spare Israel.
4. Then God shows Amos another vision--a vision of God destroying the land of Israel with fire.
5-6. Again, Amos asks God not to bring His wrath upon Israel and the LORD agrees.
7. Finally, Amos sees a vision of the LORD standing next to a wall with a plumb line in
His hand.
8. The LORD then tells Amos that He will not postpone His judgment any longer. He will hold up a plumb line in Israel--and presumably this will make it clear how unrighteous the people are.
9. The places of false worship in Israel will be destroyed and then God will bring down the King of Israel, Jeroboam, by means of a conquering enemy.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Amos 6, 12-14
12. There is no justice or righteousness in Israel, just poison and bitterness. This is not as it should be, like making a horse run on rocks or plowing rocks with oxen.
13. The people of Israel do not recognize their need for God; they think that they are responsible for what they have achieved.
13. The people of Israel do not recognize their need for God; they think that they are responsible for what they have achieved.
14. God will raise up an enemy to conquer Israel and afflict them. Presumably "from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of the Arabah" refers to the entire length of Israel."
Monday, June 30, 2008
Amos 6, 8-11
8. God hates the arrogance of Israel and the citadels of Israel, but perhaps not Israel itself (?)
So Israel will be destroyed: God will hand the city over to the enemies of Israel and they will possess it. (Is that the city of Samaria?)
9. Many in Israel will die, all 10 in a house.
10. The survivors will carry the dead bodies out from the houses, in which entire families will be destroyed.
I am not sure what the response of the survivor means: "The name of the LORD is not to be mentioned." Maybe they are angry at the LORD for the destruction He has brought upon them.
11. The destruction will be complete: the great house will be "smashed to pieces and the small house to fragments"
So Israel will be destroyed: God will hand the city over to the enemies of Israel and they will possess it. (Is that the city of Samaria?)
9. Many in Israel will die, all 10 in a house.
10. The survivors will carry the dead bodies out from the houses, in which entire families will be destroyed.
I am not sure what the response of the survivor means: "The name of the LORD is not to be mentioned." Maybe they are angry at the LORD for the destruction He has brought upon them.
11. The destruction will be complete: the great house will be "smashed to pieces and the small house to fragments"
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Amos 6, 4-7
4. Here Amos begins a description of people living in comfort and luxury.
They are wealthy enough to recline on beds of ivory. They must have a lot of leisure, because they "sprawl on their couches."
They are wealthy enought to eat lots of meat, "lambs from the flock and calves from the midst of the stall."
5. They also have the leisure to play and compose music.
6. They drink wine and anoint themselves with expensive oils. (They drink their wine from sacrificial bowls. Is that sacrilegious?)
They are so busy with their pleasures, and so unconcerned about the things of God, that they do not realize that Israel is under God's wrath and condemnation, "they have bit grieved over the ruin of Joseph."
7. These very people will go into exile when Israel falls and all of of this feasting and banqueting will come to an end.
(Am I mistaken, or does Amos speak of exile more than before? At first, I got the impression that everyone would be killed, but now it sounds as if they will go into exile.)
They are wealthy enough to recline on beds of ivory. They must have a lot of leisure, because they "sprawl on their couches."
They are wealthy enought to eat lots of meat, "lambs from the flock and calves from the midst of the stall."
5. They also have the leisure to play and compose music.
6. They drink wine and anoint themselves with expensive oils. (They drink their wine from sacrificial bowls. Is that sacrilegious?)
They are so busy with their pleasures, and so unconcerned about the things of God, that they do not realize that Israel is under God's wrath and condemnation, "they have bit grieved over the ruin of Joseph."
7. These very people will go into exile when Israel falls and all of of this feasting and banqueting will come to an end.
(Am I mistaken, or does Amos speak of exile more than before? At first, I got the impression that everyone would be killed, but now it sounds as if they will go into exile.)
Friday, June 27, 2008
Amos 6, 1-3
1. Amos prophecies the doom of the "distinguished men" of Israel and Judah, which he describes as "the foremost of nations."
He describes these men as being at ease and feeling secure. They are the men "to whom the house of Israel comes." But in spite of their comfort and their riches and their positions of authority, they are not pleasing to God and God will judge them.
2. Amos tells the distinguished men (or Israel and Judah as a whole) to consider the cities of Calneh, Hamath, and Gath.
It sounds as if he wants to get them to see that those cities are no better than Jerusalem and Samaria and their territory is no greater than theirs. I'm not sure why.
3. It sounds like Amos is saying that the people of Israel (and Judah?) are bringing the "day of calamity" and the "seat of violence" upon themselves by their bad behavior.
But it's hard to understand, because he says: "Do you put off the day of calamity?" and "Would you bring near the seat of violence?"
He describes these men as being at ease and feeling secure. They are the men "to whom the house of Israel comes." But in spite of their comfort and their riches and their positions of authority, they are not pleasing to God and God will judge them.
2. Amos tells the distinguished men (or Israel and Judah as a whole) to consider the cities of Calneh, Hamath, and Gath.
It sounds as if he wants to get them to see that those cities are no better than Jerusalem and Samaria and their territory is no greater than theirs. I'm not sure why.
3. It sounds like Amos is saying that the people of Israel (and Judah?) are bringing the "day of calamity" and the "seat of violence" upon themselves by their bad behavior.
But it's hard to understand, because he says: "Do you put off the day of calamity?" and "Would you bring near the seat of violence?"
Amos 5, 25-27
25. Perhaps this verse is a reference to the false worship that takes place in Israel, outside of Jerusalem.
Amos asks Israel if, when they offered sacrifices and grain offerings in the wilderness, they offered those sacrifices to the LORD. Probably they assumed that they did.
26. But the LORD tells them that the people of Israel at that time were not offering sacrifices to the LORD at all, but to other gods: Sikkuth and Kiyyun. Even back then, the people of Israel turned away from the one true God and worshiped other gods.
27. For this false worship, the LORD will send Israel into exile, beyond Damascus. Many will die and many will be scattered.
Amos asks Israel if, when they offered sacrifices and grain offerings in the wilderness, they offered those sacrifices to the LORD. Probably they assumed that they did.
26. But the LORD tells them that the people of Israel at that time were not offering sacrifices to the LORD at all, but to other gods: Sikkuth and Kiyyun. Even back then, the people of Israel turned away from the one true God and worshiped other gods.
27. For this false worship, the LORD will send Israel into exile, beyond Damascus. Many will die and many will be scattered.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Amos 5, 21-24
21. The people think that they are worshipping the LORD, but they are not. They celebrate festivals and hold solemn assemblies, but God is not impressed. The defy God in the way they live and also defy Him by refusing to worship Him in Jerusalem.
22. Again, they offer sacrifices, but they are not to the LORD. God does not accept their burnt offerings and grain offerings.
23. They worship with music, with songs and harps, but the LORD does not want to hear it.
24. There is actually no mention of failing to worship the LORD in Jerusalem here and there may not be anywhere in Amos. That might not be their primary sin, in this prophecy.
The primary sin is the lack of justice and righteousness that the LORD finds in Israel. They do not treat each other justly; the judges and rulers do not punish wrongdoers who violate the rights of the poor; and they do not obey God in their own personal lives.
Amos calls on them to "let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an everflowing stream."
22. Again, they offer sacrifices, but they are not to the LORD. God does not accept their burnt offerings and grain offerings.
23. They worship with music, with songs and harps, but the LORD does not want to hear it.
24. There is actually no mention of failing to worship the LORD in Jerusalem here and there may not be anywhere in Amos. That might not be their primary sin, in this prophecy.
The primary sin is the lack of justice and righteousness that the LORD finds in Israel. They do not treat each other justly; the judges and rulers do not punish wrongdoers who violate the rights of the poor; and they do not obey God in their own personal lives.
Amos calls on them to "let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an everflowing stream."
Amos 5, 18-20
18. Some in Israel appear to be looking forward to "the day of the LORD." Perhaps they think that God will rescue them or reward them.
But Amos tells them that the day of the LORD will be a day of judgment and doom for Israel, a day of "darkness and not light."
19. There will be no escape for Israel: if they escape from a lion, they will be mauled by a bear. If they make it back to the safety of their home, a snake will bite them. No matter what happens, no matter what they do, they will be destroyed.
20. Amos repeats that when the LORD makes His presence felt in Israel, it will be do to them harm and not to do them good. (What the LORD says to Judah by Jeremiah, he does not say to Israel. There will be no hope or future for Israel.)
But Amos tells them that the day of the LORD will be a day of judgment and doom for Israel, a day of "darkness and not light."
19. There will be no escape for Israel: if they escape from a lion, they will be mauled by a bear. If they make it back to the safety of their home, a snake will bite them. No matter what happens, no matter what they do, they will be destroyed.
20. Amos repeats that when the LORD makes His presence felt in Israel, it will be do to them harm and not to do them good. (What the LORD says to Judah by Jeremiah, he does not say to Israel. There will be no hope or future for Israel.)
Friday, June 20, 2008
Amos 5, 16-17
16-17. A great calamity awaits Israel and all of the inhabitants will suffer grief.
Those in the plazas and the streets; the farmers and the professional mourners; in all the vineyards.
The LORD will judge Israel, will bring calamity upon it, "shall pass throught the midst" of it.
Those in the plazas and the streets; the farmers and the professional mourners; in all the vineyards.
The LORD will judge Israel, will bring calamity upon it, "shall pass throught the midst" of it.
Amos 5, 14-15
14. Apparently the people of Israel claim that the LORD is with them, but Amos replies that this will only be the case if they "seek good and not evil."
15. At this point, there is no hope for Israel--it is doomed. But it is possible that the LORD may decide to be "gracious to the remnant of Joseph."
This will only happen if those in power "establish justice in the gate." They need to protect the rights of all, including the poor. No more taking bribes from the wealthy in order to deprive the poor of the protection of their basic rights.
Those in power must hate evil and love good and then the LORD might spare a remnant.
15. At this point, there is no hope for Israel--it is doomed. But it is possible that the LORD may decide to be "gracious to the remnant of Joseph."
This will only happen if those in power "establish justice in the gate." They need to protect the rights of all, including the poor. No more taking bribes from the wealthy in order to deprive the poor of the protection of their basic rights.
Those in power must hate evil and love good and then the LORD might spare a remnant.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Amos 5, 10-13
10. Wicked people hate those who speak out concerning right and wrong, who speak out against those who do wrong, the man who "reproves" and "speaks with integrity."
11. Amos identifies one of the sins that the people of Israel commit: they impose heavy rent on the poor and take their grain from them.
God will punish them by depriving them of their fine homes. Israel will be defeated and conquered and the evil-doers will not enjoy the wine made from their vineyards.
I am not sure what the poor are renting from the wealthy--a place to live? the land on which they labor? Probably the latter and that's what Amos means by the tribute of grain. Perhaps the poor need to rent the land from the wealthy and even give them a share of the produce.
In any case, it sounds like the wealthy are taking advantage of the situation and charging a higher rent than is right and demanding more of the produce than is right.
12. It sounds like those who are in power are taking bribes from the wealthy and not defending the rights of the poor people as they should.
Perhaps that's what it means to "distress the righteous" and "to turn aside the poor in the gate"--to rule against them, not to give them justice when they have been cheated or taken advantage of.
13. Amos says that in times like this, it is better to say nothing. If people are doing wrong and the authorities are doing nothing about it, but are actually helping along and making a profit from the wrongdoing, then there is nothing that an honest man can say that would make a difference.
As Amos says, it is "an evil time."
11. Amos identifies one of the sins that the people of Israel commit: they impose heavy rent on the poor and take their grain from them.
God will punish them by depriving them of their fine homes. Israel will be defeated and conquered and the evil-doers will not enjoy the wine made from their vineyards.
I am not sure what the poor are renting from the wealthy--a place to live? the land on which they labor? Probably the latter and that's what Amos means by the tribute of grain. Perhaps the poor need to rent the land from the wealthy and even give them a share of the produce.
In any case, it sounds like the wealthy are taking advantage of the situation and charging a higher rent than is right and demanding more of the produce than is right.
12. It sounds like those who are in power are taking bribes from the wealthy and not defending the rights of the poor people as they should.
Perhaps that's what it means to "distress the righteous" and "to turn aside the poor in the gate"--to rule against them, not to give them justice when they have been cheated or taken advantage of.
13. Amos says that in times like this, it is better to say nothing. If people are doing wrong and the authorities are doing nothing about it, but are actually helping along and making a profit from the wrongdoing, then there is nothing that an honest man can say that would make a difference.
As Amos says, it is "an evil time."
Amos 5, 8-19
8. Amos descibes the LORD as
a. the maker of the stars in the sky--"the Pleiades and Orion"
b. the cause of day and night--"He who...changes deep darkness into morning, who also darkens day into night"
c. the maker of the sea (?)--"Who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the surface of the earth."
9. Amos describes the LORD as one who brings down the proud: "He who flashes forth with destruction upon the strong, so that destruction comes upon the fortress."
All human beings have reason to be humble and God will make sure that all people are humbled. This is the only way that anyone will turn to Him.
a. the maker of the stars in the sky--"the Pleiades and Orion"
b. the cause of day and night--"He who...changes deep darkness into morning, who also darkens day into night"
c. the maker of the sea (?)--"Who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the surface of the earth."
9. Amos describes the LORD as one who brings down the proud: "He who flashes forth with destruction upon the strong, so that destruction comes upon the fortress."
All human beings have reason to be humble and God will make sure that all people are humbled. This is the only way that anyone will turn to Him.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Amos 5, 4-7
4. God tells Israel that if they seek Him, they will not be destroyed, will not be subject to judgment.
5. God tells the people that there is no other way to escape His judgment. If they try to escape by fleeing to the cities of Bethel, Gilgal, or Beersheba, it will not do them any good, because God's judgment will come upon them there.
"Gilgal will certainly go into captivity, and Bethel will come to trouble."
6. God calls upon Israel again to "seek the LORD that you may live." If they do not, then the LORD will "break forth like a fire...and it [will] consume with none to quench it."
God will destroy Israel and, in particular, Bethel (a site of false worship).
7. God's judgment will come upon Israel because there is no justice in Israel and because the people themselves are unrighteous. I suppose this means that the strong harm the weak and the legal system of Israel fails to do anything about it.
The people "turn justice into wormwood [i.e. something bitter] and cast righteousness down to the earth."
5. God tells the people that there is no other way to escape His judgment. If they try to escape by fleeing to the cities of Bethel, Gilgal, or Beersheba, it will not do them any good, because God's judgment will come upon them there.
"Gilgal will certainly go into captivity, and Bethel will come to trouble."
6. God calls upon Israel again to "seek the LORD that you may live." If they do not, then the LORD will "break forth like a fire...and it [will] consume with none to quench it."
God will destroy Israel and, in particular, Bethel (a site of false worship).
7. God's judgment will come upon Israel because there is no justice in Israel and because the people themselves are unrighteous. I suppose this means that the strong harm the weak and the legal system of Israel fails to do anything about it.
The people "turn justice into wormwood [i.e. something bitter] and cast righteousness down to the earth."
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Amos 5, 1-3
1. Amos says that his words are a dirge for Israel, which means that Israel is as good as dead.
2. Israel will be destroyed and will not be restored, "will not rise again." (Unlike Judah, which will be restored, which will return from captivity.)
No one will raise up Israel, which means that God will abandon Israel, or already has.
Amos describes Israel as a virgin. This seems to mean that Israel has no husband, that God is no longer Israel's God, and so "there is none to raise her up."
3. Israel will be conquered in battle and only one in ten will survive. There will only be a small remnant (and even that small remnant will be scattered).
2. Israel will be destroyed and will not be restored, "will not rise again." (Unlike Judah, which will be restored, which will return from captivity.)
No one will raise up Israel, which means that God will abandon Israel, or already has.
Amos describes Israel as a virgin. This seems to mean that Israel has no husband, that God is no longer Israel's God, and so "there is none to raise her up."
3. Israel will be conquered in battle and only one in ten will survive. There will only be a small remnant (and even that small remnant will be scattered).
Monday, June 2, 2008
Amos 4, 6-13
6. God brought famine upon Israel for their sin of worshiping another god, but they still did not repent:
"I gave you also cleanness of teeth in all your cities and lack of bread in all your places, yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD.
7. God also brought drought upon Israel, or some cities of Israel, in order to provide them with an opportunity to repent and turn back to Him:
"I withheld the rain from you while there were still three months until harvest."
This put their food supply in jeopardy.
8. Not only was there the possibility of ruined crops, but there wasn't even enough water to drink.
"Two or three cities would stagger to another city to drink water, but would not be satisfied; yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD.
Notice that the purpose of these hardships is to get their attention, so that they would stop living as they have been and try something new--which is to follow God in a truer way.
9. In addition to drought, God also sent plagues of scorching wind, mildew, and caterpillars upon the land of Israel--again, with the purpose of bring them to repentance.
"I smote you with scorching wind and mildew; and the caterpillar was devouring your many gardens and vineyards, fig trees and olive trees; yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD."
Among other things, the caterpillars also threatened the food supply.
10. God also brought military defeat upon Israel, in which many of their men died.
"I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, and I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD.
11. This military defeat--or some other event--was as great a calamity and judgment on Israel as the fire and brimstone that fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
The destruction was nearly total, as a "firebrand snatched from a blaze." Even so, the people of Israel did not repent: "Yet you have not returned to Me, declares the LORD."
12. Israel has proved absolutely stubborn and unwilling to repent and, therefore, God will stop bringing chastisements upon Israel and will bring instead a final judgment:
"Therefore, thus will I do to you, O Israel; because I shall do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel."
13. The God whom Israel defies and treats with such disrespect is the only true God, the LORD.
This God is the God who created Heaven and Earth and who continues to rule over nature: "He who forms mountains and creates the wind...who makes dawn into darkness"
This is also a God who communicates with human beings: "He who declares to man what are His thoughts."
He also "treads on the high places of the earth." I suppose that means that He can get high up to places that we cannot reach, because He is greater than we are.
All the armies of Heaven obey Him. "The LORD God of hosts is His name."
"I gave you also cleanness of teeth in all your cities and lack of bread in all your places, yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD.
7. God also brought drought upon Israel, or some cities of Israel, in order to provide them with an opportunity to repent and turn back to Him:
"I withheld the rain from you while there were still three months until harvest."
This put their food supply in jeopardy.
8. Not only was there the possibility of ruined crops, but there wasn't even enough water to drink.
"Two or three cities would stagger to another city to drink water, but would not be satisfied; yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD.
Notice that the purpose of these hardships is to get their attention, so that they would stop living as they have been and try something new--which is to follow God in a truer way.
9. In addition to drought, God also sent plagues of scorching wind, mildew, and caterpillars upon the land of Israel--again, with the purpose of bring them to repentance.
"I smote you with scorching wind and mildew; and the caterpillar was devouring your many gardens and vineyards, fig trees and olive trees; yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD."
Among other things, the caterpillars also threatened the food supply.
10. God also brought military defeat upon Israel, in which many of their men died.
"I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, and I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD.
11. This military defeat--or some other event--was as great a calamity and judgment on Israel as the fire and brimstone that fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
The destruction was nearly total, as a "firebrand snatched from a blaze." Even so, the people of Israel did not repent: "Yet you have not returned to Me, declares the LORD."
12. Israel has proved absolutely stubborn and unwilling to repent and, therefore, God will stop bringing chastisements upon Israel and will bring instead a final judgment:
"Therefore, thus will I do to you, O Israel; because I shall do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel."
13. The God whom Israel defies and treats with such disrespect is the only true God, the LORD.
This God is the God who created Heaven and Earth and who continues to rule over nature: "He who forms mountains and creates the wind...who makes dawn into darkness"
This is also a God who communicates with human beings: "He who declares to man what are His thoughts."
He also "treads on the high places of the earth." I suppose that means that He can get high up to places that we cannot reach, because He is greater than we are.
All the armies of Heaven obey Him. "The LORD God of hosts is His name."
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Amos 4, 4-5
4. Bethel was a place of false worship in the northern kingdom and Gilgal must have been another. The LORD condemns the people of Israel for worshiping in these places.
The people of Israel perform religious rituals faithfully: "Bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days."
5. They also offer thank offerings and freewill offerings (although they use leavened bread in their thank offerings, which I think was forbidden).
The problem is that they were not worshiping the LORD, but some other God. If they wanted to worship the LORD, they would have worshiped Him in Jerusalem and in the way that He told them to do.
The people of Israel perform religious rituals faithfully: "Bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days."
5. They also offer thank offerings and freewill offerings (although they use leavened bread in their thank offerings, which I think was forbidden).
The problem is that they were not worshiping the LORD, but some other God. If they wanted to worship the LORD, they would have worshiped Him in Jerusalem and in the way that He told them to do.
House of Joseph
Someone mentioned this morning that Jacob loved Rachel more than any of his other wives and loved the children he had by Rachel better than any of his other children, but nevertheless God insisted that His promised would be fulfilled through the descendants of Judah.
This reminded me of how Amos refers to Israel (that is, the northern kingdom) as the house of Joseph.
"Seek the LORD that you may live...O house of Joseph" (4:6).
"Perhaps the LORD God of hosts may be gracious to the remnant of Joseph" (4:15).
So the division of Israel into two kingdoms and the destruction of the northern kingdom and the survival of the souther kingdom of Judah is a working out of God's choice to bless the world through the sons of Judah and not the house of Joseph.
This reminded me of how Amos refers to Israel (that is, the northern kingdom) as the house of Joseph.
"Seek the LORD that you may live...O house of Joseph" (4:6).
"Perhaps the LORD God of hosts may be gracious to the remnant of Joseph" (4:15).
So the division of Israel into two kingdoms and the destruction of the northern kingdom and the survival of the souther kingdom of Judah is a working out of God's choice to bless the world through the sons of Judah and not the house of Joseph.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Amos 4, 1-3
1. The women of Israel are singled out here for condemnation. These are their sins: they "oppress the poor" and "crush the needy"--two ways of saying the same thing. There are no particulars here. Perhaps these women have servants whom they underpay and abuse. I am not sure how else they would be in a position to hurt poor people.
2. In any case, the punishment for their sin is certain. They will be carried into captivity: "They will take you away with meat hooks, and the last of you with fish hooks."
God has sworn that this will happen by His own holiness, so they will not be able to escape their doom.
3. When the city is sacked, the women will depart "through breaches in the walls." The women will be cast to Harmon--and apparently no one knows who or what Harmon is.
2. In any case, the punishment for their sin is certain. They will be carried into captivity: "They will take you away with meat hooks, and the last of you with fish hooks."
God has sworn that this will happen by His own holiness, so they will not be able to escape their doom.
3. When the city is sacked, the women will depart "through breaches in the walls." The women will be cast to Harmon--and apparently no one knows who or what Harmon is.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Amos 3, 11-15
11. The LORD promises that as a consequence of Israel's rebellion and disobedience, another nation will attack and conquer them: "An enemy, even one surrounding the land, will pull down your strength from you and your citadels will be looted."
12. The conqueror will be like a lion who devours its prey, all but a few body parts that the shepherd is able to snatch out of the lion's mouth. I suppose this means that all but a few of the people of Israel will be killed and the few who escape will do so with barely any of their possessions ("the corner of a bed and the cover of a couch.")
13. Amos refers to God here as Lord YHWH, the God of Hosts. This name describes God in the most respectful, worshipful terms.
God is calling upon someone to testify against Israel, the house of Jacob.
14. God focuses here on the altars of Bethel--the city in which Jeroboam places one of the golden calves, as Smith points out. It is a place of false worship, where the people of Israel went instead of to Jerusalem.
In the day that God bring destruction upon Israel, He will also bring destruction upon the altars of Bethel.
"I will also punish the altars of Bethel; the horns of the altar will be cut off, and they will fall to the ground."
15. Apparently some of the people of Israel were wealthy enough to have summer and winter houses. Some houses were made of ivory or were otherwise luxurious and spacious. God will bring destruction on all of the accumulated wealth of Israel, as judgment upon their sins.
12. The conqueror will be like a lion who devours its prey, all but a few body parts that the shepherd is able to snatch out of the lion's mouth. I suppose this means that all but a few of the people of Israel will be killed and the few who escape will do so with barely any of their possessions ("the corner of a bed and the cover of a couch.")
13. Amos refers to God here as Lord YHWH, the God of Hosts. This name describes God in the most respectful, worshipful terms.
God is calling upon someone to testify against Israel, the house of Jacob.
14. God focuses here on the altars of Bethel--the city in which Jeroboam places one of the golden calves, as Smith points out. It is a place of false worship, where the people of Israel went instead of to Jerusalem.
In the day that God bring destruction upon Israel, He will also bring destruction upon the altars of Bethel.
"I will also punish the altars of Bethel; the horns of the altar will be cut off, and they will fall to the ground."
15. Apparently some of the people of Israel were wealthy enough to have summer and winter houses. Some houses were made of ivory or were otherwise luxurious and spacious. God will bring destruction on all of the accumulated wealth of Israel, as judgment upon their sins.
Amos 3, 9-10
9. There is an invitation to the Philistines of Ashdod and the people of Egypt to come to "the mountains of Samaria" (that is, Israel) in order to see the bad condition it is in.
There are "great tumults within her" and "oppressions in her midst."
In other words, people are harming one another and acting in a rebellious way.
10. The LORD describes the people of Israel as people who "do not know how to do what is right." This is the reason why they will be judged.
He also describes them as people who "hoard up violence and devastation in their citadels."
This either means that they themselves are violent and destructive or their behavior is going to bring violence and destruction upon themselves (in the form of an attack from another nation).
There are "great tumults within her" and "oppressions in her midst."
In other words, people are harming one another and acting in a rebellious way.
10. The LORD describes the people of Israel as people who "do not know how to do what is right." This is the reason why they will be judged.
He also describes them as people who "hoard up violence and devastation in their citadels."
This either means that they themselves are violent and destructive or their behavior is going to bring violence and destruction upon themselves (in the form of an attack from another nation).
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Amos 3
1. Israel has disobeyed the LORD and turned away from Him.
2. The LORD set apart the descendants of Abraham to be His people, the only people in all the world that He treated in this way. Yet they turned away from Him.
This is why Israel deserves God's judgment: "Therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities."
3-6. There is a series of questions here, all with no as an answer. The final question is: "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it"
Presumably this refers to the destruction that will come to the cities of Israel. It is God's judgment upon Israel.
Does this apply to what happened to New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, or to New York on 9/11? Or Hiroshima at the end of WW II? At any rate, it applies to the calamities that Amos foretells in chapters 1 and 2.
7. The LORD has told Amos ahead of time what He will do to these cities and it is customary for God to forewarn the prophets what He plans to do.
8. The forewarning is like the roaring of a lion. Death will come to the cities that the LORD plans go destroy and the prophets will speak out about it.
2. The LORD set apart the descendants of Abraham to be His people, the only people in all the world that He treated in this way. Yet they turned away from Him.
This is why Israel deserves God's judgment: "Therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities."
3-6. There is a series of questions here, all with no as an answer. The final question is: "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it"
Presumably this refers to the destruction that will come to the cities of Israel. It is God's judgment upon Israel.
Does this apply to what happened to New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, or to New York on 9/11? Or Hiroshima at the end of WW II? At any rate, it applies to the calamities that Amos foretells in chapters 1 and 2.
7. The LORD has told Amos ahead of time what He will do to these cities and it is customary for God to forewarn the prophets what He plans to do.
8. The forewarning is like the roaring of a lion. Death will come to the cities that the LORD plans go destroy and the prophets will speak out about it.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Amos 2, Israel (continued)
9. The people of Israel are worshiping some other God, even though it was the LORD who brought them into the promised land, destroying the previous inhabitants before them: "It was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, though his height was like the height of cedars and he was strong as the oaks."
The last part of that makes it clear that the people of Israel would not have won the battle for this land without the LORD's help. The imhabitants were stronger than they were.
The conquest over the Amorites was complete; the Amorites were totally destroyed: "I even destroyed his fruit above and his root below."
(The Amorites are not mentioned in the Bible again after the conquest, as Smith points out.)
10. The LORD brought Israel up out of slavery in Egypt, led them in the wilderness, with a view to bring them into the promised land, with the purpose of givng them the land of the Amorites.
It is ungrateful of the Israel to turn away from God after all that He had done for them.
11. The LORD chose some of the people of Israel to be in an especially close relationship to Him: the prophets and the Nazirites.
12. But the people of Israel corrupted the Nazirites and prevented them from continuing in a close relationship to God: "You made the Nazirites drink wine."
The prophets of Israel were calling them back into a relationship with the LORD, to worship Him only, but the people of Israel refused to listen: "You commanded the prophets saying, 'You shall not prophesy!'"
13. The rebellion of Israel is painful and distressing to the LORD and, I suppose, He is angry with them: "I am weighted down beneath you as a wagn is wei ghted down when filled with sheaves."
14. God will bring judgment and destruction upon Israel and no one will escape: "Flight will perish from the swift, and the stalwart will not strengthen his power, nor the mighty man save his life."
15. As in the previous verse, Israel will face an enemy in battle and will be defeated: "He who grasps the bow will not stand his ground, the swift of foot will not escape, nor will he who rides the horse save his life."
16. There will be a day of judgment upon Israel and even the bravest of their soldiers will lose heart: "'Even the bravest among the warriors will flee naked in that day,' declares the LORD."
The last part of that makes it clear that the people of Israel would not have won the battle for this land without the LORD's help. The imhabitants were stronger than they were.
The conquest over the Amorites was complete; the Amorites were totally destroyed: "I even destroyed his fruit above and his root below."
(The Amorites are not mentioned in the Bible again after the conquest, as Smith points out.)
10. The LORD brought Israel up out of slavery in Egypt, led them in the wilderness, with a view to bring them into the promised land, with the purpose of givng them the land of the Amorites.
It is ungrateful of the Israel to turn away from God after all that He had done for them.
11. The LORD chose some of the people of Israel to be in an especially close relationship to Him: the prophets and the Nazirites.
12. But the people of Israel corrupted the Nazirites and prevented them from continuing in a close relationship to God: "You made the Nazirites drink wine."
The prophets of Israel were calling them back into a relationship with the LORD, to worship Him only, but the people of Israel refused to listen: "You commanded the prophets saying, 'You shall not prophesy!'"
13. The rebellion of Israel is painful and distressing to the LORD and, I suppose, He is angry with them: "I am weighted down beneath you as a wagn is wei ghted down when filled with sheaves."
14. God will bring judgment and destruction upon Israel and no one will escape: "Flight will perish from the swift, and the stalwart will not strengthen his power, nor the mighty man save his life."
15. As in the previous verse, Israel will face an enemy in battle and will be defeated: "He who grasps the bow will not stand his ground, the swift of foot will not escape, nor will he who rides the horse save his life."
16. There will be a day of judgment upon Israel and even the bravest of their soldiers will lose heart: "'Even the bravest among the warriors will flee naked in that day,' declares the LORD."
Babylon and Hitler
Does God ever raise up evil people to bring judgment on His people, or chasten them?
The answer in Scripture is yes.
"I shall give over all Judah to the king of Babylon, and he will carry them away as exiles to Babylon and will slay them with the sword." (Jeremiah 20:4)
"For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that fierce and impetuous peope...but they will be held guilty." (Habakkuk 1:6, 11)
Notice that the country that brings evil upon Israel is guilty for its sin, even though God permits it to happen in order to bring judgment on His people.
There is no way to know for sure if this principle applies to the leader of Germany, but it is at least worth thinking about.
The answer in Scripture is yes.
"I shall give over all Judah to the king of Babylon, and he will carry them away as exiles to Babylon and will slay them with the sword." (Jeremiah 20:4)
"For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that fierce and impetuous peope...but they will be held guilty." (Habakkuk 1:6, 11)
Notice that the country that brings evil upon Israel is guilty for its sin, even though God permits it to happen in order to bring judgment on His people.
There is no way to know for sure if this principle applies to the leader of Germany, but it is at least worth thinking about.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Amos 2, Israel
6. Israel is next in line for judgment.
Its sin? "They sell the righteous for money and the needy for a pair of sandals."
I am not sure what this refers to. If you sell someone, it sounds like you are selling that person to be someone else's slave. It sounds as if they are not even selling these people for much in return--for a pair of sandals. That shows a low respect for the value of human life.
7. Other sins:
They "pant after the very dust of the earth on the head of the helpless." It sounds here as if they are harming those who are weaker than themselves in order to get from them the little they have.
They "turn aside the way of the humble." That sounds like a different way of saying the same thing. These people take advantage of the helpless and the humble--that is, those who are weaker than themselves.
The last sin is a sexual one: "a man and his father resort to the same girl in order to profane My holy name." This sounds like a prostitute or a woman of low repute.
8. More sins:
"On garments taken as pledges they stretch out beside every altar."
The first part has to do with taking a garment from a debtor as a guarantee that the debt will be paid--a poor debtor obviously. The creditor is not supposed to keep the garment overnight, because the debtor will get cold.
The second part sounds like it has to do with worshiping a false god. So I suppose this is combining two things that they are not supposed to be doing into one act.
Also: "in the house of their God they drink the wine of those who have been fined."
The first of this explicitly has to do with worshiping another God than the LORD. (In other words, perhaps, the God that Israel is worshiping--outside of Jerusalem--is not the LORD.)
The second part--I'm not sure what it means. Maybe these are government officials who confiscate wine from people and drink it themselves (?)
Its sin? "They sell the righteous for money and the needy for a pair of sandals."
I am not sure what this refers to. If you sell someone, it sounds like you are selling that person to be someone else's slave. It sounds as if they are not even selling these people for much in return--for a pair of sandals. That shows a low respect for the value of human life.
7. Other sins:
They "pant after the very dust of the earth on the head of the helpless." It sounds here as if they are harming those who are weaker than themselves in order to get from them the little they have.
They "turn aside the way of the humble." That sounds like a different way of saying the same thing. These people take advantage of the helpless and the humble--that is, those who are weaker than themselves.
The last sin is a sexual one: "a man and his father resort to the same girl in order to profane My holy name." This sounds like a prostitute or a woman of low repute.
8. More sins:
"On garments taken as pledges they stretch out beside every altar."
The first part has to do with taking a garment from a debtor as a guarantee that the debt will be paid--a poor debtor obviously. The creditor is not supposed to keep the garment overnight, because the debtor will get cold.
The second part sounds like it has to do with worshiping a false god. So I suppose this is combining two things that they are not supposed to be doing into one act.
Also: "in the house of their God they drink the wine of those who have been fined."
The first of this explicitly has to do with worshiping another God than the LORD. (In other words, perhaps, the God that Israel is worshiping--outside of Jerusalem--is not the LORD.)
The second part--I'm not sure what it means. Maybe these are government officials who confiscate wine from people and drink it themselves (?)
Amos 2, Judah
4. After God speaks of the sins of other nations, He turns to the sins of His own people.
The other nations are judged for the way they treated Israel and Judah--or one another. (Moab is condemned for how it treated Edom.)
Judah is not judged for how it treated other nations, but for disobeying God's law: "they rejected the law of the LORD and have not kept His statutes."
God describes Judah as being deceived, under some kind of delusion, one that their ancestors suffered from as well: "Their lies also have led them astray, those after which their fathers walked."
5. Then the LORD speaks the same doom on Judah as on the other nations: "I will send fire upon Judah, and it will consume the citadels of Jerusalem."
It sounds as if God does not treat Judah with any favoritism. They are His chosen people, but that does not mean that He will not judge them in the same way that He judges the nations.
The other nations are judged for the way they treated Israel and Judah--or one another. (Moab is condemned for how it treated Edom.)
Judah is not judged for how it treated other nations, but for disobeying God's law: "they rejected the law of the LORD and have not kept His statutes."
God describes Judah as being deceived, under some kind of delusion, one that their ancestors suffered from as well: "Their lies also have led them astray, those after which their fathers walked."
5. Then the LORD speaks the same doom on Judah as on the other nations: "I will send fire upon Judah, and it will consume the citadels of Jerusalem."
It sounds as if God does not treat Judah with any favoritism. They are His chosen people, but that does not mean that He will not judge them in the same way that He judges the nations.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Amos 2, Moab
1. What is the crime of Moab, for which it will be punished: "he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime."
Not that the king of Edom was such a good guy. We recall that he himself will be destroyed because of how he treated the Jews (1:11-12). But that is no matter. It is apparently wrong to harm anyone in this way, even if you are the instrument of God's vengeance.
2. There will be a war in which someone will conquer Moab and all of the rulers of Moab will die in the battle (they won't even be exiled).
"I will send fire upon Moab, and it will consume the citadels of Kerioth; and Moab will die amid tumult, with war cries and the sound of the trumpet. I will also cut off the judge from her midst, and slay all her princes with him," says the LORD.
Kerioth is a city in Moab, also mentioned by Jeremiah in a prophecy of Moab's destruction: "The disaster of Moab will soon come, and his calamity has swiftly hastened....Judgment has also come...against Kerioth..." (Jeremiah 48:16, 21, 24).
Not that the king of Edom was such a good guy. We recall that he himself will be destroyed because of how he treated the Jews (1:11-12). But that is no matter. It is apparently wrong to harm anyone in this way, even if you are the instrument of God's vengeance.
2. There will be a war in which someone will conquer Moab and all of the rulers of Moab will die in the battle (they won't even be exiled).
"I will send fire upon Moab, and it will consume the citadels of Kerioth; and Moab will die amid tumult, with war cries and the sound of the trumpet. I will also cut off the judge from her midst, and slay all her princes with him," says the LORD.
Kerioth is a city in Moab, also mentioned by Jeremiah in a prophecy of Moab's destruction: "The disaster of Moab will soon come, and his calamity has swiftly hastened....Judgment has also come...against Kerioth..." (Jeremiah 48:16, 21, 24).
John McCain
John McCain and John Hagee’s comments about Jeremiah 16:14-16
Who would have thought that the prophet Jeremiah would be scrutinized in the 2008 presidential campaign? McCain has just renounced Hagee's endorsement after it became known that Hagee once said that Hitler fulfilled a Biblical prophecy by chasing the Jews out of Europe and back into the Holy Land.
The New York Times says, as if it were outlandish, that Hagee argues that Jeremiah 16:16 refers to "the Jews."
What do these verses actually say and what do they mean?
"Therefore behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when it will no longer be said, 'As the LORD lives, who brought up the Sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt,' but, 'As the LORD lives, who brought up the sons of Israel from the land of the north and from all the countries where He had banished them.' For I will restore them to their own land which I gave to their fathers. Behold, I am going to send for many fishermen," declares the LORD, "and they will fish for them; and afterwards I shall send for many hunters, and they will hunt them from every mountain and every hill, and from the clefts of the rocks."
First of all, these verses are clearly about "the sons of Israel" and the sons of Israel are the Jews. So it's not clear why that identification would be controversial.
It is also clearly about the Jews returning from "the land of the north and from all the countries where [the LORD] banished them." That is, it speaks of a return of the Jews to the Holy Land, which the Times misleadingly neglects to mention--presumably to make what Hagee says seems more outlandish.
The only question is this: which return of the Jews is this referring to? The Jews did return to the Holy Land after the captivity in Babylon and resided there until 70 A.D. So Jeremiah's prophecy can and presumably does refer to that. (Daniel was reading Jeremiah when he realized that the time had come for the Jews to return.)
Can this passage also refer to another return of the Jews to the Holy Land, perhaps the one that began in the late 19th century and gained momentum following WWII? (The first large scale return of the Jews to this place, by the way, since they were scattered in 70 A.D.)
Christians, at least, would have to say that it may well refer to this recent return. All Christians believe of necessity that the prophecies contained in the Hebrew Scriptures typically have two fulfillments--one sooner and then another later in time. For example, the prophecy concerning a virgin being with child and calling that child Emmanuel is understood by Christians to refer to a child born soon after the prophecy was made and then seven centuries later to the birth of Jesus Christ.
In the same way, the Jeremiah prophecy could refer to the return of the Jews after the captivity in Babylon as well as to the return that led to the modern state of Israel. Whether it does or not is the question. The very existence of the modern state of Israel, which was so unexpected and came against such great odds, may well be sufficient evidence that it does. "I will restore them to their own land which I gave to their fathers."
Volokh on Hagee
Who would have thought that the prophet Jeremiah would be scrutinized in the 2008 presidential campaign? McCain has just renounced Hagee's endorsement after it became known that Hagee once said that Hitler fulfilled a Biblical prophecy by chasing the Jews out of Europe and back into the Holy Land.
The New York Times says, as if it were outlandish, that Hagee argues that Jeremiah 16:16 refers to "the Jews."
What do these verses actually say and what do they mean?
"Therefore behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when it will no longer be said, 'As the LORD lives, who brought up the Sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt,' but, 'As the LORD lives, who brought up the sons of Israel from the land of the north and from all the countries where He had banished them.' For I will restore them to their own land which I gave to their fathers. Behold, I am going to send for many fishermen," declares the LORD, "and they will fish for them; and afterwards I shall send for many hunters, and they will hunt them from every mountain and every hill, and from the clefts of the rocks."
First of all, these verses are clearly about "the sons of Israel" and the sons of Israel are the Jews. So it's not clear why that identification would be controversial.
It is also clearly about the Jews returning from "the land of the north and from all the countries where [the LORD] banished them." That is, it speaks of a return of the Jews to the Holy Land, which the Times misleadingly neglects to mention--presumably to make what Hagee says seems more outlandish.
The only question is this: which return of the Jews is this referring to? The Jews did return to the Holy Land after the captivity in Babylon and resided there until 70 A.D. So Jeremiah's prophecy can and presumably does refer to that. (Daniel was reading Jeremiah when he realized that the time had come for the Jews to return.)
Can this passage also refer to another return of the Jews to the Holy Land, perhaps the one that began in the late 19th century and gained momentum following WWII? (The first large scale return of the Jews to this place, by the way, since they were scattered in 70 A.D.)
Christians, at least, would have to say that it may well refer to this recent return. All Christians believe of necessity that the prophecies contained in the Hebrew Scriptures typically have two fulfillments--one sooner and then another later in time. For example, the prophecy concerning a virgin being with child and calling that child Emmanuel is understood by Christians to refer to a child born soon after the prophecy was made and then seven centuries later to the birth of Jesus Christ.
In the same way, the Jeremiah prophecy could refer to the return of the Jews after the captivity in Babylon as well as to the return that led to the modern state of Israel. Whether it does or not is the question. The very existence of the modern state of Israel, which was so unexpected and came against such great odds, may well be sufficient evidence that it does. "I will restore them to their own land which I gave to their fathers."
Volokh on Hagee
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Amos, Chapter 1, Ammon
13. The sin of Ammon: they were also involved in attacking Gilead. (Syria is described as attacking Gilead in v. 3).
They attacked "in order to enlarge their borders."
They were especially brutal in their treatment of the inhabitants, even going so far as ripping "open the pregnant women of Gilead."
Smith says that Rabbah is the chief city of the Ammonites.
As a punishment for their treatment of the inhabitants of Gilead, God will bring a conquering army upon Rabbah:
"I will kindle a fire on the wall of Rabbah, and it will consume her citadels amid war cries on the day of battle and a storm on the day of tempest."
The conquerors will take the king of the Ammonites captive, along with the other royalty: "'Their king will go into exile, he and his princes together.'"
They attacked "in order to enlarge their borders."
They were especially brutal in their treatment of the inhabitants, even going so far as ripping "open the pregnant women of Gilead."
Smith says that Rabbah is the chief city of the Ammonites.
As a punishment for their treatment of the inhabitants of Gilead, God will bring a conquering army upon Rabbah:
"I will kindle a fire on the wall of Rabbah, and it will consume her citadels amid war cries on the day of battle and a storm on the day of tempest."
The conquerors will take the king of the Ammonites captive, along with the other royalty: "'Their king will go into exile, he and his princes together.'"
Amos, Chapter 1, Edom
11. It sounds like Edom attacked Israel or Judah without mercy, even though the two peoples are related: "he pursued his brother with the sword, while he stifled his compassion." (Esau was the brother of Jacob.)
Edom attacked Israel or Judah angrily: "His anger also tore continually, and he maintained his fury forever."
12. As a punishment, God will bring destruction on Edom: "I will send fire upon Teman, and it will consume the citzdels of Bozrah."
Bozrah and Teman were cities in Edom.
This description sounds as if it is describing what the Edomites do when the Babylonians conquer Jerusalem.
Jeremiah: "'I have sworn by Myself,' says the LORD, 'that Bozrah will become an object of horror, a reproach, a ruin and a curse; and all its cities will become a perpetual ruin.' (48:13)
Also Psalm 137: "Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem, who said, 'Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation.'" (137:7)
Edom attacked Israel or Judah angrily: "His anger also tore continually, and he maintained his fury forever."
12. As a punishment, God will bring destruction on Edom: "I will send fire upon Teman, and it will consume the citzdels of Bozrah."
Bozrah and Teman were cities in Edom.
This description sounds as if it is describing what the Edomites do when the Babylonians conquer Jerusalem.
Jeremiah: "'I have sworn by Myself,' says the LORD, 'that Bozrah will become an object of horror, a reproach, a ruin and a curse; and all its cities will become a perpetual ruin.' (48:13)
Also Psalm 137: "Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem, who said, 'Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation.'" (137:7)
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Chapter 1 (Tyre)
9. God will also punish Tyre.
Tyre "delivered up an entire population to Edom." So their sin is that they helped Edom to destroy the people of Judah? Or Israel?
Apparently Tyre had a "covenant of brotherhood" with Judah or Israel and they betrayed that covenant by helping Edom to destroy it.
God will break down the defenses of Tyre and it will be conquered: "I will send fire upon the wall of Tyre, and it will consume her citadels." (Just as in the case of Gaza.)
(In Joel 3:6, Joel says that Tyre "sold the sons of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks in order to remove them far from their territory." But Amos speaks of delivering up to Edom.)
Tyre "delivered up an entire population to Edom." So their sin is that they helped Edom to destroy the people of Judah? Or Israel?
Apparently Tyre had a "covenant of brotherhood" with Judah or Israel and they betrayed that covenant by helping Edom to destroy it.
God will break down the defenses of Tyre and it will be conquered: "I will send fire upon the wall of Tyre, and it will consume her citadels." (Just as in the case of Gaza.)
(In Joel 3:6, Joel says that Tyre "sold the sons of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks in order to remove them far from their territory." But Amos speaks of delivering up to Edom.)
Monday, May 19, 2008
Amos, Chapter 1 (Continued)
6. This verse has the same formula of doom as in the case of Damascus.
The prophecy is against the Philistines and the reason for their punishment is "that they deported an entire population to deliver it up to Edom."
Presumably this entire population consisted of Jews, inhabitants of Judah (?) The sins of these nations seem to be various harms done to Judah and Israel.
To what historical event does this refer?
7. The defenses of Gaza will be destroyed: "I will send fire upon the wall of Gaza and it will consume her citadels.
The inhabitants of Ashdod will be exiled or destroyed: "I will also cut off the inhabitants from Ashdod."
The king of the Philistines, or a king of the Philistines, the king of Ashkelon, will be deposed or exiled or destroyed: "and him who holds the scepter, from Ashkelon."
The inhabitants of Ekron will be destroyed last of all: "I will even unleash My Power upon Ekron, and the remnant of the Philistines will perish."
The cities mentioned here are Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron. Gath is also one of the five royal cities of the Philistine, but is not mentioned here. (Smith observes that Gath is also not mentioned by the later prophets Zephaniah and Zechariah, and thinks that this is because Gath was destroyed by that time. But Amos is not a later propet and he doesn't mention it either.)
Zephaniah 2:4 "For Gaza will be abandoned, and Ashkelon a desolation; Ashdod will be driven out at noon, and Ekron will be uprooted." (This sounds a lot like the prophecy of Amos.)
Zechariah 9:5-6 "Ashkelon will see it and be afraid, Gaza too will writhe in great pain; also Ekron, for her expectation has been confounded. Moreover the king will perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon will not be inhabited. And a mongrel race will dwell in Ashdod and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines." (Also sounds like Amos.)
The prophecy is against the Philistines and the reason for their punishment is "that they deported an entire population to deliver it up to Edom."
Presumably this entire population consisted of Jews, inhabitants of Judah (?) The sins of these nations seem to be various harms done to Judah and Israel.
To what historical event does this refer?
7. The defenses of Gaza will be destroyed: "I will send fire upon the wall of Gaza and it will consume her citadels.
The inhabitants of Ashdod will be exiled or destroyed: "I will also cut off the inhabitants from Ashdod."
The king of the Philistines, or a king of the Philistines, the king of Ashkelon, will be deposed or exiled or destroyed: "and him who holds the scepter, from Ashkelon."
The inhabitants of Ekron will be destroyed last of all: "I will even unleash My Power upon Ekron, and the remnant of the Philistines will perish."
The cities mentioned here are Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron. Gath is also one of the five royal cities of the Philistine, but is not mentioned here. (Smith observes that Gath is also not mentioned by the later prophets Zephaniah and Zechariah, and thinks that this is because Gath was destroyed by that time. But Amos is not a later propet and he doesn't mention it either.)
Zephaniah 2:4 "For Gaza will be abandoned, and Ashkelon a desolation; Ashdod will be driven out at noon, and Ekron will be uprooted." (This sounds a lot like the prophecy of Amos.)
Zechariah 9:5-6 "Ashkelon will see it and be afraid, Gaza too will writhe in great pain; also Ekron, for her expectation has been confounded. Moreover the king will perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon will not be inhabited. And a mongrel race will dwell in Ashdod and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines." (Also sounds like Amos.)
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Amos, Chapter 1
1. There is a precise date for the receiving of these visions: "two years before the earthquake"--during the time when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam was king of Israel .
(Uzziah, or Azariah, was king of Judah from 792-740. Jeroboam II, the son of Joash, was king of Israel from 793-753. So the vision came somewhere between 792-753.
Zechariah speaks of "the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah" in 14:5. When was this earthquake? No one seems to know.)
The vision is about Israel (the northern kingdom), not Judah (the southern kingdom).
Amos, who receivies the visions, is a shepherd--that is, not a member of the government of Israel and not a member of the priesthood--that, not holding any official position of power in Israel.
Amos is from Tekoa, which is presumably somewhere in the north (?).
(Tekoa is in the south. It is one of the cities that Rehoboam built for defense in Judah--"one of the fortified cities in Judah"--see 2 Chronicles 11:5-12. Smith says that it is "on the range of hills which rise near Hebron and stretch eastward toward the Dead Sea.")
2. The first point is that the LORD is based in Jerusalem, not in the capital city of the northern kingdom: "The LORD roars from Zion, and from Jerusalem He utters His voice."
This implies a condemnation of Israel for breaking away from Judah.
The end of the verse sounds like the prediction of a coming drought in Israel, presumably as a punishment for the sins of the north: "The shepherd' pasture grounds mourn and the summit of Carmel dries up."
This is assuming that Mount Carmel is in the northern kingdom.
(It is, near where the Mediterranean feeds into the Kishon River, judging from a map.)
3. But the condemnation is of Syria and the vision is of the punishment of Syria for its sins: "For three transgressions of Damascus and for four I will not revoke its punishment."
This sin of Syria has something to do with its mistreatment of Gilead, which is presumably in the northern kingdom (?)
(Apparently, Ramoth Gilead is one of the cities that Ben-hadad I conquered, at the urging--and payment of all the gold and silver left "in the treasuries of the house of the LORD and the treasuries of the king's house"--of King Asa of Judah. See especially 1 Kings 15:20. This is the city that Ahab wants to get back from Syria, contrary to the prophecy of Micaiah. See 1 Kings 22. At some point after that, it is re-gained by Israel, because Ahab's son Joram defends it against King Hazael of Syria, who is trying to get it back. See 2 Kings 8:28 and 9:14.
4. Who is Hazael and who or what is Ben-hadad?
It sounds like Hazael is the ruler of Syria and Ben-hadad is either another name for this ruler or the name of his capital city.
(These are names of kings of Aram: Ben-hadad I (who conquered Ramoth Gilead, etc. at King Asa's request; Ben-hadad II (assassinated by Hazael after Elisha's prophecy--see 2 Kings 8:7ff.); Hazael, and Ben-hadad III. The incidents of the reigns of Hazael and Ben-hadad III take place c. 841-793.)
In any case, the LORD says He will bring judgment and destruction on Syria for its sins: "I will send fire upon the house of Hazael, and it will consume the citadels of Ben-hadad."
(Presumably this means that the LORD will punish Aram for sins committed during the reigns of these kings.)
The sin of Syria has something to do with its treatment of Gilead, which is presumably in Israel.
5. It sounds like some other nation will conquer Syria and the inhabitants will be sent into exile.
The enemy will break down the gates defending Damascus: "I will also break the gate bar of Damascus."
Presumably the "valley of Aven" is in Damascus. At any rate, its inhabitants will be killed or exiled: "...and cut off the inhabitant from the valley of Aven."
(Smith says that this may be "Heliopolis...situated in a plain near the foot of the Anti-Libanus range of mountains, 42 miles northwest of Damascus.")
The king of Syria himself will be killed or exiled: "...and him who holds the scepter, from Beth-eden." (Presumably Beth-eden is the royal or capital city of Syria (?) I thought Damascus was.)
(NIV study Bible thinks Beth-eden is another name for Damascus.)
Presumably "the people of Aram" is another way of describing the people of Syria. At any rate, they will be exiled: "So the people of Aram will go exiled to Kir." (Presumably Kir is in the land of the people who will conquer Syria.)
(For Kir, and for this incident as it later happened, see 2 Kings 16:7-9:
"King Ahaz sent messengers to King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria with this message: 'I am your servant and your vassal. Come up and rescue me from the attacking armies of Aram and Israel.' Then Ahaz took the silver and gold from the Temple of the LORD and the palace treasury and sent it as a gift to the Assyrian king. So the Assyrians attacked the Aramean capital of Damascus and led its population away as captives, resettling them in Kir. They also killed King Rezin."
(King Ahaz was king 735-715. So the prophecy of Amos is a propecy of the near future.
Also, Isaiah prophecies concerning an attack on Jerusalem, in which the people of Kir will take part: "Elamites are the archers; Arameans drive the chariots. The men of Kir hold up the shields." See Isaiah 22:6. The NLT note adds: "Elam and Kir were under Assyrian rule. The entire Assyrian army, including its vassals, joined in the attack against Jerusalem."
In 9:7, Amos implies that the people of Aram originally came there from Kir.)
(Uzziah, or Azariah, was king of Judah from 792-740. Jeroboam II, the son of Joash, was king of Israel from 793-753. So the vision came somewhere between 792-753.
Zechariah speaks of "the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah" in 14:5. When was this earthquake? No one seems to know.)
The vision is about Israel (the northern kingdom), not Judah (the southern kingdom).
Amos, who receivies the visions, is a shepherd--that is, not a member of the government of Israel and not a member of the priesthood--that, not holding any official position of power in Israel.
Amos is from Tekoa, which is presumably somewhere in the north (?).
(Tekoa is in the south. It is one of the cities that Rehoboam built for defense in Judah--"one of the fortified cities in Judah"--see 2 Chronicles 11:5-12. Smith says that it is "on the range of hills which rise near Hebron and stretch eastward toward the Dead Sea.")
2. The first point is that the LORD is based in Jerusalem, not in the capital city of the northern kingdom: "The LORD roars from Zion, and from Jerusalem He utters His voice."
This implies a condemnation of Israel for breaking away from Judah.
The end of the verse sounds like the prediction of a coming drought in Israel, presumably as a punishment for the sins of the north: "The shepherd' pasture grounds mourn and the summit of Carmel dries up."
This is assuming that Mount Carmel is in the northern kingdom.
(It is, near where the Mediterranean feeds into the Kishon River, judging from a map.)
3. But the condemnation is of Syria and the vision is of the punishment of Syria for its sins: "For three transgressions of Damascus and for four I will not revoke its punishment."
This sin of Syria has something to do with its mistreatment of Gilead, which is presumably in the northern kingdom (?)
(Apparently, Ramoth Gilead is one of the cities that Ben-hadad I conquered, at the urging--and payment of all the gold and silver left "in the treasuries of the house of the LORD and the treasuries of the king's house"--of King Asa of Judah. See especially 1 Kings 15:20. This is the city that Ahab wants to get back from Syria, contrary to the prophecy of Micaiah. See 1 Kings 22. At some point after that, it is re-gained by Israel, because Ahab's son Joram defends it against King Hazael of Syria, who is trying to get it back. See 2 Kings 8:28 and 9:14.
4. Who is Hazael and who or what is Ben-hadad?
It sounds like Hazael is the ruler of Syria and Ben-hadad is either another name for this ruler or the name of his capital city.
(These are names of kings of Aram: Ben-hadad I (who conquered Ramoth Gilead, etc. at King Asa's request; Ben-hadad II (assassinated by Hazael after Elisha's prophecy--see 2 Kings 8:7ff.); Hazael, and Ben-hadad III. The incidents of the reigns of Hazael and Ben-hadad III take place c. 841-793.)
In any case, the LORD says He will bring judgment and destruction on Syria for its sins: "I will send fire upon the house of Hazael, and it will consume the citadels of Ben-hadad."
(Presumably this means that the LORD will punish Aram for sins committed during the reigns of these kings.)
The sin of Syria has something to do with its treatment of Gilead, which is presumably in Israel.
5. It sounds like some other nation will conquer Syria and the inhabitants will be sent into exile.
The enemy will break down the gates defending Damascus: "I will also break the gate bar of Damascus."
Presumably the "valley of Aven" is in Damascus. At any rate, its inhabitants will be killed or exiled: "...and cut off the inhabitant from the valley of Aven."
(Smith says that this may be "Heliopolis...situated in a plain near the foot of the Anti-Libanus range of mountains, 42 miles northwest of Damascus.")
The king of Syria himself will be killed or exiled: "...and him who holds the scepter, from Beth-eden." (Presumably Beth-eden is the royal or capital city of Syria (?) I thought Damascus was.)
(NIV study Bible thinks Beth-eden is another name for Damascus.)
Presumably "the people of Aram" is another way of describing the people of Syria. At any rate, they will be exiled: "So the people of Aram will go exiled to Kir." (Presumably Kir is in the land of the people who will conquer Syria.)
(For Kir, and for this incident as it later happened, see 2 Kings 16:7-9:
"King Ahaz sent messengers to King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria with this message: 'I am your servant and your vassal. Come up and rescue me from the attacking armies of Aram and Israel.' Then Ahaz took the silver and gold from the Temple of the LORD and the palace treasury and sent it as a gift to the Assyrian king. So the Assyrians attacked the Aramean capital of Damascus and led its population away as captives, resettling them in Kir. They also killed King Rezin."
(King Ahaz was king 735-715. So the prophecy of Amos is a propecy of the near future.
Also, Isaiah prophecies concerning an attack on Jerusalem, in which the people of Kir will take part: "Elamites are the archers; Arameans drive the chariots. The men of Kir hold up the shields." See Isaiah 22:6. The NLT note adds: "Elam and Kir were under Assyrian rule. The entire Assyrian army, including its vassals, joined in the attack against Jerusalem."
In 9:7, Amos implies that the people of Aram originally came there from Kir.)
Amos
A few years ago I worked through very carefully some of the writings of the minor prophets, reading a book a chapter a night and then starting from the beginning again, for about a month or so. Some patterns emerged that were helpful in understanding the message of each and of the shared message of all of the ones that I studied.
I'd like to resume that kind of study, beginning with the book of Amos, which I did not study at that time. Thoughts will be recorded as I go, subject to revision and hopefully more insight in the future.
I'd like to resume that kind of study, beginning with the book of Amos, which I did not study at that time. Thoughts will be recorded as I go, subject to revision and hopefully more insight in the future.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Privileges and Immunities in Acts 22
"And as they cried out, and threw off their garments, and cast dust into the air, the chief captain commanded him be brought into the castle, bidding that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know for what cause they so shouted against him. And when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? And when the centurion heard it, he went to the chief captain and told him, saying, What art thou about to do? for this man is a Roman. And the chief captain came and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? And he said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this citizenship. And Paul said, But I am a Roman born. They then that were about to examine him straightway departed from him: and the chief captain also was afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him" (Acts 22:23-39).
The purpose of a good legal system is to make sure that people can pursue happiness in peace, without being harmed by other people or by government. In regard to not being harmed by government, the most important rule is that government cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In other words, government cannot execute (or otherwise physically harm), imprison, or fine a person unless that person has been found guilty of a crime in a court of law. According to Kent, the rights of life, liberty, and property are also known as "priveleges and immunities":
The privileges and immunities conceded by the Constitution of the United States to citizens of the several States were to be confined to those which were, in their nature, fundamental, and belonged of right to the citizens of all free Governments. Such are the rights of protection of life and liberty, and to acquire and enjoy property (James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1826)
In the present passage, we see that the protections of Roman law only applied to Roman citizens. A non-citizen could be scourged without a trial, but a citizen could not be physically punished unless he were found guilty of a crime in a court of law. "Is it legal for you to whip a Roman citizen who hasn't even been tried?" Paul asks (22:25). This is why the commander is frightened when he finds out that Paul is a citizen, even though the commander stops short of whipping Paul. A similar incident occurs at Philippi in Acts 16. Paul and Silas are severely beaten and thrown into jail without a trial--something that government is not permitted to do to a Roman citizen. "They have publicly beaten us without trial and jailed us--and we are Roman citizens," Paul complains (16:37). This is why the city officials are alarmed when they find out that Paul and Silas are Roman citizens.
The distinction between citizen and non-citizen in Roman law helps us to understand a critical idea in the US Constitution--the idea of privileges and immunities. In Article IV.2, the Constitution guarantees that the citizens of each state will be able to enjoy all of the legal protections enjoyed by the citizens of the state in which he is travelling or temporarily residing as a non-citizen. These legal protections are of the sort that we see in these passages in Acts: state governments are required to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens from other states (the "privileges" part) and are prohibited from violating their life, liberty, or property without due process of law (the "immunities" part).
This definition of privileges and immunities becomes especially important when considering the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. Section 1 of this Amendment was added to the Constitution in order to require especially the southern state governments to protect the life, liberty, and property of the newly-freed slaves and to prohibit these state governments from depriving their African-American citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The concern of the framers of this amendment was that the newly freed slaves would be treated under law just as non-Roman citizens were treated under Roman law. The possibility of a southern government official flogging a black man to get information from him, or to imprison him without trial (as happened or almost happened to Paul) is precisely the kind of thing that this amendment was designed to prevent.
This is of critical importance, because the limits that this amendment places on state governments has been changed by the Supreme Court into a prohibition against limiting personal liberties (as defined by the Supreme Court). It is the amendment the Court has used to legalize birth control, abortion, homosexual sex, flag burning, stores that rent or sell XXX-rated movies, etc. If Americans were to understand this amendment properly and insist that federal judges make rulings based on the meaning of this amendment as it was understood by those who ratified it, then the decision as to whether or not to permit these things would be left up to the states and local communities who have to live with the consequences of these decisions.
The purpose of a good legal system is to make sure that people can pursue happiness in peace, without being harmed by other people or by government. In regard to not being harmed by government, the most important rule is that government cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In other words, government cannot execute (or otherwise physically harm), imprison, or fine a person unless that person has been found guilty of a crime in a court of law. According to Kent, the rights of life, liberty, and property are also known as "priveleges and immunities":
The privileges and immunities conceded by the Constitution of the United States to citizens of the several States were to be confined to those which were, in their nature, fundamental, and belonged of right to the citizens of all free Governments. Such are the rights of protection of life and liberty, and to acquire and enjoy property (James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1826)
In the present passage, we see that the protections of Roman law only applied to Roman citizens. A non-citizen could be scourged without a trial, but a citizen could not be physically punished unless he were found guilty of a crime in a court of law. "Is it legal for you to whip a Roman citizen who hasn't even been tried?" Paul asks (22:25). This is why the commander is frightened when he finds out that Paul is a citizen, even though the commander stops short of whipping Paul. A similar incident occurs at Philippi in Acts 16. Paul and Silas are severely beaten and thrown into jail without a trial--something that government is not permitted to do to a Roman citizen. "They have publicly beaten us without trial and jailed us--and we are Roman citizens," Paul complains (16:37). This is why the city officials are alarmed when they find out that Paul and Silas are Roman citizens.
The distinction between citizen and non-citizen in Roman law helps us to understand a critical idea in the US Constitution--the idea of privileges and immunities. In Article IV.2, the Constitution guarantees that the citizens of each state will be able to enjoy all of the legal protections enjoyed by the citizens of the state in which he is travelling or temporarily residing as a non-citizen. These legal protections are of the sort that we see in these passages in Acts: state governments are required to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens from other states (the "privileges" part) and are prohibited from violating their life, liberty, or property without due process of law (the "immunities" part).
This definition of privileges and immunities becomes especially important when considering the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. Section 1 of this Amendment was added to the Constitution in order to require especially the southern state governments to protect the life, liberty, and property of the newly-freed slaves and to prohibit these state governments from depriving their African-American citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The concern of the framers of this amendment was that the newly freed slaves would be treated under law just as non-Roman citizens were treated under Roman law. The possibility of a southern government official flogging a black man to get information from him, or to imprison him without trial (as happened or almost happened to Paul) is precisely the kind of thing that this amendment was designed to prevent.
This is of critical importance, because the limits that this amendment places on state governments has been changed by the Supreme Court into a prohibition against limiting personal liberties (as defined by the Supreme Court). It is the amendment the Court has used to legalize birth control, abortion, homosexual sex, flag burning, stores that rent or sell XXX-rated movies, etc. If Americans were to understand this amendment properly and insist that federal judges make rulings based on the meaning of this amendment as it was understood by those who ratified it, then the decision as to whether or not to permit these things would be left up to the states and local communities who have to live with the consequences of these decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
