Amos’ Fourth Vision and the Basket of Summer Fruits

Amos’ fourth vision is different from his first three visions. The third vision is based on a wordplay in Hebrew. Thus, the meaning of the vision is not based on the significance of what Amos saw. Rather, the meaning of the vision is based on the wordplay of two Hebrew words that have the same sound but different meanings. This is the vision Amos saw:

“Thus the Lord GOD showed me: behold, a basket of summer fruit. And he said, ‘Amos, what do you see?’ And I said, ‘A basket of summer fruit.’ Then the LORD said to me, ‘The end has come upon my people Israel; I will never again pass by them’” (Amos 8:1-2).

Amos’ Vision

In his vision Amos saw a container, probably a basket. The basket was full of fruits, probably figs, which the people of Israel had harvested at the end of the agricultural year, that is, during the months of August and September. According to the Gezer Calendar, the last month of the agricultural calendar was the “month of summer fruit” (Mauchline, p. 201).

Amos’ Response

After the Lord asked Amos what he had seen, Amos answered: “A basket of summer fruit.” The word for summer fruit is קַיִץ (qayits). This word is used to describe the harvest of fruits, mostly figs, gathered at the end of the summer. The word was also associated with the end of the agricultural year.

God’s Response

The Lord’s explanation of what Amos saw in his vision is based on a wordplay. The Lord told Amos: “The end has come upon my people Israel.” The Hebrew word for “end” is קֵץ ( qēts). Although the meaning of qayits and qēts is different, in Hebrew the two words have a similar sound.

The message of Amos’ vision was clear: the end was coming for the Northern Kingdom, although no date or time was given when God’s judgment against the rebellious nation would take place. In the third vision, the Lord announced that the judgment would come against the places of worship and against the royal house (Amos 7:9). In the fourth vision the Lord announced the coming judgment over the entire nation: “The end has come upon my people Israel.”

The Lord’s judgment upon his people had come because of his decision not to spare them again: “I will never again pass by them.” The consequence of the Lord’s decision was that after many warnings to the people, the time for the judgment had finally arrived.

In the Old Testament, the word קֵץ (qēts) is used to describe the apocalyptic moment when the Lord will bring judgment upon the nations (Daniel 11:27; 11:35; 12:4).

The Lord’s Judgment

The words of judgment describe the great devastation that will come upon the nation: “The songs of the temple shall become wailings in that day," says the Lord GOD; “the dead bodies shall be many; in every place they shall be cast out in silence” (Amos 8:3 RSV).

The songs of lament will be done by “the singing women” (Amos 8:3 TNK). These singing women were professional singers who sang funerary lamentations. They, together with male singers, lamented the death of Josiah, king of Judah: “Jeremiah composed laments for Josiah, and to this day all the men and women singers commemorate Josiah in the laments” (2 Chronicles 35:25).

Concerning these professional singers, Wolff wrote: “Whenever ‘songstresses’ שרות are mentioned in the Old Testament they are associated with the royal court” (p. 319). Thus, the wailing of these female singers will be heard not in the temple (NRSV, NIV), but in the palace (TNK, NJB).

The women’s lamentation was heard because of the dead bodies scattered throughout the cities of Israel. The vision does not indicate whether the people died by the hands of their enemies, by pestilence, or by a natural disaster.

Since it was a disgrace to leave the body of a dead person unburied, the prophet was so moved that he asked for silence: “So many dead bodies!” “They are thrown everywhere!” “Silence!” (Amos 8:3 ESV). Amos’ reaction to this calamity was that in times like this, one must be careful not to mention the name of the Lord: “Hush! We must not mention the name of the LORD” (Amos 6:10).

Amos was profoundly affected by his vision. He saw the horrific devastation of the people, scenes of mass dying and of unburied corpses. The end of the harvest was a time of joy and celebration: “The people rejoice before you as they rejoice at harvest time” (Isaiah 9:3). But for Israel, the end of the harvest marked the end of their lives. The people were like summer fruits, ripened for destruction: “The time is ripe for my people Israel.”

Israel had spent years in rebellion. Their worship of Baal and Asherah had brought moral degeneracy and spiritual decay. Israel was ready to be harvested. This is the reason the Lord had made his decision: “I will not continue to overlook their offences.”

Amos’ vision correctly translated:

Thus the Lord Yahweh showed me, and behold, a basket of summer fruit. He said, “Amos, what do you see?” And I said, “A basket of summer fruit.” Then Yahweh said to me, “The time is ripe for my people Israel; I will never again pass them by. In that day, the singing women of the palace will wail, declares the Lord Yahweh.” “So many dead bodies, thrown everywhere. Hush!”

Bibliography

Mauchline, J. “The Gezer Calendar,” Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton Thomas. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1958.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel and Amos : A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1977.


Other Studies on Amos:

1. Amos and Social Justice

2. Amos, Justice, and the NIV

3. The Prophet Amos

4. The Call of Amos

5. Amos’ First Vision and the Power of Intercessory Prayer

6. Amos’ Second Vision and the Repentance of God

7. Amos’ Third Vision and the Plumb Line

8. Amos’ Fourth Vision and the Basket of Summer Fruits

9. Amos’ Fifth Vision and the Judgment of Israel


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament , Amos, Visions, Prophet

Amos’ Third Vision and the Plumb Line

In my previous studies on Amos, I discussed his call, his first vision and the power of intercessory prayer, and the second vision and the repentance of God. In the present post I want to discuss Amos’ third vision:

He showed me: behold, the Lord was standing beside a wall built with a plumb line, with a plumb line in his hand. And the LORD said to me, “Amos, what do you see?” And I said, “A plumb line.” Then the Lord said, “Behold, I am setting a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel; I will never again pass by them; the high places of Isaac shall be made desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword” (Amos 7:7-9).

Amos’ Vision

Amos’ third vision is different from his previous two visions. In the third vision there is no announcement of judgment. In the first vision, God’s agent of judgment was the locust. In the second vision God announced that a devastating fire would consume the land of Israel. In the third vision Amos saw the Lord himself standing beside a wall “built with a plumb line” (Hebrew: “a wall of ’anāk”).

In the vision, the Lord was like a master builder with a plumb line in his hand, inspecting the wall to ascertain whether the wall was standing straight. A plumb line is a string with a weight at the end of it. The plumb line was used by builders to ensure that a wall was vertical, that is, that the wall was straight up and down.

In Amos’ vision, God was standing with a plumb line by a wall that was level. The purpose of the vision was God’s desire to show Amos that the plumb line was accurate and that it had been used to construct a proper wall.

Amos’ Response

After Amos saw the vision, the Lord asked Amos a question: “Amos, what do you see?” In questioning the prophet, the Lord called him by his name. This action of calling the prophet by his name reveals the intimate relationship that existed between God and the prophet.

Amos’ response was simple and direct: “a plumb line.” In his response Amos did not mention the wall nor the one standing beside the wall. The focus of his vision was on the plumb line.

In this vision, Amos did not intercede with God on behalf of Israel as he had done before. In his first vision, when Amos saw the devastation caused by the locust, he prayed, “O Lord GOD, forgive” (Amos 7:2). In the second vision, when he saw the severity of the judgment caused by the fire, Amos prayed: “O Lord GOD, cease” (Amos 7:5). But, there was no prayer after the third vision. There was no interceding on the behalf of Israel.

The case of Amos interceding on behalf of Israel is similar to the situation of Abraham interceding on behalf of Sodom (Genesis 18:16-33). As long Abraham prayed, God answered Abraham’s prayer. When Abraham stopped praying, God stopped answering. As long as Amos asked for the deliverance of Israel, God answered his prayers. But there was no prayer to be answered after the third vision because Amos never prayed for Israel. The question is: why did Amos not pray on behalf of Israel?

God’s Response

In response to what Amos replied, the Lord told the prophet that he was placing a plumb line in the midst of his people Israel. The plumb line is an instrument of testing. When God placed the plumb line against the wall, Amos was able to understand that the wall met the requirements of a good wall.

The meaning of the vision is a matter of debate among scholars. I believe that the purpose of the vision was to teach Amos that Israel was the wall that was built with a plumb line. Because of its disobedience to the religious traditions of the nation, Israel no longer measured up to God’s ideal. Now God was placing a plumb line in the midst of Israel in order to test the people with the same instrument he had used before.

Amos understood the seriousness of Israel’s condition, and that was the reason he did not intercede on behalf of Israel. In the first two visions, God told Amos what he was doing: judging Israel. In the third vision, God told Amos why he was judging Israel: Israel no longer measured up to God’s ideal.

Once Amos understood the reason for the judgment, the Lord told Amos: “I will never again pass by them” (v. 8). This expression simply means that the Lord would no longer overlook the wickedness the people had committed. And this was the message that Amos preached to Israel: “Thus says the LORD: ‘For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment’” (Amos 2:6).

The Plumb Line

There has been much discussion among scholars about what kind of instrument Amos saw. The reason for this debate is that scholars have had considerable problems understanding the true meaning of the word ’anāk. The word ’anāk appears only four times in the Hebrew Bible and all the occurrences are in Amos’ third vision.

The word ’anāk is generally translated “plumb line.” Some scholars delete the word, others emended it to read “stone” or interpret it to say that it means some type of instrument such as a pickax or a crowbar (Paul, p. 234). Shalom Paul contends that the word comes from the Akkadian anāku, a word that means “tin.” For this reason he declares that the translation plumb line “must now be discarded” (p. 234) because, as he said, there is no such a thing as a “tin line” or “a wall of tin.”

Tin was combined with other metals to produce weapons. For this reason some scholars have interpreted the text and said that the Lord had in his hand a sword with which he was about to judge Israel.

Paul interpreted the word ’anāk, “tin” to be a metaphor for softness and a symbol of something that is perishable. He said: “Thus in this vision the ‘wall’ of Israel is portrayed as being extremely weak, not durable, and on the verge of being demolished” (p. 235). Thus, the placing of an ’anāk in the midst of the people should be understood as the execution of God’s judgment.

H. G. M. Williamson, in his study of Amos’ vision and the use of the word ’anāk, concluded that the translation “plumb line” cannot be abandoned. As evidence for his argument, Williamson mentioned the use of a “tin plummet” in Zechariah 4:10. According to Williamson, it is possible that plumbs in ancient Israel were made of tin (p. 111-112).

The Lord told Amos that a plumb line would be set in the midst of Israel and only those who lived by the standard set by the demands of the covenant would be able to pass the test. What was the plumb line? Most commentators do not provide an adequate answer to this question. Others say that the plumb line was justice, the law, the covenant, or righteousness.

The reason commentators cannot agree on the identification of the plumb line is because they make emphasis on “what” the plumb line was. The plumb line was not a “what” but a “who.” The plumb line was the prophet himself.

In the Old Testament, the prophets served as God’s representative. They had a personal relationship with God, they had been in the council of God to know God’s will. The prophets were God’s personal representative before the people. The prophets’ words were God’s words.

The Deuteronomic writer emphasized that the fall of the Northern Kingdom by the hands of Assyria was the result of the rejection of the prophetic message: “The LORD warned Israel by every prophet and every seer, saying, ‘Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. But they would not listen, but were stubborn” (2 Kings 17:13-14).

Williamson also believes that Amos was God’s plumb line. He wrote: “I suggest instead, however, that the [Deuteronomic] editors saw the person and mission of the prophet himself as embodying God’s plumb-line” (p. 116).

Having understood the magnitude of Israel’s sin, Amos did not ask for forgiveness nor for the Lord to withhold the judgment. The Lord had postponed the judgment twice in answer to Amos’ prayers. However, before the prophet could pray again, the Lord declared that the judgment could no longer be averted. Such a declaration explains the reason Amos did not make another attempt at interceding for Israel.

Amos was commissioned by the Lord to declare to the people of Israel their sins and to call them to repentance. He would be God’s plumb line in Israel, the chosen vessel of God’s mercy. But he was rejected by the people and his message was ignored. It was for this reason that God said that he would no longer spare his own people.

Bibliography:

Paul, Shalom M. Amos : A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 1991.

Williamson, H. G. M. “The Prophet and the Plumb-line.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 26 (1990): 101-121.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel and Amos : A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1977.


Other Studies on Amos:

1. Amos and Social Justice

2. Amos, Justice, and the NIV

3. The Prophet Amos

4. The Call of Amos

5. Amos’ First Vision and the Power of Intercessory Prayer

6. Amos’ Second Vision and the Repentance of God

7. Amos’ Third Vision and the Plumb Line

8. Amos’ Fourth Vision and the Basket of Summer Fruits

9. Amos’ Fifth Vision and the Judgment of Israel

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament , Amos, Visions, Prophet

Amos’ Second Vision and the Repentance of God

After the Lord called Amos to leave his flock and become a prophet to the people living in the Northern Kingdom, he received five visions announcing the judgment that was coming upon Israel. In these visions, Amos saw God’s destruction of the land and of the people.

In two previous posts, I discussed Amos’ call and his first vision. To read these posts, click on the links below. In the present post I will discuss Amos’ second vision:

Thus the Lord GOD showed me: behold, the Lord GOD was calling for a judgment by fire, and it devoured the great deep and was eating up the land. Then I said, “ Lord GOD, cease, I beseech thee! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” The LORD repented concerning this; “his also shall not be,” said the Sovereign Lord (Amos7:4-7).

Amos’ Vision

In the second vision, the Lord showed Amos a great fire which would be the instrument of his judgment of Israel. The great fire was the intensive heat of summer drying up “the great deep.” The Hebrew expression tehôm rabbāh refers to the primeval waters, the subterranean waters that were beneath the earth (see Genesis 7:11; Deuteronomy 33:13; Isaiah 51:10) and gave fertility to the land. What Amos saw was the coming of a devastating drought that would consume the land and threaten the very existence of Israel.

In this vision, the punishment coming upon Israel was much greater than the punishment announced in the first vision. The fire was devouring the great deep, causing the rivers and streams to dry up. Because of the drought, the flames spread throughout the land and the land was consumed.

Amos’ Prayer

Amos understood the severity of the judgment. Israel was under divine judgment and it deserved to suffer the dreadful consequences of its sin against God. The vision of the coming disaster prompted Amos to intercede once again on behalf of the nation. His plea was the same as before: “How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” (Amos 7:5).

In the first intercession on behalf of Israel, Amos prayed: “forgive” (Amos 7:2). In his second prayer for Israel, Amos only said: “please cease” (Amos 7:5). The Hebrew words behind Amos’ request means “to cease doing something.”

The vision of the devastating fire was so terrifying that Amos’ prayer on behalf of Israel did not ask for forgiveness but that God would refrain from sending the judgment. Hans Walter Wolff wrote: “Amos no longer dares to make a petition for forgiveness, a petition which as such was not granted earlier. Nonetheless, he does interject the plea that Yahweh should cease summoning the devastating rain of fire” (p. 299).

Faced with the severity of the punishment, Amos did not ask for forgiveness, as he had done before. Rather, he can only ask God to refrain from sending this dreadful punishment. Since forgiveness was not granted in his first appeal, Amos can only call on God to be merciful to his people and desist from sending the devastating fire.

The Repentance of God

The prayer of Amos stirred the compassion of God for his people. In response to Amos’ prayer, God revoked the punishment. God told Amos: “This also shall not be” (Amos 7:6). God’s response to Amos was identical to the response he gave when Amos prayed after the first vision.

This time, however, there is an addition of the words “this also.” These additional words reflect God’s willingness to heed the prophetic plea on behalf of Israel. These additional words also emphasize the effectiveness of Amos’ prayer and God’s willingness to change his mind when summoned in prayer.

In answer to Amos’ prayer, God retracted his decision to punish Israel. The Lord decided not to bring the judgment that he intended to bring against Israel because of Amos’ intercession. In the first vision when the Lord answered Amos’ prayer, the text mentioned only the divine name “the Lord” (Yahweh). But in the second vision, it is the “Sovereign Lord” (Adonai Yahweh) who speaks. This use of the special name of God was an affirmation or a guarantee that the judgment would not happen.

Twice, in response to Amos’ prayer on behalf of Israel, the writer said that the “Lord repented” (Amos 7:3, 6 KJV). The repentance of God allowed God to show clemency and avert the punishment he had announced against the nation. The repentance of God teaches us that God’s will is not set in cement, that the God of the Bible is not an uncaring, unfeeling God who does not sympathize with the suffering of his people. Rather, God’s willingness to change his mind regarding the judgment he was planning to bring against Israel shows that the God of the Bible is a God who cares and that he is concerned about the needs of his people.

Israel was deserving of the punishment God intended to bring upon the nation. The punishment that was coming reveals another character of God’s nature: his abhorrence of sin. The holy nature of God does not tolerate sin. God had decided to judge his people for their many sins and violations of the covenant. The only reason the punishment did not materialize was because Amos interceded for the people and asked God to be merciful.

In the end God heard the prayer of his prophet, turned his wrath against Israel into mercy in order to demonstrate his great love for Israel. The verb נָחַם (naham) means “to be sorry, repent, regret.” The King James Version translates the Hebrew word naham as “repent” thirty-eight times. Most of the occurrences refer to God’s repentance.

God’s repentance is different from human repentance. A study of the many passages in the Hebrew Bible where it is said that God repents shows that the repentance of God is an important aspect of God’s nature and of his behavior toward the human beings he has created. The Hebrew word for human repentance is shûb, a word meaning to turn from sin and return to God. When the Bible says that God repents, the Bible means that God relents or changes his mind when dealing with human beings.

So, once again Amos intervened on behalf of Israel and once again the Lord repented and canceled the judgment. The repentance of God is not mere figurative language, as some have asserted. Rather, God’s decision has been reversed because of Amos’ prayer. God’s decision to suspend the judgment gave the people a second opportunity to repent of their sins and change their ways.

But the decision was only temporary. The decision to pardon Israel and lift the judgment permanently would depend on the people and their willingness to repent and change their evil ways. God was willing to give Israel another opportunity to turn from their disobedience and wickedness. Now, it was up to Amos to proclaim God’s message to the people. In order for the judgment to be lifted, the people must be willing to repent from their rebellion and from their violation of the demands of the covenant.

If Israel failed to turn from their wickedness, God would reinstate his decision to bring the judgment upon the people and Israel would suffer the consequences of its disobedience. As we will see in our study of Amos’ third vision, the period of grace given to Israel failed to accomplish its purpose: Israel did not repent and the judgment against the nation was reinstated.

The greatest irony found in these visions of judgment is the fact that Amos was successful in changing the mind of God but he was unable to change the mind of the king and of the people. This is the reason the suspended judgment was reinstated. Since the messenger of God was ignored and his message was dismissed by the people, God had no other choice but to bring judgment upon a rebellious nation.

Bibliography:

Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel and Amos : A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1977.


Other Studies on Amos:

1. Amos and Social Justice

2. Amos, Justice, and the NIV

3. The Prophet Amos

4. The Call of Amos

5. Amos’ First Vision and the Power of Intercessory Prayer

6. Amos’ Second Vision and the Repentance of God

7. Amos’ Third Vision and the Plumb Line

8. Amos’ Fourth Vision and the Basket of Summer Fruits

9. Amos’ Fifth Vision and the Judgment of Israel

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament , Amos, Visions, Prophet

Iconoclasm and the Mutilation of Images in the Ancient Near East

The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago is sponsoring a symposium on “Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond.” The symposium is organized by Natalie Naomi May.

The symposium will be held on April 8-9, 2011 at The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1155 East 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637.

Below is a summary of the reasons images were mutilated. This description of mutilation of images appears in the newsletter of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago:

Reasons and purposes of iconoclasm

One of the main goals of the conference will thus be to establish which images were chosen for mutilation - a question naturally closely connected with understanding the purposes of the damage. The performative dimension underscored by Bahrani was important and probably even ubiquitous; but it was certainly not the only factor involved in the ancient Near Eastern destruction of images. The aims of such actions were multiple and interacted mutually in a complex manner. Consequently, the specific sort of damage and its possible relationship with the political and cultural setting has to be examined for each individual case.

Important to explore are parallels between the mutilation of humans and mutilation of images. As a parallel to the decapitation of flesh and blood enemies, statues were also beheaded and their severed heads mutilated. It was already Brandes who pointed to the severing of statues' heads and extremities as a practice known from the very beginning of Mesopotamian history. The purpose of this practice was symbolic, magical and performative, resulting in loss of power by, and 'murder' and humiliation of the depicted person. Magical actions of this kind are well known in various sorts of apotropaic ritual (e.g. šurpu). Images were perceived as living objects, parts of gods or persons; damage to the images thus inflicting damage on the depicted, divine or human, alive or dead.

Another form of damage to an image was its effacement, more precisely erasing its mouth or nose. Such action was clearly tied to the essential role of these organs for the image as an animated and living substance. Mutilation of the nose and the mouth was thus an act antithetical to the mouth-opening ceremony that brought an inanimate object to life. In general, every kind of mutilation had multiple implications. Severing of ears was aimed therefore not only at humiliation tied to one of the legal penalties for criminal offences, but also at depriving the depicted image of a wisdom symbolized in Mesopotamia by wide ears. Mutilation of symbols of divinity and divine protection had special meaning.

Visit the web page of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and learn more about the symposium.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Iconoclasm, Images

Translating the Bible: The Value of the Mina

Translating the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English is not an easy task. The purpose of a translation is to bring what the biblical writers set out to communicate to their audience thousands of years ago into the language of people who are unfamiliar with the original biblical languages.

There are several approaches to translations. The formal correspondence approach seeks to translate the original text word for word as much as possible. The problem with this approach is that languages have different structures. Grammar, word order, and figurative expressions do not translate well from one language to another.

Another approach is called dynamic equivalence. Translations that use this approach, such as The New Living Bible and The Message not are real translations, but paraphrases of the biblical text. These translations are good for devotional reading but not good for the study of the Bible because these paraphrases represent more the interpretative views of the translators rather than the real message of the text.

Some translations use a combination of the two approaches. These versions of the Bible seek to provide a translation that remains faithful to the intent of the original writers while using a language that communicates the biblical message to a contemporary audience. This method helps the reader understand the text but, at the same time, it obscures other understandings present in the text.

As an example of the problems different translations offer to the readers, I have selected one verse that deals with the value of the shekel and the mina. The shekel was the basic standard of weight in Israel. The meaning of the word is derived from the Hebrew word shāqal. The root sql is a common Semitic word that appears in Akkadian and Ugaritic.

The word means “to weigh.” So, the word “shekel” means to weigh something with a balance in order to measure its amount. The shekel was the measure used to weigh silver or gold as payment for something.

The text I have selected is Ezekiel 45:12. What follows is the way different translations have translated Ezekiel 45:12.

The New Living Bible

“The standard unit for weight will be the silver shekel. One shekel will consist of twenty gerahs, and sixty shekels will be equal to one mina” (Ezekiel 45:12).

The New Living Bible translates the biblical text very plainly. Anyone reading the NLB will know that a shekel is worth twenty gerahs and sixty shekels is worth one mina. This is the approach taken by several English translations, including the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the NET Bible, and God's Word to the Nations.

There is no problem with these translations. However, those who read these translations will know what the biblical writer meant, but they will not know what the writer wrote.

English Standard Version

“The shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekels shall be your mina” (Ezekiel 45:12).

This is how the writer wrote his text, dividing the mina into three different quantities of shekels. People reading the New Living Bible and the other translations listed above will never know this information because the translators decided to convey the meaning of what the biblical writer wrote, not what he actually wrote.

This approach is followed by most translations, including the New International Version, the New Revised Standard Version, and the King James Version.

The Douay-Rheims

“And the sicle hath twenty obols. Now twenty sicles, and five and twenty sicles, and fifteen sicles make a mna” (Ezekiel 45:12).

This version says that one shekel is worth twenty obols. I am sure that most people reading this version will have no idea what an obol is. The word obol is the Latin version of the Greek word obolos and it means a small coin. The obolos was a small silver coin used in ancient Athens.

The Douay-Rheims uses obols because its translation follows the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint reads: “And the weights shall be twenty oboli, your pound shall be five shekels, fifteen shekels and fifty shekels.” Since the English translation of the Septuagint was done in England, it is clear that the translator substituted the word pound for the word mina.

The Revised Standard Version

“The shekel shall be twenty gerahs; five shekels shall be five shekels, and ten shekels shall be ten shekels, and your mina shall be fifty shekels” (Ezekiel 45:12).

This version is tautological and misses the Hebrew text completely. Five shekels are always five shekels, and ten shekels are always ten shekels. This translation is followed by The Bible in Basic English. The RSV gives the value of the mina at fifty shekels. This differs completely from the biblical text.

In Canaanite literature from Ugarit, the mina was worth fifty shekels. In Babylon, the mina was worth sixty shekels. Since Ezekiel was writing from Babylon, he used the Babylonian value, probably in order to change the value of the shekel. According to Exodus 38:25-26, which describes the value of the shekel of the sanctuary, one mina was worth fifty shekels.

Thus, either the RSV was emending the text of Ezekiel to follow the Septuagint, the value of the mina at Ugarit, or to follow the value of the mina according to the shekel of the sanctuary. In either case, this translation is unacceptable because it completely distorts the meaning of the text in Ezekiel 45:12.

The Holy Scriptures: The Jewish Publication Society

“And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, ten, and five shekels, shall be your maneh” (Ezekiel 45:12).

The problem with the translation of Ezekiel 45:12 in this version of the Hebrew Bible published by the Jewish Publication Society is that this translation divides the mina into four divisions of the shekel instead of the three divisions found in most translations. The comma between the numbers ten and five reflects an accent in the text of the Hebrew Bible. This translation makes the value of the mina the total of twenty-five, twenty, ten, and five shekels.

Conclusion

People reading the text of Ezekiel 45:12 in the translations listed above will have some problem understanding what Ezekiel was trying to communicate to his audience because the translations create a problem when translating the Hebrew text into English. Thus, there are three things the reader must know when reading these translations.

First, although the value of the mina in Ugarit and ancient Israel was fifty shekels, in Babylon the mina was worth sixty shekels, and this is what Ezekiel was saying to his readers. Any emendation of the text is inappropriate.

Second, it is better to use twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen shekels for the mina because apparently the Babylonians used weights of different sizes. Ezekiel was exhorting the people of Israel to stop using dishonest weights and establish a system of honest weights in their commercial transactions.

Third, when reading the Bible for devotional purposes, any translation can provide what is needed to help strengthen one’s relationship with God. However, when selecting a study Bible, it is better to select a translation that seeks to reflect the original text as much as possible.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Shekel, Mina, Ezekiel 45, Translations

Amos’ First Vision and the Power of Intercessory Prayer

The call of Amos to the prophetic ministry was accompanied by five visions. Whether these visions were part of his call has been the subject of intensive scholarly debate. The question among scholars is whether the first two visions are the revelation of God’s will that prompted Amos to embark on his work as a prophet or whether all five visions came later in his career.

I believe that the first three visions are associated with Amos’ call. These three visions gave meaning to his call for they revealed to Amos the imminent judgment that was coming upon the Northern Kingdom. Visions four and five may have come later in his ministry, but they also provide Amos with knowledge of what God was planning to bring upon the Northern Kingdom.

The reason I believe the visions are related to his call is found in the superscription of Amos’ book: “This message was given to Amos, a shepherd from the town of Tekoa in Judah. He received this message in visions two years before the earthquake” (Amos 1:1 NLT). Thus, the visions provided Amos with the message he was to bring to the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom.

The Vision

The first vision of Amos (Amos 7:1-3) is focused on the coming of the locusts who serve as God’s agents of judgment. In the vision, the locusts are portrayed as devouring the vegetation of the land. Amos saw the severity of God’s judgment because the devastation left behind by the locusts would deprive the people of Israel of food until the next harvest.

In Amos’ vision the judgment had not occurred yet, for the Lord was still preparing swarms of locusts (Amos 7:1). The attack of the locust was to happen when the second crop would be sprouting, that is, “after the king’s mowing.” According to the Gezer Calendar, “the two months of late sowing” were the months of Shebat and Adar, that is, February and March (see Darrell Pursiful on Ancient Calendars).

The king’s mowing is a reference to the tax to be paid to the royal treasury. The king had the right to claim the first crop for himself as a form of taxation. When the people asked Samuel for a king, Samuel warned the people that the king would tax their crops: “[The king] will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. (1 Samuel 8:14-15).

The devastation caused by locusts was a common event in the Ancient Neat East. In the Bible, the plague of locusts was seen as an instrument of God’s punishment (Exodus 10:1-20; Joel 1:4-12).

If the locusts attacked before the harvest of the late-sown crop, the result would be devastating. The locusts would destroy not only the late crop that was just sprouting, but also the earlier crop still in the field. Such a devastation would cause famine and lead many families into utter poverty.

The Intercession

One of the roles a prophet played as a person called by God to address the people in God’s name was to be an intercessor. As an intercessor the prophet prayed to God on behalf of the people. He defended the people before God.

When Amos saw the destruction caused by the locusts, he prayed to God, interceding for Israel. Amos began his intercession for Israel by calling on God. The expression “O Lord God,” is the biblical language of prayer. This expression is found several times in the Hebrew Bible, especially in the context of prayers of lamentation or when a person was requesting God’s favor (Jeremiah 4:10).

Amos asked God to spare Israel: “O Lord GOD, forgive, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” (Amos 7:2). The Hebrew word סָלַח (sālah), translated “forgive” in English, is used in the Old Testament only to describe an action of God. This unique word is applied to God's pardon and forgiveness to a person who had transgressed his laws. The word is never used to describe a person forgiving another person.

According to Hans Walter Wolff, in the context of Amos’ prayer, the word means to “annul the guilt and the punishment entirely” (p. 224). Because Amos asked God to be merciful to Israel and to forgive its iniquity, God’s judgment was withdrawn and divine mercy prevailed.

Amos asked God to pardon and forgive the people. This is the same word Moses used when he prayed for God to forgive the people (Exodus 34:9). Amos asked God to completely forgive Israel. He prayed for an unconditional pardon so that Israel would not be destroyed.

Here Amos serves as an advocate between the people and God, in the same way Christ serves as a mediator between God and human beings (see 1 Timothy 2:5).

Amos defended the people by acting as a mediator and interceding on behalf of the people. Thus, in the words of the prophet Ezekiel, Amos defended the people by standing “in the breach” before God for the land, that he should not destroy it (Ezekiel 22:30).

As a lawyer for the defense, Amos presented his case before God. Jacob “is small,” that is, the nation was helpless and guilty before a gracious God. Amos appealed to the nature of God as a merciful God:

“The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exodus 34:6-7).

Amos did not defend Israel by saying they were innocent. Rather, the prophet appealed to the gracious nature of God, pleading for a guilty people, asking that divine grace be greater than divine wrath.

Amos prevailed with God. Because of the prophet’s prayer, the judgment was averted. In response to Amos’ prayer, the Lord relented, he changed his plans about the coming judgment. However, there is no indication in God’s response to Amos that the people were forgiven. The punishment was postponed because of Amos’ prayer. In my study of the third vision, I will go into more detail about the postponement of the judgment.

In response to Amos’ prayer, God revoked his decision and changed his mind concerning the judgment he was about to bring against Israel.

Amos’ prayer on behalf of Israel shows that there is power in intercessory prayer. For a person to be effective as an intercessor, be that person Amos, Moses, or any one of us, that person must stand before God. Amos was able to intercede on behalf of Israel because, as a person called by God, he stood before God’s presence in order to know God’s will so that he could fulfill his role as a prophet and as an intercessor.

As a prophet sent by God, Amos stood in the Lord’s inner circle to see and hear what the Lord had to say (Jeremiah 23:18). Samuel Balentine wrote: “The prophet would serve as intercessor for his people, a role for which he was peculiarly qualified due to his privileged position within the council of God” (p. 331).

Because Amos was a prophet of God and because he has seen and heard God’s word, he was qualified to plead with God on behalf of a sinful nation which desperately needed God’s forgiveness. As an intercessor, Amos followed the tradition left behind by Moses and Samuel, who not only proclaimed God’s words to the people but also brought the people’s situation to God.

In Amos, the people of God today find someone who can model for them what it means to stand before God on behalf of a sinful people.

Bibliography

Balentine, Samuel E. “Jeremiah, Prophet of Prayer.” Review & Expositor 78 (1981): 331-344.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel and Amos : A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1977.


Other Studies on Amos:

1. Amos and Social Justice

2. Amos, Justice, and the NIV

3. The Prophet Amos

4. The Call of Amos

5. Amos’ First Vision and the Power of Intercessory Prayer

6. Amos’ Second Vision and the Repentance of God

7. Amos’ Third Vision and the Plumb Line

8. Amos’ Fourth Vision and the Basket of Summer Fruits

9. Amos’ Fifth Vision and the Judgment of Israel

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament , Amos, Visions, Prophet

The Fortress Temple of Shechem and Joshua’s Covenant

Rob Bradshaw has posted an article by Eugene D. Stockton, on “The Fortress Temple of Shechem and Joshua’s Covenant.” The article was published in the Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1.1 (1968): 24-28.

The following is an excerpt from the article:

Two covenant ceremonies conducted by Joshua at Shechem are described in Jos. 8, 30-35 (cf. Deut. 27) and Jos. 24, but one may be the doublet of the other. "The sanctuary of the Lord" (Jos. 24, 26) need not have been that excavated at Shechem, though it is hardly likely that the one place boasted two shrines, both connected with covenant, at the same time. The second account makes mention of a single great stone in the sanctuary which stood as "a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the Lord which He spoke to us" (Jos. 24, 27). It is tempting to see in this the great slab found in the forecourt of Shechem's temple, facing the altar and the entrance.

You can read the article in its entirety by clicking here. The article is in a PDF format.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.


Tags: Shechem, Joshua, Covenant

The Tomb of Esther and Mordecai

Image: Tomb of Esther and Mordecai



Arutz Sheva is reporting that Iranian students are threatening to tear down the tomb of Esther and Mordecai located in the city of Hamadan as a retaliation for “alleged Israeli plans to damage the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.”

Iranians believe that Esther and Mordecai were responsible for the massacre of 75 thousand Iranians in a single day, an event which the Jews celebrate at Purim. According to Iranians “the annual Jewish festival of Purim is celebrated by Jews to commemorate this ‘Iranian Holocaust.’”

Read the story by clicking here. The news report contains a video (with commercials) showing the tomb of Esther and Mordecai.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.


Tags: Esther, Mordecai

Agunot: Chained Women

The New York Times recently reported the case of Aharon Friedman, a 34-year-old Orthodox Jew, who refuses to give a Jewish divorce to his wife, Tamar Epstein, 27. The civil courts have already granted the couple a divorce. However, for Orthodox Jews, they must follow Jewish laws: they must get a Jewish divorce. A Jewish decree of divorce, known as a get, is only valid when given by a beit din, a Jewish court.

According to Jewish tradition, only a husband can give a get. This tradition is based on the laws found in the book of Deuteronomy:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance (Deuteronomy 24:1 RSV).

I have written a detailed study of divorce in the Old Testament and the New Testament. If you have not read my study on divorce, I strongly recommend that you do so now in order to understand the problem involved in this case (click here).

According to the legislation of Deuteronomy, a man has the right to put his wife away, but whenever he sends her away, he must provide her with a certificate of divorce. The certificate of divorce allows a divorced woman to remarry if she so desires.

This same issue of divorce and sending away appears in the New Testament. In Matthew 19:3 a Pharisee asked Jesus: “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” Jesus’ answer did not please the Pharisee. So he asked another question: “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:7).

The issue raised by the text in Deuteronomy and in Matthew is based on the fact that when a man sends his wife away (and this is not figurative language), he is not divorcing her, he is merely sending her away without any legal protection. When a man sends a woman away, the woman is still married to her husband. This is the reason she cannot belong to another man: she is still married (read my argument in the post mentioned above).

What Mr. Friedman has done, according to Jewish law, is precisely what Deuteronomy 24 prohibits: sending a woman away without the benefit of a decree of divorce. This is the reason the Lord said: “For I hate sending away, says the LORD the God of Israel” (Malachi 2:16).

The reason sending away without the decree of divorce is evil before the Lord is because a woman who is sent away without a decree of divorce is called an agunah, a “chained woman.” According to the news report in The New York Times, there are several hundreds of agunot (the plural of agunah) in the United States today. These women, although divorced by a civil court, are still married according to Jewish law. These women are agunot, “chained women.”

Many people gathered in front of Mr. Friedman’s apartment to protest his refusal to grant a get, a decree of divorce to his wife. I believe he should give a get to his wife, even though the problem of custody of their child has not been resolved to Mr. Friedman’s satisfaction.

All of us, Jews and non-Jews, should care for the situation faced by these “chained women.” The agunot cannot remarry within their faith and this is a tragedy in itself.

However, there is another important reason for caring for the plight of the agunot. As Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld of Washington said: “I don’t think the Messiah can come, as long as there is one agunah in the world.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Divorce, Agunah, Agunot, Deuteronomy 24, Matthew 19, Malachi 2

Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond

The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago is sponsoring a symposium on “Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond.” The symposium is organized by Natalie Naomi May.

The symposium will be held on April 8-9, 2011 at The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1155 East 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637.

Below is an introduction of the symposium as described in the newsletter of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago:

Introduction

The purpose of this conference will be to analyze the cases of and reasons for mutilation of texts and images in Near Eastern antiquity. Destruction of images and texts has a universal character; it is inherent in various societies and periods of human history. Together with the mutilation of human beings, it was a widespread and highly significant phenomenon in the ancient Near East. However, the goals meant to be realized by this process differed from those aimed at in other cultures. For example, iconoclasm of the French and Russian revolutions, as well as the Post-Soviet iconoclasm, did not have any religious purposes. Moreover, modern comprehension of iconoclasm is strongly influenced by its conception during the Reformation.

This conference will explore iconoclasm and text destruction in the ancient Near Eastern antiquity through examination of the anthropological, cultural, historical and political aspects of these practices. Broad interdisciplinary comparison with similar phenomena in the other cultures and periods will contribute to better understanding them.

For more information about the symposium, visit The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago web page.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Iconoclasm, Text Destruction, Ancient Near East, The Oriental Institute

The End of the World: May 21, 2011

Did you know that you have about five months to live?

According to a news report, Harold Camping, the leader of the Oakland, California-based Family Radio Worldwide, an independent Christian ministry, the end of the world will occur on May 21, 2011.

The Family Radio Worldwide is part of a movement of Christians, loosely organized by radio broadcasts and web sites and not affiliated with any denomination. Harold Camping believes that the Bible essentially functions as a cosmic calendar explaining exactly when various prophecies will be fulfilled.

Camping said that all his calculations come from close readings of the Bible. In addition to the Bible, he also believes that external events like the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 are signs confirming the date.

“Beyond the shadow of a doubt,” Camping said, “ May 21 will be the date of the Rapture and the day of judgment.”

One of the followers who believes in Camping’s doctrine said: “If May 21 passes and I’m still here, that means I wasn’t saved.”

Whether you think I believe that the world will end on May 21, 2011, you will have to wait until May 22 when I will write a post saying that Camping is a false prophet. As Jesus said: “But as for that day and hour no one knows it – not even the angels in heaven – except the Father alone” (Matthew 24:36).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Rapture, Tribulation, Harold Camping, Family Radio Worldwide

The Call of Amos

Amos’ call to the prophetic ministry came directly from Yahweh and it came unexpectedly. While Amos was tending the flock, he heard the voice of the Lord telling him to “go and prophesy to my people Israel” (Amos 7:15).

The information about Amos’ experience with the Lord is given in the context of his confrontation with Amaziah, the priest of Bethel. Nothing is known as to when this confrontation between Amaziah and Amos took place. However, it is evident from the words of Amaziah that Amos had been preaching for sometime. According to Amaziah, Amos’ preaching could not continue since it posed a threat to the survival of the monarchy.

Amaziah was afraid that Amos was instigating a political revolt against King Jeroboam II. Amaziah sent words to the king saying: “Amos has conspired against you” (Amos 7:10). The word for “conspire” in the mouth of Amaziah was the same word used when Jehu, with the enouragement of the prophet Elisha, conspired against Joram, a king from the house of Omri (2 Kings 10:9).

As a representative of the king, Amaziah sent word to the palace in Samaria reporting what he believed to be a conspiracy against the king. According to Amaziah, Amos had preached a message in which he proclaimed the deportation of the nation and the violent death of the king.

Amaziah told Amos to leave Bethel and return to Tekoa: “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy there” (Amos 7:12). By declaring that Amos was a “seer,” Amaziah recognized Amos’ authority to preach the Word of God. This is the reason Amaziah did not forbid Amos from preaching. Rather, Amaziah commanded Amos to leave the country and return to his home.

In order to defend himself from the accusations lodged against him by Amaziah, Amos explained to the priest of Bethel that Yahweh had called him to act as his representative. Amos’ answer to Amaziah has caused much debate among scholars. The reason is that in Hebrew, Amos’ sentence contains no verbs. The nominal clauses in Hebrew could be translated either in the past or in the present.

The Hebrew of Amos 7:14 could be translated literally as follows:

“No prophet I, and not a son of a prophet I.”

In English, Amos’ words can be translated two different ways: “I am not a prophet nor a son of a prophet” or “I was not a prophet nor a son of a prophet.”

The English versions differ in how they translate Amos 7:14. The following two translations translate the words of Amos using the present tense:

“Then Amos answered and said to Amaziah, ‘I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet; for I am a herdsman and a grower of sycamore figs’” (New American Standard Version).

“‘I am not a prophet,’ Amos replied to Amaziah, ‘nor do I belong to a prophetic brotherhood. I am merely a herdsman and dresser of sycamore-figs’” (New Jerusalem Bible).

The following two translations translate the words of Amos using the past tense:

“Amos answered Amaziah, ‘I was neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees’” (New International Version).

“Then Amos answered and said to Amaziah, ‘I was no prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but I was a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs’” (English Standard Version).

The issue related to the proper interpretation of Amos’ words is whether his words refer to his past, “I was no prophet .... I was a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs,” or to his present: “I am not a prophet . . . I am merely a herdsman and dresser of sycamore-figs.”

The words of Amos in 7:14-15 describe how he became a messenger of Yahweh and was sent to Israel with a message. Before he became a prophet, Amos was a shepherd and a gatherer of sycamore figs, and not a prophet. He earned his living as a shepherd and what he did was not related to a prophetic ministry.

It was when Amos received the commission from Yahweh that he left his work and began preaching as instructed by God. Although scholarly opinions differ on how Amos’ words should be interpreted, it seems that Amos was saying to Amaziah that he was compelled to speak on behalf of Yahweh, even though he was not a prophet and did not receive any training to become a prophet.

In another context, Amos explained the reason he was proclaiming Yahweh’s message: Amos said: “A lion has roared! Who is not afraid? The sovereign LORD has spoken! Who can refuse to prophesy?” (Amos 3:8). In this passage Amos seems to indicate that one does not need to be trained as a prophet to proclaim Yahweh’s words.

Amos denied that he was a professional prophet, but that he was prophesying because he had received a command from the Lord. He was not making his living as a prophet, since his work was other than being a prophet.

Based on Amos’ words to Amaziah, most scholars believe that Amos’ ministry as a prophet was brief. According to Amos, he was taken from his work: he was “following the flock.” This statement, however, does not mean that Amos gave up his work as a shepherd. He was not a prophet for life. Since Amaziah told Amos to return to Tekoa and earn his living there, this probably means that Amos’ ministry had come to an end. He had a message to deliver and once the message was delivered, he probably went home to continue his vocation as a shepherd.

In the Old Testament, many of the prophetic calls were followed by visions in which Yahweh told the prophets his plans for the nation. Amos received five visions from the Lord. These five visions are related to his call and the reason he was being sent. The five visions are:

1. The Vision of the Swarming Locust, Amos 7:1-3

2. The Vision of the Devouring Fire, Amos 7:4-6

3. The Vision of the Plumb Line, Amos 7:4-6

4. The Vision of the Basket of Summer Fruits, Amos 8:1-3

5. The Vision of the Lord’s Judgment, Amos 9:1-4

Amos’ dialogue with Amaziah provides the reader with a clear understanding of what it means to be called to a prophetic ministry. The call of Amos came while he was involved in his daily activity as a shepherd. It was on that occasion that an authoritative hand took hold of him and commanded him to fulfill the role of a prophet.

The call of Amos has many lessons for those who have received a call from the Lord. Amos was a layman on a mission and what gave him the authority to speak of behalf of God was the fact that God commissioned him after taking him out of his daily responsibilities. It was Amos’ obedience to the one who called him that gave him the authority to speak against the nation and its king. It is in being obedient to the call of God that Amos and today’s ministers find their identity in Christ: “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work” (John 4:34).

My next post on Amos will deal with Amos’ first vision: The Vision of the Swarming Locust, Amos 7:1-3.


Other Studies on Amos:

1. Amos and Social Justice

2. Amos, Justice, and the NIV

3. The Prophet Amos

4. The Call of Amos

5. Amos’ First Vision and the Power of Intercessory Prayer

6. Amos’ Second Vision and the Repentance of God

7. Amos’ Third Vision and the Plumb Line

8. Amos’ Fourth Vision and the Basket of Summer Fruits

9. Amos’ Fifth Vision and the Judgment of Israel

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Amos, Amaziah, Amos 7, Prophet