Amos 1


koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer for Avondale College

Australia


    


Amos 1


1:1
The words of Amos, who was among the herdsmen in  Tekoa, who prophesied concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah and in the days of Jeroboam son of Joash, king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.


If one analyse the kings of Israel and Judah, it seems that Uzziah was crownprince since his birth (at least the counting mentioned in the book of Kings, starts at his birth), which was concurrent with the 14/15th year of Amaziah. It appears as if Jehoash died shortly after the beginning of his 16th year. Uzziah's counting starts in the 15th year of Amaziah probably by his father's consideration who wished him to be the crownprince. When Uzziah was 16, in the 16th year of his counting, his father had to flee for his life due to the plot to kill him. That year, in 780/779 BCE, the people selected him to be king, but, he was not crowned until the 27th year of Jeroboam II or in his own 23rd year, or in Julian counting, 772 BCE. This correlates with what we find in the tex of the book of Kings about his life. It must be remembered that he people would be suspicious to continue a dynasty of Amaziah if they plotted to kill him. For those years it appears as if Uzziah had to proof himself by fighting as a general in the army and regain some territory. When he succeeded they recognized him as king in the 27th year of Jeroboam II. This was the most difficult text to resolve with the principle of harmonization for the book of Kings and for the chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. There is now no need to adjust the text, no need to jump to another version like the LXX. The explanation is simple: 2 Kings 15:1-2 does not read as one continuous line referring to the same data. Firstly, the text does not say how counting was done, namely during his father's reign or after it. Secondly, the text does not say that the 27th year of Jeroboam II was the 16th year of the age of Uzziah. It is actually two different sentences that could act independently, and indeed it should. Therefore, counting starts at his birth, he was selected at 16 years old to be king but assumed that role only in the 27th year of Jeroboam II after his role as general in the army. Uzziah 794 BCE until 779 BCE when he was selected king, and 772 BCE when he was recognized to be king until his 52nd year in 743 BCE. Is there any precedent to count from a king's birth? Yes, with Omri.

On the other hand, the length of the reign of Jeroboam II is from 797-756 BCE with a non-ascension counting system.

If we overlap the two kings, we end with a time between 794-756 BCE but more narrow with a time between 772-756 BCE (It will be noted that the dates are slightly higher than that of Edwin Thiele, but that is because Thiele starts his calculation from the fourth year of Solomon in 1 Kings 6:1 as 966/7 BCE whereas this system counts that date from 970 BCE. The second difference is that Thiele was unable to harmonize the reign of Uzziah properly and had to switch versions, namely from the Hebrew to the Greek. This is methodologically unacceptable but if he knew it today he would probably not have done it that way. When something does not harmonize it is not because the text is in error but because we have not exhausted all options yet.

Within the time zone of 772-756 BCE, an earthquake occured and the call of Amos was two years before this earthquake. The principle is this, if the earthquake was in 756 then the call was in 758 BCE.

The Rabbis thought that Amos was called this name because he was tongue tied (Rabbi Pinchas, Redak, Rashi on Hosea 1:1). There is no evidence for this. It is probable that his name means "burden" or "load".

What is the theme of the book of Amos? According to Gerhard Hasel in his book Remnant, there are three possible themes: election, day of the Lord and remnant. Election in 3:2; Day of the Lord in 5:18 and remnant in 3:2 (Hasel Remnant 177-178).

Julius Welhaussen said of Amos that he is a "prophet of doom whose message lacks any ray of hope for the future".






1:2 And he said:

       "The Lord shall roar from Zion

       and shall give forth His voice from Jerusalem;

       the dwellings of the shepherds shall be cut off, the heads
       of the Carmel shall wither".


When the Middle Age Rabbi commentator Rashi came to this verse, he said that Zion is the Holy of Holies. God's speech emanates from the Holy of Holies for him. The Hebrew text reads the verbs in the future since the imperfect form is used. It is true that the judgement shall come forth from the Holy of Holies. The Investigative Judgement of which Daniel 7 talks about where the Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days (Christ to His Father) is in the Holy of Holies, since Christ was according to the book of Hebrews, a priest and mediator on our behalf in the first apartment, according to the type used by the Tabernacle in the Old Testament. In 1844, Christ moved into the Holy of Holies to start an Investigative Judgement. This will continue to the Advent and then after the resurrection of Daniel 12:1-3, a 1000 years will separate the event where the executive judgement will be executed against the evil in finality, or Hell, or Armageddon.

Zion is the New Jerusalem in mid-air in that time from which Holy of Holies, the temple in it, God will proceed as Warrior God to finally brought an end to all evil forever. Zion at that time is where God is. It is also in the eschaton.

Who are the shepherds in this verse? Are they the religious leaders? Are the religious leaders in the time of trouble anticipated here, going to be cut off? We are told that in the future the power of the saints will be broken by political powers and that eventually one can expect that in such a scenario of a persecuting society, known in the Bible as the Time of Trouble (see Daniel 12:1-3), the leaders or shepherds cannot function. Who are the heads of Carmel that will wither? Flowers wither and is it possible that it is an allegorical reference to the Third Elijah that shall wither like a flower, since the door of mercy has closed, evangelism has come to an end and the Time of Trouble has started?



Overview of the 8 nations selected for judgement


When we approach the next section, which runs between 1:3 until 2:6 [the last one completed in 5:6 for the fire], we see 8 cycles that are described in the same jargon.

Eight times the expression is used "not shall I return Us". It is the Trinity that will not be returned. Jews do not accept a Trinity and this doctrine of monotheism for the Old Testament they have squashed over the grammatical forms, like in this case, to deny such a doctrine. There is no other option but to translate the -nu suffix at the end of the verb as "us". It is translated such by other pericopes and no different here. It is used in 1:3; 1:6; 1:9; 1:10; 1:13; 2:1; 2:4 2:6.

The second observation one can make about the eight judgement pronouncements, is that the direction they are following chronologically is very interesting. From north at Damascus the line of the judgement passes Israel and goes to the other end south at Gaza. Then it bypass Israel again to the north along the coast to Tyre. It crosses then over land bypassing Israel or Samaria again and go all the way down to Edom. From Edom it moved up to the middle of area in line with Samaria or Israel but at Amman. Then from Amman it moves south to Moab and from Moab it moves to the center of Israel and Judah, namely, Jerusalem and from there it moves up to Samaria in Israel.

All judgements are carried out by the Trinity since the trinity statement "not shall I return Us" is used for all. All burn with fire. Even though one may not see the fire word in chapter 2 for Israel, it is in Amos 5:6.

God's judgements against Judah and Israel or the territory of Judah and Israel moved in a bypassing manner and only last on the list is the area that He had His instrument for salvation, namely Judah and Israel.

All scholars interpret these judgements in the light of history and specifically the history of Israel and Judah. Judah did not burn before Samaria since Samaria, or the capital of Israel burnt in 723 BCE and Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Some areas were burned. All these cities or areas suffered during the Assyrian invasions of Tiglath-Pilezer III in 745 BCE; 738 BCE and 727 BCE. Samaria fell in 723 with the arrival of Shalmanezer V. When Sennacherib came in 701 and again in 689 BCE (the two-campaign theory endorsed to harmonize all data), these cities are listed as tribute payers after he took them over. Damascus was a main organizer of resistance against Tiglath-Pilezer III. Gaza was a problem for him. Tyre was also a problem. The kings of Edom, Amman and Moab are explicitly listed in the texts of the Assyrian kings in their Palestinian campaigns. So looking at it from a historiographical point of view, it is easy to allocated all these problems in the area to the role of the Assyrian kings in Palestine and see them as instrumental carrying out the predictions giving to Amos by God long before the events. The hermeneutics of suspicion scholars will opt for a fake construction post-eventu of someone who tried to be authentic and attach Amos' name to it and then ascribe it in a pseudo way to God. There is no space for the hermeneutics of suspicion in this commentary. We operate with the hermeneutics of affirmation. God and His actions is not an attachment to reality. From Him reality has its being. The events happened because God said it would. They will happen because He said so. The judgement against these 8 nations, Judah and Israel included is carried out by God Himself.

Writing thus in 772-756 BCE, Amos looked down the corridors of time and see a day when God will burn with fire a list of 8 areas with which he was familiar. We know from the rest of Scripture that there will be a day when God will burn through executive judgement, not only 8 nations or cities or geographical regions but the whole world in order to eradicate evil forever. It is described in Revelation.

Recently we have Syria and Gaza and even Eilat (ancient Edom) as hot spots for violence. The words of Amos could very well be stretching beyond our time to the Eschaton when God will eliminate all evil existing also in earthly Jerusalem and Samaria. From Scripture we know that the heavenly Jerusalem will be the Zion or strong fortress where the saints will be in mid-air watching the Warrior God or Jesus going out to destroy the whole earth with Satan and his angels forever with fire [hell]. This is the biblical Armageddon and occurs after the resurrection and transportation of all saints away from this earth. It is very possible and likely that most of our Adventist Old Testament scholars will make this purely historical with events from Assyria and Babylon in Palestine between 745-586 BCE, but for the above reasons, I would rather stick to the explanation given here. It is true that the name of Hazael of Damascus appears in Amos 1:4 but we need to look at more than just the person of Hazael here. 



1:3 So said the Lord:

       "Upon three transgressions of Damascus,

       even upon four, I will not return us [Trinity].

       Upon threshing with sledges of iron those of Gilead.


One can see here the three-four statement. Why does it say the Trinity will not stand back for three or four transgressions? Maybe the ANE rule was that one should give the transgressor three or four times and when that limit is trespassed trice or four times, revenge or action of punishment is permitted by society?

God is saying that Damascus has so many examples of transgression or transgressions that the three-four rule is not necessary any longer. The Trinity will not employ the three-four rule since They have enough evidence against Damascus here. This may be the explanation of "For three transgressions of Damascus, for four, I will not return Us".

Rabbi Rashi explains that the iron sledges were made with numerous grooves since they cut the grain to make straw. Middle Age Jewish commentator Redak connected the event to the deeds of Hazael which is mentioned in Amos 1:4, namely that "and Hazael struck them throughout the entire border of Israel. From the east side of the Jordan, the entire land of Gilead" citing 2 Kings 10:32.

Let us ask some crucial questions: Is the house of Hazael the same as the time of Hazael or the person of Hazael? We know from the book of Kings that the house of David or house of Omri may be centuries apart from the historical person connected to the house. Is Hazael still alive when the fire was sent? Hazael was historical, Ben-Hadad was historical and Amos is historical. We need to clarify the interpretation of the expression "house of Hazael".

It appears as if God is against not only Hazael but a wider scope here that includes also a number of other towns or localities and even broader to include an entire nation, peoples of Aram.



1:4 And I will send fire in the house of Hazael

    and it will consume the fortresses of Ben-Hadad.


In our analysis, it seems that the fire will not be send upon Hazael or Ben-Hadad but upon their houses and fortresses. Redak feels that the fire is just figurative. The executive judgement of God is not going to be just figurative. The fire of hell is a reality to come that will extinguish all evil. It will be literal. Rabbi Rashi of the Middle Ages, wants to see Hazael and Ben-Hadad as the two kings of Aram and Damascus as the head of Aram. Rabbi Ibn Ezra understood it better and more in line with what we have in mind here, namely, that it is to the posterity of Hazael, not Hazael himself. He suggested Rezin who was slain by the king of Assyria. Once it is accepted that the expression house of Hazael does not mean Hazael and his time-zone, one is free to pull the expression all the way to the Eschaton and not only to the posterity of Hazael, as Ibn Ezra did. 

Ben-Hadad reigned from 796-773 BCE (according to A. Millard). We have narrowed above the time between 772-756 BCE. This shelves Ben-Hadad outside the time-zone available for the book of Amos. The fortresses of Ben-Hadad is thus just an expression beyond the historical person, Ben-Hadad himself. Provided Millard's dating is correct, Ibn Ezra may be closer to the truth here than the other Rabbis.



1:5 And I will break down the bolt of Damascus;

    and I will cut off who dwells from Birkath-Aven

    and the one who holds the scepter from Beth Eden.

    and the people of Aram will be exiled to Kir,

    says the Lord.


A number of points are important in this verse: from Damascus, there is a branching out to other cities and then to people of Aram, a whole nation. They will be exiled to Kir. Is Kir a spelling difference of KUR, the Sumerian word for land?

The Middle Age rabbis indicated that these were places in Aram. The meaning of Birkath-Aven is valley of iniquity. If we have to allegorize and move beyond the immediate history of Amos and his times, then the whole earth will be a birkath-aven or valley of iniquity in the day of Armageddon. Joel, the prophet spoke about nations against God in the Valley of decision. In the Executive Judgement in the Day of the Lord when evil will be eliminated all saints will be save in Zion, similar to the imagery in the book of Joel. The one who holds the scepter from Beth-Eden is an interesting expression. No-one definitely knows where this city is. Eden was the place where Adam and Eve lived and they had to leave it because they gave the scepter of rulership that belonged to God their Creator to Lucifer residing in a snake, known as Satan. The one who holds the scepter from Eden may be Satan since he is no longer in Eden because just like Adam and Eve, Satan, Adam and Eve were thrown out of Eden, the perfect place. So God is saying that His judgement is against Satan in the Executive Judgement in the eschaton.



1:6
So said the Lord:

    Upon three transgressions of Gaza,

    and upon four, I will not return Us. 

    Upon their carrying captive the exiles of peace

    and delivered them to Edom,


Our translation of "exiles of peace" was rendered by Rabbi Rashi in the Middle Ages, "that the captivity be complete". For Rabbi Redak of the Middle Ages the prophecy refers to the exile of Titus [70-73 CE] when the fleeing Jews were delivered to Edom. The later Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency favored to interpret the passage as connected to the exile of Assyria and the exile of Babylon. The Rabbi Isaiah da Trani explains that the reference is to the time of Nebuchadnezzar when the Edomites harmed Israel. For Rabbi Rashi it refers to the captivity of Israel in 723 BCE. One central thought appears from all this guessing. No one knows the interpretation. The applications stretch beyond the time of Amos to 723 BCE, 586 BCE, and even 70-73 CE with the arrival of Titus at Jerusalem. We reiterate our interpretation that the judgements here by God may refer to the actions in the Eschaton when God will take care of all evil during the Executive Judgement or hell.

In the Oriental Institute Prism of Sennacherib as one can find in popular English translations of ANET 287-288, one can see all the cities mentioned in the Judgements of Amos except Damascus. Tyre is not mentioned explicitly but Great Sidon and Little Sidon is. Gaza is mentioned but as a city that is pro-Sennacherib. This disqualify the burning or judgement against Gaza in this case during Sennacherib's Third Campaign in 701 BCE.


1:7 And I will send fire upon the walls of Gaza

     that will consume her fortresses.


Fire will be also on the walls of Gaza. In our own times Gaza is also a hot spot in politics and daily events. It is a boiling pot of unrest and instability.

Our reading places the fire at the Executive Judgement of God in the eschaton when the evil of all times will be final eradicated. One must remember, at that time, not only these eight places shall burn. The whole world shall burn. It is possible that Amos saw these eight places since as a farmer he was familiar with all of them. Power centers in backyard politics, he could see them coming to a halt.



1:8 And I will cut off who dwells from Ashdod

    and the one who holds the scepter from Ashkelon.

    and I will turn my hand upon Ekron,

    and the remnant of the Philistines shall be lost

    says my Lord, Lord.


From Gaza the actions of God moves up and down over Philistea. From Gaza to Ashdod, north of Ashkelon and then down to Ashkelon, north of Gaza. Then again east in line with Ashdod to Ekron.

This is very interesting that Amos is speaking of Philistines in his days? Furthermore, if he is referring to an action in the past history, then all those Philistines are dead already. What we have here, is that we need a proper definition of Philistines. A Philistine is someone who lives in the traditional cities of the ancient Philistines since their arrival in 1181 BCE, but who are, just like the Philistines, squatters or foreigners migrating into an area that does not belong to them. Philistine may have been a swear word or nickname for migrating foreigners. In Abraham's day, Canaanites and Amorites were called Philistines. In Amos day it may be Assyrian or Egyptian or Greek squatters. Not only is there a peculiar reference to killing all Philistines until all are dead, but also each of these names cities had petty kings. This is not uncommon in the days of Amos, since the Oriental Institute Prism of Sennacherib referred to above, mentions Padi the king of Ekron (Col. VI: line 33) and the king of Gaza (Col. VI: line 34) and Mitinti, the king of Ashdod (Col. VI: line 32) and the king of Ashkelon (Col. II: line 61). From a historiographical point of view, Amos is not a fake production talking about aspects that did not exist in those days. He is factual, although earlier than the reference of Sennacherib's Prism. There were kings on these cities mentioned in this verse, definitely 60 years after Amos wrote and thus also before and during Amos' time. All these kings and their cities suffered during the Third Campaign of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, but this is not what Amos is talking about here in our analysis.


1:9 So said the Lord:

    "Upon three sins of Tyre,

    and upon four, I will not return Us.

    Because she sold whole communities of captives to Edom,

    disregarding a treaty of brotherhood,


From Gaza the focus of the Judgement shifted to the north along the coast until Tyre. Tyre was one of the main centers of Phoenicia and Phoenician history.

We do not need to dwell too long on Tyre, since books have been written on The History of Tyre by Wallace B. Fleming (1915).

Tiglath-Pilezer III was a strong king when he came to the throne in 746 BCE. Tyre joined a coalition against Assyria and others like Damascus, Judah, Israel, about 19 areas, joined in. In 738 BCE Tiglath-Pilezer III came against them. One by one the cities fell to him. If we look at Tiglath-Pilezer III list of cities that he conquered and taken tribute from, the problem is that they number more than eight. Why would Amos be historical listing only eight cities and skip the other cities? Since Amos received his message before 756 BCE, a fulfillment, as the historians want to see in 738 BCE, is twenty years down the line. We tend to think that the application is beyond history. It appears that in the time of Shalmanezer V, Tyre enjoyed some semi-independence (Flemming 1915: 34). Sargon II, the usurper to the Assyrian throne who reigned between 721-705 BCE, was not interested in Tyre. In the days of Hezekiah, a league was formed that included cities from Moab, Edom, Ammon, Phoenicia, Judah under king Hezekiah. During his Third campaign Sennacherib came in 701 BCE against all these cities except Tyre. Although scholar will want to look for a Sennacherib fulfillment of these prophecies in 701 BCE and again in 689 BCE with the second Palestine campaign [of which we have only biblical records of and which was a big embarassment to Sennacherib], Tyre is not included. Flemming interpreted it that Assyrians do not record their failures, only their successes and thus want to suggest that Tyre was very successful against Assyria. If this be the case then fulfillment is very unlikely for Amos in these historical annals, talking about the destruction of Tyre, before Edom and before Ammon. Our point is that it does not fit the pattern outlined in Amos of God's chronological sequence in the dealing of the judgements. Tyre was very well protected by its natural barriers. When Esarhaddon came in 680 BCE, he could starve them but he could not shut Tyre in from the half a mile water in the channel that separated Tyre from the mainland. The endresult was that Esarhaddon finally withdrew with his army. They could not subjugate Tyre. We thus find a lack of conquering Tyre from Amos time in 756 BCE until 680 BCE in Assyrian historical annals. In 668 BCE, Ashurbanipal who followed Esarhaddon on the throne claimed that he subjugated Tyre. In 664 BCE, Esarhaddon went again against Tyre and he said:

"In my third expedition against Baal, king of Tyre, I . .  .went; who my royal will disregarded and did not hear the words of my lips; towers around him I raised, on sea and land his roads I took; their spirits I humbled and caused to melt away, to my joke I made submissive" (Flemming 1915: 38).  

Round about 630 BCE, Tyre threw off the allegiance to Assyria (Flemming 1915: 40). From this time, 630-586 BCE Tyre was at the summit of development. The fall of Tyre is described by Ezechiel 27 and 28 in the light of Lucifer's fall from heaven.

Some modern Jewish scholars felt that it refers to the time when the people of Tyre delivered some Jews in the days of Titus 70-73 CE unto Edom. This is a long stretch for the fulfillment of Amos. Our view is that if you can stretch it to this period at the end of the Second Temple, then nothing prevent us from finding fulfillment in the destruction of the areas in the Eschaton.

The covenant of brotherhood that were disregarded may be the one between Hiram of Phoenicia and Solomon in 1 Kings 5:26.

The background is that Hiram came to the throne of Phoenicia in 981 BCE and according to Josephus it was in the 11th year of Hiram that Solomon built the temple, thus 970 BCE (see 1 Kings 6:1). The Phoenicians from Sidon were used to cut the timber of the Lebanon for Solomon (1 Kings 5:6). Their work ethics or labor laws in those days were: one month the foreigners migrate to work for Israel and two months they are off (1 Kings 5:14). He was using three shifts so that every third shift was the same team. They built the temple with complete silence (1 Kings 6:7).
 

1:10 I will send fire upon the walls of Tyre

      that will consume her fortresses.


The fortress aspect of Tyre was well known. All the Assyrian kings had trouble to get access to Tyre. Here, God will send fire and it will consume all the fortresses of Tyre. People may argue that finally Tyre was made of no avail over a long period. It does not appear that God intended to deal with Tyre over a stretched out time. We have seen that none of the kings of Assyria, dealing with Tyre were able to conquer it. Every time the cities listed here by Amos are involved with the kings of Assyria, one of them are out of order or non-applicable.

The Jewish commentator Malbim says that the fulfillment of this verse is in the days of Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE and also in the days of Alexander of Macedonia.

From a fulfillment point of view, can one say that God scoop up bits and pieces of events in history over such a long period as the Jewish commentators are giving, from 756 BCE to 70 CE and then claim that He burnt over this period all these cities, not in chronological order given to Amos, but He burnt them with fire? What would be the purpose of such a hotdge-potch of destructions. Amos, now you see Tyre but it is in 586 BCE, now you see Gaza but it is in the days of Tiglath-Pilezer III in 738 BCE. The repetition of the fire event eight times with eight cities is indicative to us of one event in the Eschaton. It appears as if the events were part of one large event based on their actions in past history.

Anyone who refuse to accept a discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, can accept that they are working and interpreting in the same way as Jesus Christ did when He was on earth. One time probably in 30 CE, Jesus made a comment about Tyre that indicate that the judgement of Tyre is for Jesus still future. He said in Matthew 11:22 that in the Day of Judgement [His executive judgement], it will be worse for Tyre and Sidon than for them. By using estai there is no doubt that Jesus interpret Amos 1:9-10 as still future. The mixture of Lucifer rebellion in heaven with the fall of Tyre and Judgement against Tyre, is very fitting since in the Executive Judgement both these cities, their evil kings of the past and Satan as ruler of the earth will be finally eradicated by fire. Connected to this final eradication language is also the words or descriptions of Joel 3:4-8. Armegeddon will be the same as the Executive Judgement of God. There is no need to look for a final battle at the end of time in Jisreel near ancient Megiddo just as there is no need to look for Satan's house at Tyre. The prophets indicate that the same evil exists in these cities and nations that exists in the originator of the Rebellion in Heaven, Lucifer or Satan. For interpreters to say that Isaiah 14:12 is describing the fall of Babylon is far from correct. The interest in Babylon is only to point to a more serious problem, the role of Lucifer, a motif that stretch from the beginning of history to the end thereof.



1:11 So said the Lord:

     Upon three transgressions of Edom,

     and upon four, I will not return Us.

     Because he pursued him, his brothers with a sword,

     and he destroyed his mercies and he grasped forever his   
     anger and passed over him keeping his fury.


Middle Age Jewish commentator Rabbi Redak pointed out that there are interpreters in his time that wanted to see the fulfillment in the time of Esau and Jacob strive but he insisted that it is at the time of Titus in 70-73 CE.

Edom had an ongoing anger and secondly, when he passed over his neighbors, he did not diminish his anger, but kept it. Keeping alive anger and hatred is a psychological indoctrination that is rejected here. Satan kept up his propaganda and indoctrination of evil and never gave up. Since he is not planning to change his style, this attitude of non-change, is what is criticized here.


1:12 I will send fire upon Teman

     that will consume the fortresses of Bozrah.


The Jewish commentator Abarbanel who was a finance minister of Spain between 1437-1509, said that God will hold a grudge against the people of Edom until the End of Time. For him the geographical area of Edom is in trouble with God continously until the End of Time. It is important to link this concept of Abarbanel to a point of importance since the prophetic corridor of Daniel 11 reaches unto the End of Time, in fact until the coming of Christ the Messiah when the resurrection will take place Daniel 12:1-2. At the end of the long chapter 11, verses 40-45, no commentator until the very day was able to present coherently connected to either history or modern events. Until 1954, according to George MacGready Price, in his commentary on Daniel and comment at Daniel 11:40, there were three models for the interpretation of Daniel 11:40-45: A literal one, an allegorical or spiritual interpretation and then a side issue whether it is two or three parties in Daniel 11:40. The scholars of the SDA church at that time chose to follow an allegorical interpretation and this model was raised to importance by R. Anderson, M. Maxwell, Shin of Sahmyook University and other interpreters like J. Doukhan. For them the reference to Edom in Daniel 11:41 would be not a geographical location but a spiritual attitude. Ironically, a catholic commentary by Herculus Pinti in the late sixteenth century, also made this paradigm shift to an allegorical or spiritual interpretation, although he would try to allocate it all to the actions of the Antichrist in Antiochus Epiphanes. He was not the first one, since a similar Antiochus-Antichrist allocation in Daniel 11:40-45 was made by the interpreter Porphyry but Jerome in his commentary cancelled the arguments of Porphyry very eloquently. Hans K. LaRondelle is correct to list Daniel 11:40-45 as "controversial texts" (Hans K. LaRondelle, Syllabus for Biblical Eschatology [Andrews University 1988-1989]: 11). A better view, according to this reader, is to see Edom, Moab and Ammon as modern Jordan in Daniel 11:40-45. This may sound odd to modern SDA conventional readers but if they read the commentary of George MacGready Price, it will make more sense. It is keeping to the continuity of the rest of the chapter that is not interpreted allegorically but literal and furthermore, the interpretation suggested here do allocate the shocking role of Catholicism as global factor to a time close or at the inauguration of the Time of Trouble, preceding the coming of the Messiah as explained by Daniel 12:1-2. What do we have then here, Edom literal and geographical and Edom as a spiritual attitude, thus allegorical. As a note about Daniel 11:40-45, all commentaries, whether Jewish, whether Christian all realize that it is a grey area in our knowledge.

Teman is in Edom.

In a way, Abarbanel is correct that the punishment will be allocated at the End of Time, the question is just, what End. It is the one after the thousand years or millennium. It is what we know about Hell in Revelation 20-22. This is the fire that is mentioned here. The fortresses of Bozrah. Even in modern days, Eilat is a hot spot for military activities. This is 2009. As we have indicated above, it does not seem that God is a kind of Arsonist that walks around and in different times and different places throughout history cause fire to burn small and big empires. These events in Amos is part of one scoop of actions that will be global including these eight places allocated. It will be the same event and the same time. Middle Ages Jewish scholar Redak says that Bozrah was in Edom and a big city. Also Isaiah 48:24 are used by him. Other scholars felt that there may have been more than one city with that name, one in Edom and one in Moab. What confuse scholars is that they do not pay attention to the fact that at times Moab was imperialistic and took over the other areas. This fluctuating aspect of states, causes the same city to be found in both states to belong to both. In various texts of the Assyrian kings there are evidence that Edom was subdued and had to pay tribute. That would be a fire from Assyria and we do not think that a fire from Assyria could be equated with a fire from God, unless stated as such.



1:13 This is what the Lord says:

     Upon three sins of the sons of Ammon,

     and upon four, I will not return Us.

     Because of the ripping open of pregnant women of         
     Gilead in order to extend their borders,


Gilead and Ammon are both in Transjordan. Gilead in the north adjacent to the sea of Galilee and south of that across from Jericho is Amman. Andrews University and a consortium of sister colleges of the Seventh Day Adventist Church with the help and imput of other denominations are working on the Madaba Plains project. They yearly or nearly yearly, run excavation digs in modern day Amman and surrounding regions. Years later than Amos, a similar reference was made by Jeremiah. Nearly 180 years later, Jeremiah wrote the question: why has Milkom taken possession of Gad? This citation from Jeremiah 49:1 is also used by Middle Age commentators like Rashi (Rabbi Solomon bar Isaac, 1040-1105) in his commentary on Amos. Rabbi Redak refer to the "mountains of Gad". He said that the word harot is the same as harim (mountains). He then connected it to Gilead, the next word in Hebrew, and then translated the "mountains of Gilead". The Targum Jonathan to the prophets is an Aramaic paraphrase of Amos and other prophets that was done, not in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, as scholars try to claim. The Targum form that we have of Amos, dates to a time post-Mohammed, 640 CE and before Rashi in 1040. It is true that Aramaic translations of the Hebrew was made since Ezra and Nehemiah but the specific form of Targum Jonathan is not necessarily or in reality that form of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Targum Jonathan to the prophets at Amos in this verse, is also viewing harot = "pregnant women" as "earth" similar to the concept of Redak (Rabbi David Kimchi 1157-1236). Here is the rule to test the Rabbis: if the word "mountains" is consistently applied by Amos throughout his book as harot instead of harim, then one can agree with Redak. However, looking at Amos 4:13, one has to cancel Redak's thinking, as well as that of the Targum. It is valuable to see that Jeremiah has a similar prophecy in Jeremiah 49:1-2 over 180 years later. It simply means that the preteristic interpretation of Amos did not work or not apply in Amos days, the problem was not taken care of yet in Jeremiah's days. In fact, Jeremiah should caution us strongly against any preteristic interpretation of Amos. The same language as Amos is used by Jeremiah with additional information.  


1:14 I will set fire upon the walls of Rabbah

     and it will consume her fortresses

     with a shout on the day of battle,

     with a tempest on a day of storm.


Also in Jeremiah 49:2 (594 BCE see Jeremiah 27:3) Rabbah is singled out as a problem 180 years later than Amos, and other places like Heshbon is also included by Jeremiah that is not mentioned here with Amos. For Jeremiah the prediction of Amos was a future reality that was relevant for his own day and he used Amos for his own prophecy. God repeated the Amos prophecy to Jeremiah and Jeremiah remembered more detail in his prophecy. What do we have here? God speaking little to Amos and more to Jeremiah? Jeremiah using Amos and considering pronouncing it also as prophecy? No. God speaks probably a fuller message also to Amos, but Amos could only remember less, or God did not give Amos more detail since other cities and powers like Heshbon would be a problem later and was not relevant to Amos. God is behind both messages and we can even probably include Transjordan today by saying the fire of God will burn in the eschaton also against modern day Transjordan. This prophecy is not fulfilled even in our day. It is pointing to the time of the burning of "hell" as described well by the New Testament in Revelation.

There will be a shout. The Battle cry is accompanied normally with a trumpet sound. The Advent of Jesus will also be accompanied with a trumpet sound and the dead shall be resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:52). The glory of God is like a fire to the unbelievers and evil and His glory at His appearance will be consuming to many and much. It seems as if the fire of this reference is the final "hell" after the millennium of cited in the book of Revelation.

1:15 And their king[Milkom] will go into exile,

      he and his officials together with him,

      says the Lord.


Throughout the history of Ammon there were many incursions by the Assyrians into Ammon. We have to think of kings (plural) rather than king (singular) when we consider the Assyrian wars against Ammon. When one reads Jeremiah 49:3 on this verse, one has to adjust the word "their king" to the reading given in Jeremiah 49:3 as the name of Milkom. Amos reads in the Hebrew "And Milkom shall go into exile, he and his officials/princes together with him". In 728 BCE a letter from Nimrud ND2765 letter 16 (discussed by Stefan Timm in his book on Moabite History) lists Ammon as also paying tribute. Horses are especially mentioned.

Another text K1285 after 701 BCE, the time of Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, indicates that Ammon had to pay more tribute than Moab or Judah. Ammon paid 2 gold, Moab 1 gold and Judah in silver. The Taylor Prism of Sennacherib mentions Ammon as conquered city during Sennacherib's third campaign in 701 BCE. The king at this time at Ammon was Pu-du-il (691 BCE for the recording of the Taylor Prism col. II, line 55, see ANET by Pritchard for an English version of the text). From the year 673 BCE comes a text Prism A1=BM 1929-10-12-1 col. V:54-63 which dates to the Assyrian king Esarhaddon's 8th year. The Ammonite overseer (not king) in line 62 is still Pu-du-il. He seemed to have had a long reign from Sennacherib's time to the time of Esarhaddon, over 30 years. We notice that the Ammonite king was demoted to overseer in 673 BCE but not exiled, nor was Rabbah burnt. During the next Assyrian king's reign, Ashurbanipal in 668 BCE, we find the ruler of Ammon to be Am-mi-na-ad-bi (see Prism C=K1794=BM 93007 (+18-2-4-172 col. II line 37, discussed by Stefan Timm pages 371-373). On this Prism, Am-mi-na-ad-bi is listed as a LUGAL or king. King in the time of Sennacherib became overseer in the time of Esarhaddon and then king again in the time of Ashurbanipal for Ammon. Where is the king in exile and the fire in Assyrian history? In the year 643 BCE or the 9th campaign of Ashurbanipal there is a text Rassam Cylinder (=Rm1) that H. Rassam found in 1878. In Col. VII line 110 Beth-Ammon is mentioned. His troops were in Beth-Ammon, seemingly a place. He said that he prepared [for his god Ashur? line 107] "a great bloodbath" (line 114). Still no fire or king in exile. There is another explanation for this verse than the Assyrian history dealings with Ammon.

The Jewish commentator Rabbi Meir Leibush Malbim or just Malbim (1809-1879) also read it as Milkom or Malkam.

There was a king Milkom in Amman. Milkom was also a deity or god of the Ammonites. At Tell el-Umeiri the team from Andrews University found a seal reading "belong to Milkom-ur the servant of Baalyasha". The reading of Milkom in the days of Jeremiah (581-580 BCE) was a historical reality (cf. Jeremiah 40:14 and 32:35). It is not just poetical or a play with words. However, this god or king or ruler and his princes or rulers (sharri) will all go into exile. Is the hell an exile? What exile? Whereto? We know that they will be resurrected shortly before the "hell" event after the millennium according to the book of Revelation. They will join forces with Satan to fight the Warrior Messiah on the Day of Armegeddon or Hell. Exile is a word for losing the battle. It is a disgrace. It was the most feared word for kings of ancient times. Amos and Jeremiah 180 years after Amos is saying that their worst nightmare will come true.

  

                 Amos 2



2:1 This is what the Lord says:

     Upon three sins of Moab,

     and upon four, not will I return Us

     for his burning of the bones of the king of Edom

     to lime.


The Jewish Middle Ages Rabbi, Redak wrote in his commentary on Amos that II Kings 3:27 is applicable here. In those two verses: verses 26-27 it is explained how the king of Moab tried to break through and when they could not succeed, he took his son and offered him on the wall. All the rabbis of the Middle Ages, thought that a preteristic application should be made to an upcoming event in the days of Amos. One can see that by their interpretation of the shophar sound as a battle in those days. It is possible that the battle will be rather the eschatological battle of God in the Day of the Lord, referred to by Amos 2:16 as "that day".



2:2 And I will send fire upon Moab

    that will consume the fortresses of Kerioth

    Moab will die in tumult with a shout

    and with the sound of the trumpet.


The Lord is going to send fire upon Moab in the eschatological day of the Lord, in our interpretation. Kerioth is mentioned also on the Moabite Stone that dates to a time a century before the book of Amos, and therein line 13 speaks of the city of Moab. In line 13 of the Moabite stone it reads that Mesha brought the altar in front of "Kamos in Kerioth". The god of the Moabites was Kamos. His seat of power was a century before the days of Amos as in the Moabite Stone indicated, in Kerioth. In lines 1-3 Mesha explains that his father ruled as king of Moab for 30 years and that he became king after his father. What is an interesting point to mention about the Mesha Stone, is that he says that Omri and Ahab oppressed Moab for 40 years. Omri took control of Moab in his own days and in half the days of his son Ahab, 887-876 BCE for Omri and 876-853 BCE for Ahab. The period is calculated by Mesha as been 40 years long (line 9). For Mesha to know what is 50% of "his [Omri's] son" years, he must have known what is 100% which means that Mesha was ruler after 853 BCE. The Mesha Stone was written then after 853 BCE. Mesha's father seems to have died halfway through the reign of Ahab which would have been the end of the 40 year oppression period, thus in 865 BCE. The oppression period would have been between 905-865 BCE and Mesha's father reigned for 30 years from 895-865 BCE when Mesha took over. Mesha seemed to have ruled from 865 BCE beyond 853 BCE which was the the last year of the reign of Ahab, the son of Omri. Scholars are baffled by Mesha's reference to 40 years.


2:3 I will cause to cut off a judge from within her 

     and all her officials/princes I shall kill with him

     says the Lord.


Amos brings here an element in that we do not find with the other judgements against nations. A judge will be made cut off by the Lord within Moab. In the Executive Judgement of the Lord that will mete out the punishment of his Judgement already complete due to His divine Understanding, He will cut off the judge of Moab and all their evil kings. The territory of Moab and all their evil will not escape judgement in the Eschaton and all will die. It is the absolute finality of death in this event. There will be no more death after this eradication, forever. The judge with his unbalanced judgements for the god Kamos in Kerioth will die with the evil rulers of that territory in the Eschaton.


 


amos and the eight judgements.jpg