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.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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)
