BIG IDEA:
THE SOVEREIGN GOD ROARS IN JUDGMENT AGAINST SURROUNDING NATIONS FOR SPECIFIC MORAL TRANSGRESSIONS
INTRODUCTION:
Thomas McComiskey: Overview
A striking pattern runs through these oracles. The prophet began with the distant city of Damascus and, like a hawk circling its prey, moved in ever-tightening circles from one country to another, till at last he seizes upon Israel. One can imagine Amos’s hearers approving the denunciation of these heathen nations. They can even applaud God’s denunciation of Judah because of the deep-seated hostility between the two kingdoms that went as far back as the dissolution of the united kingdom after Solomon. But Amos plays no favorites; he swoops down on the unsuspecting Israelites too in the severest language and condemns them for their crimes.
J. Vernon McGee: We begin now a section of this prophecy which deals with the judgments of God upon the nations which were contiguous to the nation Israel, that is, those that surrounded that nation. This man Amos gives us a world view. The Word of God, even the Old Testament, shows that God is not only the God of the nation Israel, but He is also the God of the Gentiles. In the New Testament, Paul is the one who makes that abundantly clear. And God judges the nations. Although in this day of grace God has one great purpose, that of calling out a people to His name, that does not mean that He has taken His hands off the affairs of this world—He has not. He still moves in judgment upon the nations of the world, and this Book of Amos has a tremendous message along that line.
Alec Motyer: The passage now lying before us for study is a roll-call of the nations surrounding Israel. They have one negative common denominator: none of them had ever received any special revelation of God or of His law; He had never sent prophets to them; there was no Moses in their historical past; the voice of God had never sounded in the ears of their founding-fathers. Yet Amos presents them as nations under judgment. They were without special revelation but not without moral responsibility; they were without direct knowledge of God but not without accountability to God; they were without the law written upon tables of stone but not without the law written in the conscience. . .
Amos first examines violations of the general relationships of life, human being to human being, then the particular responsibilities of life, brother to brother, and finally the special claims of life, the attitude of the strong to the weak. In this way he speaks out on behalf of six basic principles of human conduct.
- People are not things (sin of Damascus)
- Priority of human welfare over commercial profit (1:6 – sin of Gaza).
- The inviolability of the pledged word. It is the element of ‘covenant’ or promise which distinguishes the accusation against Tyre from that against Gaza. No pledged word should be treated as negotiable simply for self-interest and self-advantage. This is what Tyre had done. . .
- The inadmissability of hatred nourished in the heart. (sin of Edom)
- The limitation of personal ambition by the rights of the helpless. (sin of Ammon)
- The renouncing of vengeance. (sin of Moab)
Warren Wiersbe: Eight times Amos used the phrase “for three transgressions and for four,” a Jewish idiom that means “an indefinite number that has finally come to the end.” God is long-suffering with sinners (2 Peter 3:9), but He marks what they do and His patience eventually runs out. To try God’s patience is to tempt the Lord; and when we tempt the Lord, we invite judgment.
Anthony Petterson: The speeches have a similar pattern. They begin with the phrase “for three sins . . . even for four,” which seems to indicate that the sins of the people have reached their limit, and now God will not relent from his punishment.
David Guzik: This phrase will introduce God’s announcement of judgment against each nation. It didn’t mean that Damascus only committed three sins, and then God thought of a fourth sin; it simply has the idea of “sin upon sin upon sin.”
Thomas Constable: The expression “for three transgressions [Heb. pesha’im, rebellions, i.e., against the universal Sovereign; cf. Gen. 9:5-17] and for four” is one of Amos’ trademark phrases (cf. vv. 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6). It means for numerous transgressions (cf. Job 5:19; 33:29; Ps. 62:11-12; Prov. 6:16; 30:15-16, 18-19, 21-23, 29-31; Eccles. 11:2; Mic. 5:5-6). “Three transgressions” represents fullness and the fourth overflow. Amos cited just the last transgression, the one that “broke the camel’s back” and made judgment inevitable, or possibly the representative one, for Israel’s enemies. The phrase may also be a poetic way of describing seven transgressions, symbolizing completeness. In the oracle against Israel, Amos cited seven sins (one in 2:6, two in 2:7, two in 2:8, and two in 2:12). Israel’s panic would also be sevenfold (2:14-16).
Gary Cohen: The word “transgressions” is the Hebrew peshe, which is from the root pasha, meaning “to fall away, or break away from anyone or thing; to turn away.” Hence, this word for sin emphasizes a turning away or breaking away from God’s holy standards of righteousness, goodness, fairness, and morality, as comprehended in the Ten Commandments and His other laws.
Robert Martin-Achard: The collection of proper names that we find here reminds us once more that the God of the Bible concerns himself not with some imaginary world but with our earth, and with the history of the nations to be found on it. It is also striking to see with what precision Amos evokes both past and contemporary events. These involve the fate of the nations of the Syro-Palestinian region vis-à-vis their God. He witnesses by this means to the continuing interest that Israel’s God expresses for people in circumstances that are particularly their own.
John Goldingay: Yahweh declares that he will act against Ephraim’s neighbors for their wrongdoing, mostly for what we might call war crimes, though the war crimes (as is commonly the case with war) are an incidental offshoot of a concern with economics and with trade. “The cumulative, cascading references to violence” are “an assault on the mind.” Although these peoples are mostly ones with whom Ephraim had been in conflict at one time or another, they are not as such Ephraim’s enemies against whom Amos is declaring curses, though neither are they Ephraim’s friends. He begins with Damascus, Gaza, and Tyre to the northeast and west; comes to Edom, Ammon, and Moab to the southeast; then concludes with Judah. He thus begins with three peoples with whom Ephraim had virtually no family relationship, except that its ancestors originally came from Aram, of which Damascus is the capital. Then he comes to three further peoples that, like Israel, descended from Abraham. Finally he confronts brother Judah before turning his attention to Ephraim itself, his real concern. In other words, while Amos is talking about these different peoples, he is not talking to them. Prophecies about other nations are regularly addressed to Israel because they are significant for Israel in some way. Here they lull the Ephraimites into a false sense of security before kicking them in the teeth. The section is a substantial, carefully composed creation, combining pattern with variation, straightforwardness with adroitness, intelligibility with rhetoric, coolness with horror, factuality with forthrightness, the political with the personal, ethics with theology, and human skill with divine authority.
Tchavdar S. Hadjiev: Every oracle begins its description of judgment with the promise that the Lord will send [only in 1:14 kindle] a fire. Burning the captured city was common in ancient warfare so there is a realistic note in this, although fire here acts as a divine agent and assumes a supernatural quality (Andersen and Freedman 1989: 239). Strongholds (’armĕnôt) could be the battle-towers situated on the city walls, but more likely here the term refers to the royal citadel (1 Kgs 16:18; 2 Kgs 15:25).
Gary Smith: This series of highly repetitive oracles is grouped in pairs based on three elements.
- Family connection: Ammon and Moab came from the children of Lot ( 19:30–38), while Judah and Israel were the two Hebrew nations
- Repeated words: “I will destroy the king . . . and the one who holds the scepter” in Amos 1:5 and 8; offenses against one’s “brother” in 1:9 and 11; and “war cries” plus the death of the king and his officials in 1:14–15 and 2:2–3.
- The stylistic construction of each pair. These characteristics argue that these oracles fit together as a well-planned rhetorical argument aimed to change the Israelites’ view of their future political status.
I. (:3-5) AGAINST DAMASCUS (capital of Syria)
A. (:3) Reason – Decimated God’s People with Cruelty and Brutality (2 Kings 13:7)
“Thus says the LORD, ‘For three transgressions of Damascus and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they threshed Gilead with implements of sharp iron.’”
Billy Smith: The oracle against Damascus has all the elements of messenger speech. . . It begins with the messenger formula, “This is what the LORD says.” With it the prophet claimed authoritative status for himself and for his message. The switch from third person in the introduction to first person in the message is noteworthy. With the introductory third-person phrase, Amos pointed to the source and authority for his message. Then he cast the message in the first-person divine speech in order to confront his audience directly and to call for their response.
Warren Wiersbe: Damascus was the capital of Syria, one of the Jews’ persistent enemies. Amos denounced the Syrians for their inhuman treatment of the Israelites who lived in Gilead, east of the Jordan River. They cruelly “threshed them” as though they were nothing but stalks of grain. God had called the Syrians to punish Israel (2 Kings 10:32-33; 13:1-9), but the Syrians had carried it too far.
Trent Butler: The image comes from the grain harvest, where grain was spread on the floor and separated from the stalk by dragging an implement with iron teeth over it (Isa. 28:27). God condemned the Syrians for invading Gilead, taking prisoners of war including women and children, and treating them like grain on the threshing floor.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: This area was prized for its fertile land for farming and livestock. A crucial trade route ran from Damascus past the Red Sea along its western edge (the King’s Highway).49 By Amos’s day, Israel and Aram had disputed this territory continually for a century.
Allen Guenther: The Arameans’ sin lay not in subjugating the Israelites but in their excessive demands for revenue and in the inhumanity with which they extracted their taxes and subjugated the population. They were called to account for demanding “more than the market would bear” from their newly acquired subjects. Before God’s tribunal, the Arameans stood adjudged as guilty for the dual sins of greed and violence, sins which are comfortable bedfellows.
B. (:4-5) Judgment
“So I will send fire upon the house of Hazael,
And it will consume the citadels of Ben-hadad.
5’”I will also break the gate bar of Damascus,
And cut off the inhabitant from the valley of Aven,
And him who holds the scepter, from Beth-eden;
So the people of Aram will go exiled to Kir,’ Says the LORD.”
Warren Wiersbe: The phrase “I will send a fire” (Amos 1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5) means “I will send judgment”; for fire represents the holiness and judgment of God (Deut. 4:11, 24, 36; Heb. 12:29). Indeed, the Lord did judge Syria: The dynasty of King Hazael ended; his son Ben-Hadad was defeated; Damascus lost its power (business was done at the city gate, Amos 1:5); and “the house of Eden” (delight, paradise) became a ruin. King Josiah defeated Ben-Hadad three times (2 Kings 13:25), but it was the Assyrians who finally subdued Syria and took them into captivity.
Trent Butler: Gaining power through acts of terror courts divine judgment. . .
Both names have symbolic character, Aven meaning idolatry, nothingness, guilt and Beth Eden meaning house of paradise, making a play on the garden of Eden. The Valley of Aven probably refers to the valley in Lebanon (Josh. 11:17), while Beth Eden was a Syrian (or Aramean) city-state on the Euphrates River two hundred miles from Israel (2 Kgs. 19:12). Military judgment would end the Syrian dynasty and send the people into exile. The Syrians would go back where they came from—Kir (Amos 9:7).
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Yahweh will break the city’s bar. This was a horizontal shaft, made of wood or bronze (1 Kgs 4:13), which was placed behind the doors into the city to prevent their opening; it was secured on both ends in the gate posts. The term probably signifies the entire gate complex, which protected a city’s entrance but was also the weakest point of its fortifications. The breach of the gate by a battering ram or its destruction by fire signaled the collapse of a city’s defenses, leaving it exposed to onrushing enemy troops (Jer 51:30; Lam 2:9). . .
The oracle closes with Yahweh has spoken, forming an inclusio with the opening clause, Thus says Yahweh. The oracle consequently begins and ends with divine proclamation; it is a sure word of judgment (cf. 1:8, 15; 2:3).
Gary Cohen: In 2 Kings 16:9 the fulfillment of this prophecy is explicitly stated, and the Syrians were exiled to Kir. This occurred in 732 B.C., when Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria killed Rezin, the king of Syria. The location of Kir is still unknown. Thus did the Lord fulfill His will against wicked Damascus. He threshed them who threshed His people.
Allen Guenther: Ultimately, it is not essential to be able to identify the specific Assyrian invasion to which he is referring. It probably occurred around 750-725 B.C., within 25 years after the date of the prophecy. The certainty of the judgment and the source (the Lord) lie much closer to the heart of this text than does the date.
Robert Martin-Achard: They were to be the victims of total war for having shown no pity upon their vanquished foes. Yahweh is here acting as Judge on behalf of a population that is defenceless before the occupying power.
James Mays: Amos considered Kir to be the original home of the Arameans from whence Yahweh had brought them (9.7). Their punishment amounts to a reversal of their history. Yahweh, who brought them out of Kir, will send them back, after obliterating what they have achieved in the meantime. Once again it is apparent to what extent in Amos’ prophecy the sphere of international history is the theatre of Yahweh’s dominion, and how the patterns of events are an expression of Yahweh’s actions.
Yahweh himself makes history in a positive sense, and cancels the history which men make in acts of rebellion.
Lloyd Ogilvie: As we reflect on this first oracle, several points need underlining. Yahweh is Lord over all the nations, not just His chosen people. His anger is especially roused by human cruelty. Disregard for the value and dignity of human life will not go unpunished. And Yahweh will use the unfolding drama of the struggle of nations to accomplish His purposes.
II. (:6-8) AGAINST GAZA (capital of Philistia)
A. (:6) Reason – Deported and Enslaved Large Numbers of God’s People
“Thus says the LORD, ‘For three transgressions of Gaza and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they deported an entire population To deliver it up to Edom.’”
Warren Wiersbe: Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron were the five key Philistine cities (Josh. 13:5), and Amos denounced all of them for trading in human lives. They raided Jewish villages and captured people to be sold as slaves. To add insult to injury, the Philistines sold these slaves to Israel’s ancient enemy, the Edomites. Since Edom was descended from Esau, Jacob’s brother, it was a case of brother enslaving brother. (God had something to say to Edom in Amos 1:11-12.) Throughout the history of ancient Israel, slavery was practiced, but the Law of Moses clearly governed how the slaves were to be treated. The law that permitted slavery at the same time protected the slaves. However, it was one thing to put a prisoner of war to work and quite something else to kidnap innocent people and sell them like cattle.
James Mays: The omission [of the city of Gath] may be due to Gath’s frequent inclusion in the Judean territory (I Sam. 21.11–16; 27–30; II Sam. 15.18ff.; II Chron. 11.8–10; 26.6), or to Gath’s having come under the rule of Ashdod in this period, or perhaps to the current ruined condition of Gath resulting from the raid of Hazael (II Kings 12.18). Gath is not mentioned in the other prophetic oracles against the Philistines (Jer. 25.20; Zeph. 2.4; Zech. 9.6–7), and its absence here is hardly serious evidence against the authenticity of the saying.
Trent Butler: Human beings have innate value and must not be sold like commercial cargo. . .
The Philistines were part of the Sea Peoples, a group of related peoples who came from lands and islands of the northern Mediterranean and invaded the eastern and southern Mediterranean coastal lands. Among their stopping places were Crete (Jer. 47:4); Cyprus (Num. 24:24); and Ugarit. They attacked Egypt shortly before 1200 B.C. and invaded Palestine shortly after 1200 B.C. Even when Pharaoh Ramesses III of Egypt defeated them about 1190 B.C., he still had to let them settle the coast of Palestine (Deut. 2:23). They eventually centered in five cities—Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath. They were the first major threat to Israel after they settled in the promised land (1 Sam. 4:7).
The Philistines did not torment prisoners of war as Syria did. But they rejected their worth as humans and sold them on the open market to the highest bidder. They treated people as produce.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: This oracle denounces trafficking in slaves (cf. Joel 3:4–6 [MT 4:4–6]; Ezek 27:13). In the ancient world, slaves were used as domestics, in the construction of fortifications, temples, and government buildings, to build roads and dig irrigation systems, and to work on farms and in mines. A limited number were granted more respect due to administrative experience or skill; still others would be conscripted into the conquering army. There were several possible sources of slave labor—including people selling themselves or their family members into servitude to pay off crippling debts, a topic to which the book will later turn (2:6; cf. 8:6). Warfare and cross-border raids were the primary means of acquiring slaves.88 In light of the general thrust of the OAN to condemn cruelty in war, it is probably the case here that the Philistines acquired these captives in a violent way. . .
What could be in view here, then, is the taking of captives for economic gain and their cruel treatment as commodities to be put into the service of the highest bidder, irrespective of their personal fate and well-being. Life had become cheap. Israel and Judah would have been the closest targets for this capture of slaves.
Allen Guenther: The twofold Philistine crime consists first of selling an entire community into slavery, and therefore into cultural and ethnic oblivion. Such an act of genocide destroys people’s identity. In a world in which one lived on through descendants and culture, the enslavement of an entire people represented a living death. The children they fathered and mothered would belong to their masters. Their virgin daughters would become concubines or wives of the highest bidder, and their sons slave laborers whose children would belong to their masters. Torn from their land and loved ones, even their gods might cease to be worshiped. That was annihilation.
Robert Martin-Achard: Yahweh does not reproach the Philistines so much for their raids against their neighbours—in fact the Israelites are not singled out or named; their crime is the enslaving of their captives (cf. 1 Sam. 30:1 f) and organizing on a grand scale a veritable traffic in ‘displaced persons’, in order to hand them over to the Edomites who would then sell them again further south (v. 6c).
James Boice: The condemnation here is not against slavery in and of itself, just as the previous oracle was not against war in and of itself. The crime is not that soldiers were enslaved after being taken in battle, which was the standard practice, but that the Philistines used their temporary supremacy to enslave whole populations – soldiers and civilians, men and women, adults and children, young and old – for commercial profit. Gaza did not even need the slaves. She merely sold them to Edom for more money.
B. (:7-8) Judgment
“’So I will send fire upon the wall of Gaza, And it will consume her citadels.
8 I will also cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, And him who holds the scepter, from Ashkelon; I will even unleash My power upon Ekron,
And the remnant of the Philistines will perish,’ Says the Lord God.”
Warren Wiersbe: God’s judgment on Philistia came in the days of King Uzziah (2 Kings 18:7-8) and the Assyrian invaders under Sargon and the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. The slave masters were themselves taken into exile and slavery.
Gary Cohen: Keil claims that Gath was a fifth Philistine capital city, but the Philistines may have deserted the more inland Gath by this time.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Assyria would inflict incalculable damage in just a few decades after the end of the prophet’s ministry. Nevertheless, the Philistine cities did not cease to exist. The remnant of the Philistines, in other words, did not completely perish. This sweeping language does not mean literal annihilation. This hyperbole is found throughout the book—for example, with respect to Israel (2:14–16; 3:1–2, 12; 4:1–3, 6–11; 5:1–3, 15; 6:9, 14; 7:1–6; 8:1–3; 9:1–4)—in order to communicate the horrific consequences of war: widespread death and physical destruction. Warfare invites powerfully emotive descriptions of battles and their aftermath. For those who experience armed conflict, defeat does indeed signal the end of life—personal, socioeconomic, political, cultural, and religious—as they know it.
III. (:9-10) AGAINST TYRE (capital of Phoenicia)
A. (:9) Reason – Delivered up God’s People in Violation of a Peace Pact
“Thus says the LORD, ‘For three transgressions of Tyre and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they delivered up an entire population to Edom
And did not remember the covenant of brotherhood.’”
Warren Wiersbe: Amos has moved from Damascus in the northeast to the Philistine cities in the southwest, and now he sets his sights straight north on Phoenicia and its major city, Tyre. During the reigns of David and Solomon, Israel had a warm relationship with the people of Tyre (1 Kings 5:1ff). Amos called it “the brotherly covenant” (“treaty of brotherhood,” NIV), suggesting that the “covenant” was more than a treaty but involved a friendly partnership that went deeper than politics.
Tyre, however, committed the same sins as the Philistine cities by selling Jewish captives to the Edomites as slaves (Amos 1:6-8). But Tyre’s sin was worse than that of Philistia because Tyre was violating a long-standing compact that was based on friendship and a mutual respect for humanity. Tyre was selling its friends as slaves!
Trent Butler: God expects individuals and nations to be true to their word and not to break their promises. . .
Tyre was a proud Phoenician city on an island off the coast of the Mediterranean Sea about twenty-five miles south of Sidon, the other major Phoenician city. David and Solomon had depended on alliances with Tyre to get building materials, builders, and access to the sea. Tyre and Sidon controlled a virtual monopoly of commercial activities in the eastern Mediterranean. Ahab’s queen Jezebel from Tyre gave Baal worship a strong foothold in Israel about 870 B.C. (Josh. 19:29).
Tyre duplicated the Philistines’ terroristic atrocities and went them one better. Tyre broke an international alliance treaty. Their prisoners of war were supposed to be their allies. Such betrayal deserves punishment.
Gary Cohen: The sin of Tyre’s trafficking in Hebrew slaves was all the more heinous in light of the years of brotherly relations and nonaggression between the two nations. It was Hiram, the king of Tyre, who had participated so cordially and actively in the construction of both David’s royal house and the Temple of Solomon (2 Sam. 5:11; 1 Kings 5:1, 7-18).
Allen Guenther: The worst has yet to be told. Those whom they put up for sale were their neighbors and friends. At some point they had bound themselves together in a treaty of friendship. Whether or not the captives are Israelites makes no difference for Amos. The sin which caps their list is failure to keep faith. “Treaties are made to be broken,” they apparently are saying. One moment the Tyrians are your friends, the next they trade you in the marketplace. Business is business, they glibly say while disregarding a treaty of brotherhood. Nothing-not past relationships, earlier agreements, or even personal friendships —can be allowed to interfere with a good deal.
Such callousness, lack of integrity, and denial of friendship fall under international censure and divine wrath. Fire will sweep along those massive walls and through the gorgeous mansions till nothing of worth remains (1:10). The possessions the people of Tyre have grasped and hugged will turn into smoke, dust, and ashes in the day of God’s judgment through an unnamed agent.
Tchavdar S. Hadjiev: Betrayal of a brother and failure to live up to covenant obligations is a reprehensible thing. The mention of brotherhood anticipates the next oracle and the grand betrayal of Edom.
Billy Smith: Broken treaties have marred the pages of history from ancient to modern times. God has a low tolerance level for those who break treaties, who take away human freedom and dignity, and whose motive is material profit. Such people should brace themselves for the destructive judgment of God.
B. (:10) Judgment
“So I will send fire upon the wall of Tyre, And it will consume her citadels.”
Warren Wiersbe: Judgment came in 332 B.C. when Alexander the Great wiped Tyre off the face of the earth and left it a place for drying nets (26:5, 14).
Gary Cohen: Therefore judgment in verse 10, without any additional punishment as in the case of the other offending nations, fit Tyre’s crime perfectly. Her “walls” and “citadels” (strong towers) would be consumed by the Lord, because she had cruelly turned against her brother nations Israel and Judah, whose walls and citadels she had helped to build years before. Why did she turn against her brother? The answer was, for the money that the trade in Jewish slaves brought from the west. God saw what Tyre had done, and He determined that the glorious outward symbols of Tyre’s wealth, her city’s walls and towers, would be torn down.
IV. (:11-12) AGAINST EDOM
A. (:11) Reason – Denied Forgiveness and Compassion in Relentlessly Pursuing Hatred and Violence
“Thus says the LORD, ‘For three transgressions of Edom and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because he pursued his brother with the sword, While he stifled his compassion; His anger also tore continually, And he maintained his fury forever.’”
Warren Wiersbe: The Edomites nursed a long-standing grudge against the Jews, perpetuating the ancient rivalry between Jacob and Esau, which began before the twin boys were born (Gen. 25:21-26). The Edomites wouldn’t allow their Jewish cousins to pass through their land during Israel’s march to Canaan (Num. 20:14-21). King Saul suppressed the Edomite army (1 Sam. 14:47), and David conquered them (2 Sam. 8:14), but in the days of King Jehoram, Edom revolted against Judah and won their freedom (2 Kings 8:16-22).
Amos condemned the Edomites for their persistent hatred of the Jews, which the prophet described as “raging anger and flaming fury” (Amos 1:11; see also NIV). We don’t know when the Edomites aided the enemy by pursuing the Jews with the sword. It could have been during anyone of the numerous times when enemies invaded the land. When the Babylonians attacked and captured Jerusalem, the Edomites assisted the enemy and gave vent to their anger (Obad. 10-14; see Ps. 137:7). You would think that brother would help brother in a time of need, but the Edomites “cast off all pity” (Amos 1:11) and acted like beasts instead of humans. The phrase “his anger did tear” (v. 11) uses a verb that describes ferocious beasts tearing their prey (Ps. 7:2; Gen. 37:32).
Trent Butler: Nations and individuals are expected to support and protect family, so when love fails inside the family, punishment is on the way. . .
Stifling all compassion reads literally “he destroyed his motherly love” or “his mercy.” Those feelings of closeness and commitment that should characterize all family relationships had gone sour. Edom had destroyed them and taken the sword after his brother. What destroys family relationships? Edom proves example number one—anger that a person refuses to give up. In parallel statements the Hebrew text describes Edom’s wrath as “his anger tears forever; his rage endures for the duration.”
M. Daniel Carroll R.: “Pursue” (rdp) can refer to chasing a defeated foe after a battle (Gen 14:15; Josh 10:10; 1 Kgs 20:20), and if that is the case here, then the reference is to defeat inflicted on Israel or Judah. The second verb, “destroy” (šḥt, piel), can refer to the annihilation of a people (e.g., 2 Sam 11:1; 2 Kgs 19:12 [par. Isa 37:12]; Jer 51:25) or more generally to God’s comprehensive judgment (e.g., Gen 6:17; 9:15; 2 Sam 24:16; Jer 48:18; Lam 2:5–6; Ezek 20:17).
David Guzik: Edom held on to anger and wrath when they should have long before put it away. For this, the judgment of God would come against them. We need to learn to give our anger and wrath to God and let Him be our avenger.
B. (:12) Judgment
“So I will send fire upon Teman, And it will consume the citadels of Bozrah.”
Warren Wiersbe: Ternan and Bozrah were strong cities that today don’t exist The Edomites lived “in the clefts of the rock” and had their “nest among the stars” (Obad. 3-4), boasting that their fortresses were impregnable; but the Lord destroyed their nation so thoroughly that nothing is left today except ruins. When the Romans attacked Jerusalem in A.D. 70, they destroyed what was left of the Edomite (Idumean) people, and Edom was no more.
Trent Butler: Edom’s major cities faced God’s destruction. Bozrah was Edom’s ancient capital located near the modern village of Buseirah in northern Edom (1 Chr. 1:44). Teman means “south” in Hebrew. This apparently was the name of a city or region in southern Edom (Jer. 49:7,20). High in Edom’s mountains, these cities appeared invincible. But both Tyre and Edom would discover that no fortress could protect when God decided to punish.
Gary Cohen: What a lesson we see here against prolonged hatred and an unmerciful spirit (cf. Matt. 6:14-15).
V. (:13-15) AGAINST AMMON
A. (:13) Reason – Devastated God’s People in Covetous Kingdom Expansion
“Thus says the LORD, ‘For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead
In order to enlarge their borders.’”
Alec Motyer: We come now to the third area of human relationships from which Amos proposes to deduce principles of conduct: those relationships in which helplessness in the one party ought to elicit tenderness and compassion in the other. His chosen instances are the expectant mother and the unborn child (1:13-15) and the dead body (2:1-3). . . Nothing moves God to punish so much as wanton cruelty to the helpless, for is He not rightly called the Father of the fatherless and the Defender of the widow’s cause (Ps. 68:5)?
Warren Wiersbe: The Ammonites and Moabites (2:1-3) were the descendants of Lot through his incestuous union with his daughters (Gen. 19:30-38). They were a ruthless people who were the avowed enemies of the Jews (Deut 23:3-6; 1 Sam. 11:2; Neh. 2:10-19; Jer. 40:14; 41:5-7). In order to enlarge their land, they invaded Gilead; and not satisfied with attacking the men defending their homeland, the Ammonites killed women and unborn children (see 2 Kings 8:12; 15:16). To the Ammonites, land was more important than people, including defenseless women and innocent children. Such brutality shocks us, but is “modern warfare” any kinder?
Trent Butler: Greed and hunger for power do not justify brutality in dealing with enemy captives.
The origin of Ammon was connected to Lot, Abraham’s nephew (Gen. 19:36–38), so here, too, family relationships are involved. During the wilderness journeys, Israel faced opposition from the Ammonites (Num. 21:21–25). These two nations separated by the Jordan River continually clashed throughout their history (1 Sam. 11:1–11; 2 Kgs. 14:25).
One sure way to weaken an enemy’s armed forces is to ensure that no babies are born in the nation. To do this, armies ripped open the pregnant women when they captured a city. This was apparently a common warfare strategy, used especially against those being taken into exile (2 Kgs. 8:12). Ammon used this tactic in dealing with Israel, their close neighbor, as they sought to regain the land of Gilead taken from them by the Israelites under Moses.
Gary Cohen: Four lessons can be learned from God’s dealing with Ammon:
(1) even the wicked justify their aggressive acts and wars;
(2) the mere declaration of war does not justify atrocities against civilians;
(3) God sees the atrocities that occur, even in the chaos of the battlefield; and
(4) that person or nation who advances himself wickedly, at the expense of others, ultimately will be demoted by the Lord God.
Jorg Jeremias: Ammon and Moab –
Several shared literary features emerge in the announcements of punishment for these two peoples:
(1) an indication of the circumstances amid which fire is kindled against the palaces; the asyndetic enumeration of the same preposition (four or three times b, “with, amid” in 1:14b; 2:2b) emphasizes the suddenness of the events;
(2) conscious repetition of words in connection with the loud outcry that, accompanied by the blast of trumpets, opens every battle as a signal of attack (1:14b; 2:2b); and
(3) the emphatic inclusion of officials in the fate of the rulers as those bearing the primary responsibility, whether this fate implies exile as in the case of the Arameans (1:15) or death as in the case of the Philistines (2:3); only in the case of Moab is it explicitly stated that the population will perish.
B. (:14-15) Judgment
“’So I will kindle a fire on the wall of Rabbah, And it will consume her citadels Amid war cries on the day of battle And a storm on the day of tempest.
Their king will go into exile, He and his princes together,’ says the LORD.”
Warren Wiersbe: Amos announced that a storm of judgment would come to the people of Ammon and that their capital city (Rabbah) would be destroyed. This took place when the Assyrians swept over the land in 734 B.C. Not only did Amos predict the destruction of their land, but so did Ezekiel (25:1-7). The chief god of Edom was Molech (Malcham, Milcom), which means “reigning one, king.” Amos 1:15 could be translated, “Molech will go into exile,” thus showing the inability of their god to save them.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The cruelty in their attack will be matched by a furious battle against Ammon’s fortresses at Yahweh’s hand. Even as Ammon had victimized the defenseless, its fortresses will be useless against the divine foe.
Robert Martin-Achard: The manner in which Amos expresses himself here renders transparent the indignation of the God of Israel (v. 14b). Upon Ammon he will hurl himself like a tempest (Jer. 23:19; Ezek. 13:13), and his war-cry (Jer. 4:19; Amos 2:2) will be heard on the day of battle. Yahweh is thus dealing with what we might call a holy war on the wretch who has dared to lay hands on the very sources of life.
James Mays: The exile of Ammon’s king and his officers is announced. As in the oracles against Damascus and Gaza, the displacement of royal power and the destruction of military defences are chief features of the judgment. And once again the motif of exile appears. The judgment of Yahweh will be a quite specific reality within the sphere of political and military reality. Its result will be a complete vacuum of power, an absence of the customary rule and might by which the usual events of history were determined.
Thomas McComiskey: Ammon’s dominion came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city of Rabbah and took large numbers of its citizens captive. This opened the way for Arabian invaders to occupy their territory. The Ammonites passed from history for good.
VI. (2:1-3) AGAINST MOAB
A. (:1) Reason – Desecrated the Dead in Act of Disrespect and Degradation
“Thus says the LORD, ‘For three transgressions of Moab and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime.’”
Thomas Constable: Yahweh promised not to revoke His punishment of Moab, another nation descended from Lot (cf. Gen. 19:30-38), because of its brutal treatment of an Edomite king’s corpse (cf. 2 Kings 3:26-27). Burning the bones of a dead person dishonored that individual since there was then nothing substantial left of him. Burning the king’s bones indicated a desire to completely destroy the peace and even the soul of Edom’s king, in this case King Mesha, for eternity. This was a despicable crime in the ancient Near East where a peaceful burial was the hope of every person. This treatment of a dead corpse reflected a lack of respect for human life, life made in the image of God.
Warren Wiersbe: Animosity between Moab and Israel began very early when the Moabites refused to give the Jews passage on the major highway (Deut. 23:3-4; Judges 11:17). The king of Moab also hired Balaam to curse Israel (Num. 22–24), and then the Moabite women seduced the Jewish men to commit fornication and idolatry (Num. 25). During the period of the judges, Israel was subject to the Moabites for eighteen years (Judges 3:12-30).
What was the sin of Moab? Disrespect for the dead and for royalty. We don’t know which king’s remains were subjected to this humiliation, but the deed disgraced the memory of the king and humiliated the people of Edom.
Amos announced that the king of Moab and his officials were all guilty and would be destroyed, along with their cities. Moab was taken by the Assyrians, and the land eventually became the home of numerous nomadic tribes. The nation of Moab was no more. (For other prophecies of Moab’s doom, see Isa. 15–16; Jer. 48; Ezek. 25:8-11; Zeph. 2:8-11.)
Trent Butler: Even archenemies do not deserve irreverent treatment and desecration.
Like Ammon, Moab’s beginnings are traced to Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen. 19:37). Situated between Ammon and Edom and between the Dead Sea and the Arabian Desert, Moab had little hope for expansion. They gained Israel’s enmity by refusing to allow the wilderness wanderers to pass through their territory (Num. 22:1–24:25). Worse still, Moabites lured Israelites into false worship (Num. 25:1–5). On the other hand, God protected Moab, refusing to let Israel conquer Moabite territory (Deut. 2:9).
Amos accused Moab of capturing Edom’s king and burning his remains, even his bones, apparently to prevent any hope of bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15:35–54). Here was a family feud taken to the extreme—seeking to prevent military success and to rob others of rewards beyond the grave.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The meaning of the preposition lamed attached to the term lime requires clarification. Should it be translated as to lime or as “for the purpose of lime”? If the former, the emphasis is on how thoroughly the bones had been burned, perhaps to disrupt profoundly the fate of the soul of the dead king. If the phrase is taken as “for the purpose of lime,” then the idea is that the king’s bones were burned to obtain lime in order to plaster something, like a wall or building (cf. Deut 27:2, 4). Either possibility displays callousness and blatant disrespect.
John Goldingay: Moab is the last of Ephraim’s eastern neighbors; its territory lies between Ammon and Edom. Its offense is distinctive. Yahweh presupposes that respect for the human body does not stop when someone dies. The body is an essential part of the person. People should be allowed to rest in She’ol, not have their tomb desecrated (cf. Jer. 8:1–2). The Moabites have treated the Edomite king’s body as something that has no value—or rather, that has value to provide plaster and whitewash.
B. (:2-3) Judgment
“‘So I will send fire upon Moab, And it will consume the citadels of Kerioth; And Moab will die amid tumult, With war cries and the sound of a trumpet.
3 I will also cut off the judge from her midst,
And slay all her princes with him,’ says the LORD.”
J. Vernon McGee: “Moab shall die with tumult”—that is, they will go out with a real bang, and the nation will be ended. This proud nation was brought to extinction later on at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and you haven’t seen a Moabite since then.
But isn’t it interesting that, many years before, out of this heathen country had come that gentle, lovely, and beautiful girl by the name of Ruth who became the wife of Boaz? Her story is recorded in one of the loveliest books in the Bible. Ruth is in the genealogical line which leads to Jesus Christ. And she had come from Moab, of all places. They were really a heathen, pagan people with a sad and sorry beginning and just as sad and tragic an end as a nation. But Ruth’s story reveals what the grace of God can do in the life of a believer if the believer will let Him do it.