{"id":22378,"date":"2022-09-24T09:29:16","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T14:29:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-amos-13\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T09:29:16","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T14:29:16","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-amos-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-amos-13\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Amos 1:3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron: <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

3<\/strong>. For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four<\/em> ] Similarly Amo 1:6<\/em><\/span> ; Amo 1:9<\/em><\/span><\/em> ; Amo 1:11<\/em><\/span><\/em> ; Amo 1:13<\/em><\/span><\/em>, Amo 2:1<\/span>; Amo 2:4<\/span>; Amo 2:6<\/span>. The numbers are of course to be understood not literally, but typically, a concrete number being chosen for the sake of assisting the imagination: three would be a sufficient number, but they are augmented by a fourth, conceived implicitly as an aggravation of the three; the measure of guilt, in other words, is not merely full, it is more than full. “The three transgressions stand for a whole sum of sin, which had not yet brought down extreme punishment; the fourth was the crowning sin, after which God would no longer spare” (Pusey). For similar examples of “ascending enumeration,” in which the second number expresses usually something (as the case may be) more complete, or sufficient, or severe, than the first, see Psa 62:11<\/span>, Job 33:14<\/span>; Job 40:5<\/span> (once, twice); Job 33:29<\/span> (twice, thrice); Hos 6:2<\/span>, Sir 23:16 ; Sir 26:28 ; Sir 50:25 (two and three); Pro 30:15<\/span>; Pro 30:18<\/span>; Pro 30:21<\/span>; Pro 30:29<\/span>, Sir 26:5 (three and four); Pro 6:16<\/span>, Job 5:19<\/span> (six and seven); Mic 5:5<\/span>, Ecc 11:2<\/span> (seven and eight); Sir 25:7 (nine and ten).<\/p>\n

transgressions<\/em> ] in the English word, the metaphor is that of overstepping<\/em> a line or law; in the Hebrew, as the use of the corresponding verb, in 1Ki 12:19<\/span>, 2Ki 1:1<\/span> al.<\/em> clearly shews, it is that of rebellion<\/em> against authority. So always in this word. ‘Transgress’ represents etymologically ‘bhar,<\/em> to go beyond, overstep<\/em>, in Deu 17:2<\/span>; Jos 7:11<\/span>; Num 22:18<\/span>; Pro 8:29<\/span>, and occasionally besides; but a subst. “transgression” ( ‘abhrh<\/em>) is found first in post-Biblical Hebrew.<\/p>\n

I will not turn away<\/em> the punishment thereof<\/em> ] lit. I will not<\/em> turn it back<\/strong>, the object denoted by the pronoun being, as is sometimes the case in Hebrew poetry, understood from the context: comp. Num 23:20<\/span>, Isa 43:13<\/span> (both with the same word), Isa 48:16<\/span>. Here, the object to be supplied is the destined punishment, or doom.<\/p>\n

because<\/em> &c.] introducing a typical example of the “transgressions” of Damascus, sufficient to justify the penalty threatened.<\/p>\n

threshed<\/em> ] trodden.<\/strong> Our modes of ‘threshing’ are so different from that alluded to here that the use of the same term conveys a very inaccurate idea of what is intended. The primitive method of threshing still, indeed, in use in the East was to tread out<\/em> the corn by the feet of animals (Deu 25:4<\/span>; Jer 50:11<\/span>; Mic 4:13<\/span> “Arise, and thresh<\/em> ( tread<\/em>), O daughter of Zion; for I will make thy horn iron, and thy hoofs<\/em> I will make bronze”); and the same verb was still used, even when instruments, such as those described in the next note but one, came to be employed.<\/p>\n

Gilead<\/em> ] the rough and rugged, but picturesque, hill-country, extending from the deep glen of the Jarmuk on the North, to the valley of Heshbon or perhaps even to the Arnon on the South. Lying, as it did, on the debateable border-line between Syria and Israel (cf. Gen 31:44-53<\/span>), it was naturally the first to suffer in the Syrian incursions.<\/p>\n

with<\/em> sharp threshing-boards<\/strong> of iron<\/em> (or of basalt<\/em>)] boards some 7 ft. long by 3 ft. broad, armed underneath with jagged stones, and sometimes with knives as well, which, being weighted and drawn over the corn by oxen, chop up the ears, and separate the grain from the chaff. Iron<\/em> may be meant literally; or (as in Deu 3:11<\/span>) it may denote the hard black basalt which abounds in the volcanic region East of Jordan: this is even at the present day called ‘iron’ by the natives, and is also used for the teeth of threshing-boards. See further the Additional Note, p. 227. The reference is, no doubt, to cruelties perpetrated by Hazael, when he invaded Gilead during the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz, c<\/em>. 842 802 b.c.: comp. 2Ki 8:12<\/span> (Elisha’s prediction to Hazael of the cruelties which he would perpetrate against Israel); 2Ki 10:32<\/span> f. (which states how, in the days of Jehu, Hazael smote “all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer that is by the Wady of Arnon, and Gilead and Bashan”); and 2Ki 13:7<\/span> (where he is said to have left Jehoahaz only “fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Syria had destroyed them, and made them like dust in respect of threshing<\/em> ( treading<\/em>).” The Syrians (if the present passage is to be understood literally) had during these wars dragged instruments of torture, such as are here alluded to, over their Israelitish prisoners. But even if the expression be meant figuratively, cruel and inhuman conduct will still be denoted by it.<\/p>\n

Additional Note<\/strong> on Chap. Amo 1:3<\/span> ( the threshing-board<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Two principal forms of threshing-instrument are in use at present in the East. (1) A threshing- board<\/em> (or – drag<\/em>), usually about 7 ft. long by 3 ft. broad, consisting of two oblong planks, in Damascus generally of walnut-wood, fastened together by two wooden cross-pieces, slightly curved upwards in front (in the direction in which the instrument would be drawn), and set underneath crosswise with sharp pieces of hard<\/p>\n

A Modern Syrian Threshing-board (from Nowack’s Hebrische Archologie<\/em>, 1894, i. p. 233).<\/p>\n

stone or basalt (such as is common in the volcanic region E. of Jordan): the driver stands upon it; and being drawn round the threshing-floor [205] by a yoke of oxen it not only shells out the grain, but grinds the straw itself into chaff [206] . This is in use in Syria and Palestine: in Syria it is called el-la<\/em>, “the plank,” or el-la el-muajjar<\/em>, “the stoned plank”; in Jerusalem it is called nauraj<\/em> [207] , a name nearly the same as that borne by the Hebrew implement ( mrg<\/em>) in Isa 41:15<\/span>, 2Sa 24:22<\/span> [208] . (2) A threshing- wagon<\/em>, consisting of a low-built oblong wagon-frame, moving upon three parallel rollers, each armed with three or four circular iron blades with toothed edges; a seat upon the frame is arranged for the driver, and the instrument is drawn similarly by oxen. Jerome describes an instrument like this in his Comm<\/em>. on Is. 25:20, “Sunt autem carpenta ferrata, rotis per medium in serrarum modum se volventibus<\/em>, quae stipula conterunt, et comminuunt in paleas”; similarly on Isa 28:27<\/span>, and on the present passage (“genus plaustri, quod rotis subter ferreis atque dentatis volvitur”). This is not used in Palestine, and is rare in Syria (except in the north); but it is the usual instrument in Egypt, where it is called by the same name that the threshing-board bears in Palestine, nauraj<\/em> [209] . Both instruments are alluded to in the O.T.: the drag<\/em> (or board<\/em>), under the same name rtz<\/em> (properly something sharpened<\/em>) which it has in Amo 1:3<\/span>, in Isa 28:27<\/span>, “For not with a sharp threshing-board is Nigella-seed [Tristram, N. H. B.<\/em> p. 444] trodden out; nor is the wheel of a (threshing-) wagon turned about upon cummin,” Job 41:30<\/span> (Heb. 22), “he (the crocodile) spreadeth a rtz<\/em> upon the mire” (i.e. he leaves by his sharp scales an impression upon it, as though a sharp threshing-board had been there), 2Sa 12:31<\/span> ( rtz<\/em> [210] ); and under the name mrg<\/em> in 2Sa 24:22<\/span>, Isa 41:15<\/span> (where rtz<\/em> qualifies it as an adj.), “Behold, I make thee (Israel) as a sharp new threshing-drag<\/em> ( ), possessing edges [211] ; thou shalt thresh (tread) mountains and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff [212] ”; the wagon<\/em> in Isa 28:27<\/span> (just quoted), 28 (where read “the roller of his (threshing-) wagon” for the obscure “wheel of his cart” of the English Versions), Pro 20:26<\/span>.<\/p>\n

[205] This consists of a circular piece of ground, in which the earth has been firmly trodden down ( , Jer 51:33<\/span>) by the feet; in the centre the ears and stalks of corn are piled up in a large heap ( keds<\/em>, the Heb. , Exo 22:5<\/span> (6); Jdg 15:5<\/span>; Job 5:26<\/span>); at threshing-time the ears and stalks are pulled down from this heap, to form a ara<\/em>, or layer (the stratum<\/em> of the Romans), round it, some 7 feet broad by 2 feet deep; over this the threshing-drag is drawn, and the mingled mass of corn chaff and straw which remains when the process is completed is thrown into a new heap to be ready for winnowing. See the illustration in Thomson, The Land and the Book<\/em>, 1881 (South Pal.), p. 150 f.; Smith, D.B.<\/em> 2 I. 66.<\/p>\n

[206] This was the Greek (2Sa 12:31<\/span>, LXX.), the Lat. tribulum<\/em>, or “rubber”; Vergil’s trahea<\/em>, or “drag,” must have been a similar instrument: cf. G.<\/em> 1.164 (“tribulaque traheaeque”).<\/p>\n

[207] Among the common people mauraj<\/em> (corresponding to the old Hebrew form) is also heard ( P.E.F.Q.St<\/em>. 1894, p. 114).<\/p>\n

[208] The threshing-drag is still called by the same name ( mrg<\/em>) in the alamn mountains about Ma‘ll: but Wetzstein never heard this word in Syria, nor is noreg<\/em> (or nauraj<\/em>) in use there.<\/p>\n

[209] Lane, Mod. Egyptians<\/em> 5 , 11, 28; Arab. Lex<\/em>. p. 2783. See more fully Wetzstein’s very instructive essay on “Die Syrische Dreschtafel”, in Bastian’s Zeitschrift fr Ethnologie<\/em>, 1873, p. 271 ff.; and Anderlind, “Ackerbau und Thierzucht in Syrien,” in the Ztsch. des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins<\/em>, IX. (1886), pp. 41, 44.<\/p>\n

[210] R.V. harrows<\/em>. It is, however, uncertain whether the text here really imputes to David the cruelty implied by the English Versions: see R.V. marg.<\/em>, and the present writer’s Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, ad loc<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[211] Lit. mouths<\/em> (as of a sword, Psa 149:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

[212] LXX. represent mrg<\/em> by (in Isa 41:15<\/span>; ), thinking of the wheels of the threshing-wagon. The Syr. (from grar<\/em>, to drag along<\/em>) denotes both instruments: see the descriptions of the Syriac lexicographers quoted by Payne Smith, Thes. Syr<\/em>. col. 767: it is mentioned as an instrument of torture by Bar Hebraeus, Chron<\/em>. p. 142.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Amo 1:3<\/strong><\/span> to Amo 2:5<\/strong><\/span><\/strong>. The sins of Israel’s neighbours<\/p>\n

3 5<\/strong>. Damascus.<\/strong> The first denunciation lights upon the Syrian kingdom of Damascus, the best-organized and most formidable of Israel’s neighbours, with whom, shortly before, during the 80 years of the ‘Syrian wars’ ( c<\/em>. 880 800 b.c.), the dynasties of Omri and Jehu had had many a severe struggle. The specific sin with which the Syrians are taxed is the cruelty practised by them in their wars with the trans-Jordanic Israelites. Damascus is situated in the midst of a broad and fertile plain, which stretches from the foot of Hermon far off towards Palmyra: it lies picturesquely embosomed in the deep green of encircling orchards and cornfields, fertilized by the cool waters of the Barada (the Pharpar of 2Ki 5:12<\/span>), which descend in a copious volume from Hermon, and flow straight along the North of the city, till they lose themselves in an inland lake about 15 miles to the West. It owed its importance to the natural advantages of its site. Its soil was fertilized by the Barada; the surrounding orchards formed a defence difficult for an invader to penetrate: it lay on the best route from the interior of Asia to Palestine and the Mediterranean Sea. The Syrians of Damascus are first mentioned as an important military power in the time of David (2Sa 8:5-6<\/span>), who made them tributary, and planted Israelite officers in their territory.<\/p>\n

Under Solomon, Rzn, who had been a subject of Hadadezer, king of Zobah, established himself in Damascus, and used his position for the purpose of harassing Israel (1Ki 11:23-25<\/span>). Ben-hadad I., king of Damascus, was in alliance first with Baasha, king of Israel, then with Asa, king of Judah (1Ki 15:18-20<\/span>): his successes against Israel, under Omri (b.c. 887 877), are alluded to in 1Ki 20:34<\/span>. The more varied fortunes of his son Ben-hadad II., in his conflicts with Ahab (876 854), and Jehoram (853 842) are recounted in 1 Kings 20, 22<\/span>; 2Ki 5:1-2<\/span>; 2Ki 6:8<\/span> to 2Ki 7:20<\/span>. Benhadad II. was assassinated by his general Hazael, who after he had established himself upon the throne, gained numerous victories over Israel, during the reigns of Jehu (842 815), and Jehoahaz (815 802), ravaged the whole Israelite territory East of Jordan, besieged and took Gath, and was only induced to abstain from attacking Jerusalem by the payment of a heavy ransom (2Ki 8:7-15<\/span>; 2Ki 8:28-29<\/span>; 2Ki 10:32-33<\/span>; 2Ki 12:17-18<\/span>; 2Ki 13:3<\/span>; 2Ki 13:22<\/span>; 2Ki 13:25<\/span>). At this time, Israel was reduced to the lowest extremities (2Ki 13:4<\/span>; 2Ki 13:7<\/span>; cf. 2Ki 14:26-27<\/span>), and continued in the same condition to the end of Hazael’s reign, as well as through the early years of his son and successor Ben-hadad III. (2Ki 13:3<\/span>). In the course of Ben-hadad III.’s reign, Jehoash (802 790) recovered from Syria the cities which his father had lost (2Ki 13:14-19<\/span>; 2Ki 13:25<\/span>; cf. 2Ki 13:5<\/span>; cf. 2Ki 13:23<\/span>); and Jeroboam II. (790 749) not only restored the border of Israel to its old limits (2Ki 14:25<\/span>), but even, as it seems ( 2Ki 14:28<\/em><\/span>), re-established the authority of Israel over Damascus itself. (On the dates here, see above, p. 8.)<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The order of Gods threatenings seems to have been addressed to gain the hearing of the people. The punishment is first denounced upon their enemies, and that, for their sins, directly or indirectly, against themselves, and God in them. Then, as to those enemies themselves, the order is not of place or time, but of their relation to Gods people. It begins with their most oppressive enemy, Syria; then Philistia, the old and ceaseless, although less powerful, enemy; then Tyre, not an oppressor, as these, yet violating a relation which they had not, the bonds of a former friendship and covenant; malicious also and hardhearted through covetousness. Then follow Edom, Ammon, Moab, who burst the bonds of blood also. Lastly and nearest of all, it falls on Judah, who had the true worship of the true God among them, but despised it. Every infliction on those like ourselves finds an echo in our own consciences. Israel heard and readily believed Gods judgments upon others. It was not tempted to set itself against believing them. How then could it refuse to believe of itself, what it believed of others like itself? Change but the name, the tale is told of thee , was a pagan saying which has almost passed into a proverb. The course of the prophecy convicted them, as the things written in Holy Scripture for our ensamples convict Christians. If they who sinned without law, perished without law Rom 2:12<\/span>, how much more should they who have sinned in the law, be judged by the law. Gods judgments rolled round like a thunder-cloud, passing from land to land, giving warning of their approach, at last to gather and center on Israel itself, except it repent. In the visitations of others, it was to read its own; and that, the more, the nearer God was to them. Israel is placed the last, because on it the destruction was to fall to the uttermost, and rest there.<\/P>

For three transgressions and for four – <\/B>These words express, not four transgressions added to the three, but an additional transgression beyond the former, the last sin, whereby the measure of sin, which before was full, overflows, and Gods wrath comes. So in other places, where the like form of words occurs, the added number is one beyond, and mostly relates to something greater than all the rest. So, He shall deliver thee in six troubles; yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee Job 5:19<\/span>. The word, yea, denotes, that the seventh is some heavier trouble, beyond all the rest, which would seem likely to break endurance. Again, give a portion to seven, and also to eight Ecc 11:2<\/span>. Seven is used as a symbol of a whole, since on the seventh day God rested from all which He had made, and therefore the number seven entered so largely into the whole Jewish ritual. All time was measured by seven.<\/P>

The rule then is; give without bounds; when that whole is fulfilled, still give. Again in that series of sayings in the book of Proverbs Prov. 30<\/span>, the fourth is, in each, something greater than the three preceding. There are three things that are never satisfied; yea, four things say not, it is enough Pro 30:15-16<\/span>. The other things cannot be satisfied; the fourth, fire, grows fiercer by being fed. Again, There be three things which go well; yea, four are comely in going Pro 30:29-31<\/span>. The moral majesty of a king is obviously greater than the rest. So the handmaid which displaceth her mistress Pro 30:21-23<\/span> is more intolerable and overbearing than the others. The art and concealment of man in approaching a maiden is of a subtler kind than things in nature which leave no trace of themselves, the eagle in the air, the serpent on the rock, the ship in its pathway through the waves Pro 30:18-19<\/span>. Again, Sowing discord among brethren Pro 6:16-19<\/span>, has a special hatefulness, as not only being sin, but causing widewasting sin, and destroying in others the chief grace, love. Soul-murder is worse than physical murder, and requires more devilish art.<\/P>

These things – <\/B>Job says, worketh God twice and thrice with man, to bring back his soul from the pit Job 33:29<\/span>. The last grace of God, whether sealing up the former graces of those who use them, or vouchsafed to those who have wasted them, is the crowning act of His love or forbearance.<\/P>

In pagan poetry also, as a trace of a mystery which they had forgotten, three is a sacred whole; from where thrice and fourfold blessed stands among them for something exceeding even a full and perfect blessing, a super-abundance of blessings.<\/P>

The fourth transgression of these pagan nations is alone mentioned. For the prophet had no mission to them; he only declares to Israel the ground of the visitation which was to come upon them. The three transgressions stand for a whole sum of sin, which had not yet brought down extreme punishment; the fourth was the crowning sin, after which God would no longer spare. But although the fourth drew down His judgment, God, at the last, punishes not the last sin only, but all which went before. In that the prophet says, not, for the fourth, but for three transgressions and for four, he expresses at once, that God did not punish until the last sin, by which the iniquity of the sinful nation became full Gen 15:16<\/span>, and that, then, He punished for all, for the whole mass of sin described by the three, and for the fourth also. God is longsuffering and ready to forgive; but when the sinner finally becomes a vessel of wrath Rom 9:22<\/span>, He punishes all the earlier sins, which, for the time, He passed by.<\/P>

Sin adds to sin, out of which it grows; it does not overshadow the former sins, it does not obliterate them, but increases the mass of guilt, which God punishes. When the Jews killed the Son, there, came on them all the righteous bloodshed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias Mat 23:35-36<\/span>; Luk 11:50-51<\/span>. All the blood of all the prophets and servants of God under the Old Testament came upon that generation. So each individual sinner, who dies impenitent, will be punished for all which, in his whole life, he did or became, contrary to the law of God. Deeper sins bring deeper damnation at the last. So Paul speaks of those who treasure up to themselves wrath against the Day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God Rom 2:5<\/span>. As good people, by the grace of God, do, through each act done by aid of that grace, gain an addition to their everlasting reward, so the wicked, by each added sin, add to their damnation.<\/P>

Of Damascus – <\/B>Damascus was one of the oldest cities in the world, and one of the links of its contact. It lay in the midst of its plain, a high table-land of rich cultivation, whose breadth, from Anti-libanus eastward, was about half a degree. On the west and north its plain lay sheltered under the range of Anti-libanus; on the east, it was protected by the great desert which intervened between its oasis-territory and the Euphrates. Immediately, it was bounded by the three lakes which receive the surplus of the waters which enrich it. The Barada (the cold) having joined the Fijeh, (the traditional Pharpar , a name which well designates its tumultuous course ), runs on the north of, and through the city, and then chiefly into the central of the three lakes, the Bahret-el-kibliyeh, (the south lake;) thence, it is supposed, but in part also directly, into the Bahret-esh-Shurkiyeh (the east lake ). The Awaj (the crooked) (perhaps the old Amana, the never-failing, in contrast with the streams which are exhausted in irrigation) runs near the old south boundary of Damascus , separating it probably from the northern possessions of Israel beyond Jordan, Bashan (in its widest sense), and Jetur or Ituraea. The area has been calculated at 236 square geographical miles .<\/P>

This space rather became the center of its dominions, than measured their extent. But it supported a population far beyond what that space would maintain in Europe. Taught by the face of creation around them, where the course of every tiny rivulet, as it burst from the rocks, was marked by a rich luxuriance , the Damascenes of old availed themselves of the continual supply from the snows of Hermon or the heights of Anti-libanus, with a systematic diligence , of which, in our northern clime, as we have no need, so we have no idea. Without the Barada, says Porter , the city could not exist, and the plain would be a parched desert; but now aqueducts intersect every quarter, and fountains sparkle in almost every dwelling, while innumerable canals extend their ramifications over the vast plain, clothing it with verdure and beauty. Five of these canals are led off from the river at different elevations, before it enters the plain. They are carried along the precipitous banks of the ravine, being in some places tunnelled in the solid rock. The two on the northern side water Salahiyeh at the foot of the hills about a mile from the city, and then irrigate the higher portions of the plain to the distance of nearly twenty miles. Of the three on the south side, one is led to the populous village Daraya, five miles distant; the other two supply the city, its suburbs, and gardens.<\/P>

The like use was made of every fountain in every larger or lesser plain. Of old it was said , the Chrysorrhoas (the Barada) is nearly expended in artificial channels. : Damascus is fertile through drinking up the Chrysorrhoas by irrigation. Fourteen names of its canals are still given ; and while it has been common to select 7 or 8 chief canals, the whole have been counted up even to 70 . No art or labor was thought too great. The waters of the Fijeh were carried by a great aqueduct tunnelled through the side of the perpendicular cliff . Yet this was as nothing. Its whole plain was intersected with canals, and tunneled below. : The waters of the river were spread over the surface of the soil in the fields and gardens; underneath, other canals were tunnelled to collect the superfluous water which percolates the soil, or from little fountains and springs below. The stream thus collected is led off to a lower level, where it comes to the surface. : The whole plain is filled with these singular aqueducts, some of them running for 2 or 3 miles underground. Where the water of one is diffusing life and verdure over the surface, another branch is collecting a new supply. In former days these extended over the whole plain to the lakes, thus irrigating the fields and gardens in every part of it.<\/P>

Damascus then was, of old, famed for its beauty. Its white buildings, embedded in the deep green of its engirdling orchards, were like diamonds encircled by emeralds. They reach nearly to Anti-libanus westward , and extend on both sides of the Barada some miles eastward. They cover an area at last 25 (or 30) miles in circuit, and make the environs an earthly Paradise. Whence the Arabs said , If there is a garden of Eden on earth, it is Damascus; and if in heaven, Damascus is like it on earth. But this its beauty was also its strength. The river, says William of Tyre , having abundant water, supplies orchards on both banks, thick-set with fruit-trees, and flows eastward by the city wall. On the west and north the city was far and wide fenced by orchards, like thick dense woods, which stretched four or live miles toward Libanus. These orchards are a most exceeding defense; for from the density of the trees and the narrowness of the ways, it seemed difficult and almost impossible to approach the city on that side. Even to this day it is said , The true defense of Damascus consists in its gardens, which, forming a forest of fruit-trees and a labyrinth of hedges, walls and ditches, for more than 7 leagues in circumference, would present no small impediment to a Mussulman enemy.<\/P>

The advantage of its site doubtless occastoned its early choice. It lay on the best route from the interior of Asia to the Mediterranean, to Tyre, and even to Egypt. Chedorlaomer and the four kings with him, doubtless, came that way, since the first whom they smote were at Ashteroth Karnaim Gen 14:5-6<\/span> in Jaulan or Gaulonitis, and thence they swept on southward, along the west side of Jordan, smiting, as they went, first the Zuzim, (probably the same as the Zamzummim Deu 2:2<\/span> O) in Ammonitis; then the Emim in the plain of Kiriathaim in Moab Deut. 9, 11<\/span>, then the Horites in Mount Seir unto Elparan (probably Elath on the Gulf called from it.) They returned that way, since Abraham overtook them at Hobah near Damascus Gen 14:15<\/span>. Damascus was already the chief city, through its relation to which alone Hobah was known. It was on the route by which Abraham himself came at Gods command from Haran (Charrae of the Greeks) whether over Tiphsaeh (the passage, Thapsacus) or anymore northern passage over the Euphrates. The fact that his chief and confidential servant whom he entrusted to seek a wife for Isaac, and who was, at one time, his heir, was a Damascene Gen 15:2-3<\/span>, implies some intimate connection of Abraham with Damascus. At the time of our era, the name of Abraham was still held in honor in the country of Damascus ; a village was named from him Abrahams dwelling; and a native historian Nicolas said, that he reigned in Damascus on his way from the country beyond Babylon to Canaan. The name of his servant Eliezer my God is help, implies that at this time too the servant was a worshiper of the One God. The name Damascus probably betokened the strenuous , energetic character of its founder.<\/P>

Like the other names connected with Aram in the Old Testament , it is, in conformity with the common descent from Aram, Aramaic. It was no part of the territory assigned to Israel, nor was it molested by them. Judging, probably, of Davids defensive conquests by its own policy, it joined the other Syrians who attacked David, was subdued, garrisoned, and became tributary 2Sa 8:5-6<\/span>. It was at that time probably a subordinate power, whether on the ground of the personal eminence of Hadadezer king of Zobah, or any other. Certainly Hadadezer stands cut conspicuously; the Damascenes are mentioned only subordinately.<\/P>

Consistently with this, the first mention of the kingdom of Damascus in Scripture is the dynasty of Rezon son of Eliadas, a fugitive servant of Hadadezer, who formed a marauding band, then settled and reigned in Damascus 1Ki 11:23-24<\/span>. Before this, Scripture speaks of the people only of Damascus, not of their kings. Its native historian admits that the Damascenes were, in the time of David, and continued to be, the aggressors, while he veils over their repeated defeats, and represents their kings, as having reigned successively from father to son, for ten generations, a thing unknown probably in any monarchy. : A native, Adad, having gained great power, became king of Damascus and the rest of Syria, except Phoenicia. He, having carried war against David, king of Judaea, and disputed with him in many battles, and that finally at the Euaphrates where he was defeated, had the character of a most eminent king for prowess and valor. After his death, his descendants reigned for ten generations, each receiving from his father the name (Hadad) together with the kingdom, like the Ptolemies of Egypt. The third, having gained the greatest power of all, seeking to repair the defeat of his grandfather, warring against the Jews, wasted what is now callcd Samaritis. They could not brook a defeat, which they had brought upon themselves.<\/P>

Rezon renewed, throughout the later part of Solomons reign, the aggression of Hadad. On the schism of the ten tribes, the hostility of Damascus was concentrated against Israel who lay next to them. Abijam was in league with the father of Benhadad 1Ki 15:19<\/span>. Benhadad at once broke his league with Baasha at the request of Asa in his later mistrustful days 1Ch 16:2-7<\/span>, and turned against Baasha (1Ch 16:2-7<\/span> and 1Ki 15:20<\/span>). From Omri also Benhadad I took cities and extorted streets, probably a Damascus quarter, in Samaria itself 1Ki 20:34<\/span>. Benhadad II had thirty-two vassal kings 1Ki 20:1<\/span>, 1Ki 20:24<\/span>, (dependent kings like those of Canaan, each of his own city and little territory,) and led them against Samaria, intending to plunder it 1Ki 20:6-7<\/span>, and, on occasion of the plundering, probably to make it his own or to destroy it. By Gods help they were twice defeated; the second time, when they directly challenged the power of God 1Ki 20:22-25<\/span>, 1Ki 20:28<\/span>, so signally that, had not Ahab been flattered by the appeal to his mercy 1Ki 20:31-32<\/span>, Syria would no more have been in a condition to oppress Israel. Benhadad promised to restore the cities which his father had taken from Israel, and to make an Israel-quarter in Damascus 1Ki 20:34<\/span>.<\/P>

If this promise was fulfilled, Ramoth-Gilead must have been lost to Syria at an earlier period, since, three years afterward, Ahab perished in an attempt, by aid of Jehoshaphat, against the counsels of God, to recover it 1 Kings 22<\/span>. Ramoth-Gilead being thus in the hands of Syria, all north of it, half of Dan and Manasseh beyond Jordan, must also have been conquered by Syria. Except the one great siege of Samaria, which brought it to extremities and which God dissipated by a panic which He infused into the Syrian army 2Ki 7:6<\/span>. Benhadad and Hazael encouraged only marauding expeditions against Israel during the 14 years of Ahaziah and Jehoram. Benhadad was, according to Assyrian inscriptions defeated thrice, Hazael twice, by Shalmanubar king of Assyria . Benhadad appears to have acted on the offensive, in alliance with the kings of the Hittites, the Hamathites and Phoenicians ; Hazael was attacked alone, driven to take refuge in Anti-libanus, and probably became tributary .<\/P>

Assyrian chronicles relate only Assyrian victories. The brief notice, that through Naaman the Lord gave deliverance to Syria 2Ki 5:1<\/span>, probably refers to some signal check which Assyria received through him. For there was no other enemy, from whom Syria had to be delivered. Subsequently to that retreat from Samaria, he even lost Ramoth 2Ki 9:14-15<\/span> to Jehoram after a battle before it 2Ki 8:29<\/span>, in which Jehoram was wounded. It is a probable conjecture that Jehu, by his political submission to Assyria, drew on himself the calamities which Elisha foretold. Hazael probably became the instrument of God in chastening Israel, while he was avenging Jehus submission to a power whom he dreaded and from whom he had suffered. Israel, having lost the help of Judah, became the easier prey. Hazael not only took from Israel all east of Jordan 2Ki 10:32-33<\/span>, but made the whole open country unsafe for the Israelites to dwell in.<\/P>

Not until God gave Israel a saviour, could they dwell in their tents as beforetime 2Ki 13:5<\/span>. Hazael extended his conquests to Gath 2Ki 12:17<\/span>, intending probably to open a connecting line with Egypt. With a small company of men he defeated a large army of Judah 2Ch 24:23-24<\/span>. Joash, king of Judah, bought him off, when advancing against Jerusalem, with everything of gold, consecrated or civil, in the temple or in his own treasures 2Ki 12:18<\/span>. Jehoash recovered from Benhadad III the cities this side Jordan 2Ki 13:25<\/span>; Jeroboam II, all their lost territories and even Damascus and Hamath 2Ki 14:28<\/span>. Yet after this, it was to recover its power under Rezin, to become formidable to Judah, and, through its aggressions on Judah, to bring destruction on itself. At this time, Damascus was probably, like ourselves, a rich, commercial, as well as warlike, but not as yet a manufacturing (see the note at Amo 3:12<\/span>) nation. Its wealth, as a great emporium of transit-commerce, (as it is now) furnished it with sinews for war. The white wool Eze 27:18<\/span>, in which it traded with Tyre, implies the possession of a large outlying tract in the desert, where the sheep yield the whitest wool. It had then doubtless, beside the population of its plain, large nomadic hordes dependent upon it.<\/P>

I will not turn away the punishment thereof – <\/B>Literally, I will not turn it back. What was this, which God would not turn back? Amos does not express it. Silence is often more emphatic than words. Not naming it, he leaves it the rather to be conceived of by the mind, as something which had been of old coming upon them to overwhelm them, which God had long stayed back, but which, since He would now stay it no longer, would burst in, with the more terrific and overwhelming might, because it had been restrained before. Sin and punishment are by a great law of God bound together. Gods mercy holds back the punishment long, allowing only some slight tokens of His displeasure to show themselves, that the sinful soul or people may not be unwarned. When He no longer withholds it, the law of His moral government holds its course. Seldom, said pagan experience , hath punishment with lingering foot parted with the miscreant, advancing before.<\/P>

Because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron – <\/B>The instrument, Jerome relates here, was a sort of wain, rolling on iron wheels beneath, set with teeth; so that it both threshed out the grain and bruised the straw and cut it in pieces, as food for the cattle, for lack of hay. A similar instrument, called by nearly the same name, is still in use in Syria and Egypt. Elisha had foretold to Hazael his cruelty to Israel; Their strong holds thou wilt set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child 2Ki 8:12<\/span>. Hazael, like others gradually steeped in sin, thought it impossible, but did it. In the days of Jehu, Hazael smote them in all the coasts of Israel from Jordan eastward; all the land of Gilead, the Gadites and the Reubenites and the Manassites, from Arorer which is by the River Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan 2Ki 10:32-33<\/span>; in those of Jehoahaz, Jehus son, he oppressed them, neither did he leave of the people to Jehoahaz but fifty horsemen and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen, for the king of Syria had destroyed them, and had made them like the dust by threshing 2Ki 13:7<\/span>. The death here spoken of, although more ghastly, was probably not more severe than many others; not nearly so severe as some which have been used by Christian Judicatures. It is mentioned in the Proverbs, as a capital punishment Pro 20:26<\/span>; and is alluded to as such by Isaiah Isa 28:28<\/span>. David had had, for some cause unexplained by Holy Scripture, to inflict it on the Ammonites 2Sa 12:31<\/span>; 1Ch 20:3<\/span>. Probably not the punishment in itself alone, but the attempt so to extirpate the people of God brought down this judgment on Damascus.<\/P>

Theodoret supposes the horrible aggravation, that it was thus that the women with child were destroyed with their children, casting the aforesaid women, as into a sort of threshing-floor, they savagely threshed them out like ears of grain with saw-armed wheels.<\/P>

Gilead is here doubtless to be taken in its widest sense, including all the possessions of Israel, east of Jordan, as, in the account of Hazaels conquests, all the land of Gilead 2Ki 10:32-33<\/span> is explained to mean, all which was ever given to the two tribes and a half, and to include Gilead proper, as distinct from Basan. In like way Joshua relates, that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the ha! f tribe of Manasseh returned to go into the country of Gilead, to the land of their possessions Jos 22:9<\/span>. Throughout that whole beautiful tract, including 2 12 degrees of latitude, Hazael had carried on his war of extermination into every peaceful village and home, sparing neither the living nor the unborn.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Amo 1:3<\/span><\/p>\n

I will not turn away the punishment thereof.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The purpose of Divine threatenings<\/strong><\/p>\n

The order of Gods threatenings seems to have been addressed to gain the hearing of the people. The punishment is first denounced upon their enemies, and that, for their sins, directly or indirectly against themselves, and God in them. Then, as to those enemies themselves, the order is not of place or time, but of their relations to Gods people. It begins with their most oppressive enemy, Syria; then Philistia, the old and ceaseless, although less powerful enemy; then Tyre, not an oppressor, as these, yet violating a relation which they had not, the bonds of a form or friendship and covenant; malicious also and hard hearted through covetousness. Then followed Edom, Ammon, Moab, who burst the bonds of blood also. Lastly, and nearest of all, it falls on Judah, who had the true worship of the true God among them, but despised it. Every infliction on those like ourselves finds an echo in our own consciences. Israel heard and readily believed Gods judgments upon others. It was not tempted to set itself against believing them. How then could it refuse to believe of itself what it believed of others like itself? Change but the name, the tale is told of thee, Horace says. The course of the prophecy convicted them, as the things written in Holy Scripture for our ensamples convict Christians. If they who sinned without law, perished without law, how much more should they who have sinned in the law be judged by the law? Gods judgments rolled, round like a thunder-cloud, passing from land to land, giving warning of their approach, at last to gather and centre on Israel itself, except it repent. In the visitations of others it was to read its own; and that the more, the nearer God was to them. Israel is placed last, because on it the destruction was to fall to the uttermost, and rest there. (E. B. Pusey, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Gods dealings with other nations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The prophet shows that God, as a Judge, would call all the neighbouring nations Co account. Had the prophet threatened the Israelites only, they might have thought that what they suffered was by chance, when they saw the like things happening to their neighbours. Thus all the authority of the prophet must have lost its power, except the Israelites were made to know that God is the Judge of all nations. Amos puts the Israelites in the same bundle with the Moabites, the Idumaeans, and other heathen nations; as though he had said, God will not spare your neighbours; but think not that ye shall be exempt from His vengeance, when they shall be led to punishment:<\/strong> I now declare to you that God will be the Judge of you all together. The design of Amos was–<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>To set before the eyes of the Israelites the punishment of others to awaken them, and also to induce them to examine themselves. He designed to lead them into a teachable frame of mind:<\/strong> for he knew them to be torpid in their indulgences, and also blinded by presumption, so that they could not be easily brought under the yoke.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>He had this also in view, that God would punish the Syrians, because they cruelly raged against the Israelites, especially against Gilead and its inhabitants. As God, then would inflict so grievous a punishment on the Syrians, because they so cruelly treated the inhabitants of Gilead, what was to be expected by the Israelites themselves, who had been insolent towards God, who had isolated His worship, who had robbed Him of His honour, who had in their turn destroyed one another? For there was among them no equity, no humanity; they had forgotten all reason. (John Calvin.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Divine cognisance of human sins<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>That the sins of all the peoples on the earth, whatever the peculiarities of their character or country, are under the cognisance of God. Seven countries are named here. Heavens omniscient eye detected the sill of each man of all the various men and nations. Gods knowledge of mens sins should–<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Lead men to great circumspection in their daily life. They should sedulously avoid evil. They should devoutly pursue good;<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> impress men with the wonderful patience of God. This patience implies the greatest power; and the greatest compassion;<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> impress men with the certainty of a future retribution. (Homilist.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments.
<\/strong><\/p>\n

Signs of cruelty<\/strong><\/p>\n

We <\/em>be many ways guilty of cruelty.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>If we exercise tyrannous cruelty, in inflicting punishments.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>If we fight with or beat our neighbour, or maim his body. This is a breach of the sixth commandment.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>If we procure any way the death of our neighbour, whether it be by sword, famine, poison, false accusation, or otherwise.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>If we use any of Gods creatures hardly.<\/p>\n

5. <\/strong>If because of our neighbours infirmities, we use him discourteously, and make him our laughingstock or taunting recreation.<\/p>\n

6. <\/strong>If we injure a stranger.<\/p>\n

7. <\/strong>If we molest any widow, or fatherless children.<\/p>\n

8. <\/strong>If we wrong the poor. This we may do–<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> If we lend money to the poor upon usury.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> If we pay not the poor labourer his hire.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> If we restore not the pledge of the poor.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> If we withdraw our corn from the poor. (Sebastian Benefield, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The enormity of the sin of persecution<\/strong><\/p>\n

The sin of inflicting suffering.<\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>Persecution is a most arrogant crime. The religious persecutor acts upon the assumption that his ideas of religion are absolutely true that his theological knowledge is the test by which all other opinions are to be tried; shows an arrogance before which servile spirits bow, but from which all thoughtful and noble men recoil with disgust and indignation But his arrogance is shadowy and harmless compared with the arrogance of him who enters the temple of human conscience and claims dominion over the moral workings of the soul. Yes, such arrogant men abound in all ages, and are by no means rare, even in this age and land of what is called civil and religious liberty.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>Persecution is a most absurd crime. Far wiser is the fool who would legislate for the winds or the waves, and like Canute give commands to the billows, than he who attempts to legislate for human thoughts and moral convictions. And truth never seems to rise in greater power and majesty than under the hand of cruel persecution.<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>Persecution is a most cruel crime. What ruthless inhumanities are here charged against the various peoples mentioned. It has often been observed, that no anger is so savage as the anger which springs up between relations of blood. A brotherly hate is the chief of hates. No animosity burns with a more hellish heat than that connected with religion. (Homilist.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 3<\/span>. For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four<\/B><\/I>] These expressions of three<\/I> and four<\/I>, so often repeated in this chapter, mean repetition, abundance<\/I>, and any thing that goes towards excess<\/I>. Very, very exceedingly<\/I>; and so it was used among the ancient Greek and Latin poets. See the passionate exclamation of Ulysses, in the storm, Odyss<\/I>., lib. v., ver. 306: – <\/P>

, ‘ <\/P>

, .<\/P>

<\/P>

“Thrice happy<\/I> Greeks! and four times<\/I> who were slain<\/P>

In Atreus’ cause, upon the Trojan plain.”<\/P>


<\/P>

Which words Virgil<\/I> translates, and puts in the mouth of his hero in similar circumstances, AEn<\/I>. i. 93. <\/P>

Extemplo AEneae solvuntur frigore membra:<\/P>

Ingemit; et, duplicis tendens ad sidera palmas,<\/P>

Talia voce refert: O terque quaterque beati!<\/I><\/P>

Queis ante ora patrum Trojae sub moenibus altis<\/P>

Contigit oppetere.<\/P>

<\/P>

“Struck with unusual fright, the Trojan chief<\/P>

With lifted hands and eyes invokes relief.<\/P>

And thrice<\/I>, and four times happy<\/I> those, he cried,<\/P>

That under Ilion’s walls before their parents died.”<\/P>

DRYDEN.<\/P>


<\/P>

On the words, O terque quaterque<\/I>, SERVIUS makes this remark, “Hoc est saepias<\/I>; finitus numerous pro infinito.” “O thrice and four<\/I> times<\/I>, that is, very often<\/I>, a finite number for an infinite.” Other poets use the same form of expression. So SENECA in Hippolyt<\/I>., Act. ii. 694. <\/P>

O ter quaterque prospero fato dati,<\/P>

Quos hausit, et peremit, et leto dedit<\/P>

Odium dolusque!<\/P>

<\/P>

“O thrice and four times happy were the men<\/P>

Whom hate devoured, and fraud, hard pressing on,<\/P>

Gave as a prey to death.”<\/P>


<\/P>

And so the ancient oracle quoted by Pausanias<\/I>, Achaic., lib. vii., c. 6: ; “Those men shall be thrice<\/I> and four times<\/I> happy.”<\/P>

<\/P>

These quotations are sufficient to show that this form of speech is neither unfrequent nor inelegant<\/I>, being employed by the most correct writers of antiquity.<\/P>

<\/P>

Damascus<\/I> was the capital of Syria.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Thus saith the Lord; <\/B>Amos speaks not by conjecture, or of his own head, but as he comes in the name of the Lord, so he assures us of it by this most solemn attestation. <\/P>

Three transgressions:<\/B> this certain number is put for an uncertain; three, i.e. many, especially when, as here, it is joined with four; their transgressions are so multiplied, grown to such height and number. <\/P>

Damascus<\/B> was the chief city of the kingdom of Syria, and very ancient; Abrahams steward was of this city. It was north-east from Canaan; conquered by David, lost by Solomon, recovered by Jeroboam the Second, though soon after lost again, and was in Ahazs time the royal seat of Rezin, whom Tiglath-pileser slew, 2Ki 16:9<\/span>. While it was in its power and greatness it mightily oppressed Israel. It is here by a synecdoche put for the whole kingdom of Syria. <\/P>

I will not turn away the punishment thereof:<\/B> some refer this to the suffering Damascus to be quiet, God threatens that she shall not have rest; others say it is a threat that God would not convert it, but leave the Syrians to their impenitent heart; but our version is full and plain, it is a threat of punishment which they should certainly fall under. God would no longer continue to be patient and gracious towards such sinners, nor divert the menaced punishment foretold by the prophet, deserved by the people, and which shall be executed by an impartial hand. Because they, the Syrians, comprised in the word Damascus, by a synecdoche, have threshed; first gathered, (as husbandmen gather sheafs into a floor,) next trod them under foot, beat them small, i.e. with utmost cruelty destroyed the persons, towns, and cities. <\/P>

Gilead:<\/B> of this name there was a great mountain fifty miles in length, saith my author; there was also a country of this name, and a city possessed by the Reubenites, Gadites, and Manassites; now the Gilead in this text is by a very usual figure put for the inhabitants of this country and city, whom Hazael king of Syria, as was foretold by Elisha, 2Ki 8:12<\/span>, did most barbarously murder, as appears by the words of this text. <\/P>

With threshing instruments of iron; <\/B>rakes, or flails, or harrows, or saws, or heavy wheels of iron; whichsoever of these were the instruments intended, it is most certain it was a very barbarous and cruel manner of using them. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3.<\/B> Here begins a series ofthreatenings of vengeance against six other states, followed by oneagainst Judah, and ending with one against Israel, with whom the restof the prophecy is occupied. The eight predictions are in symmetricalstanzas, each prefaced by “Thus saith the Lord.” Beginningwith the sin of others, which Israel would be ready enough torecognize, he proceeds to bring home to Israel her own guilt. Israelmust not think hereafter, because she sees others visited similarlyto herself, that such judgments are matters of chance; nay, they aredivinely foreseen and foreordered, and are confirmations of the truththat God will not clear the guilty. If God spares not the nationsthat know not the truth, how much less Israel that sins wilfully(Luk 12:47<\/span>; Luk 12:48<\/span>;Jas 4:17<\/span>)! <\/P>

for three transgressions . .. and for four<\/B>If Damascus had only sinned once or twice, Iwould have spared them, but since, after having been so oftenpardoned, they still persevere so continually,<\/I> I will nolonger “turn away” their punishment.<\/I> The Hebrew<\/I>is simply, “I will not reverse it,<\/I>” namely, thesentence of punishment which follows; the negative expression impliesmore than it expresses; that is, “I will most surely execute<\/I>it”; God’s fulfilment of His threats being more awful than humanlanguage can express. “Three and four” imply sin multipliedon sin<\/I> (compare Exo 20:5<\/span>;Pro 30:15<\/span>; Pro 30:18<\/span>;Pro 30:21<\/span>; “six and seven,”Job 5:19<\/span>; “once andtwice,” Job 33:14<\/span>; “twiceand thrice,” Margin;<\/I> “oftentimes,” EnglishVersion,<\/I> Job 33:29<\/span>; “sevenand also eight,” Ec 11:2<\/span>).There may be also a reference to seven,<\/I> the product of three<\/I>and four<\/I> added; seven<\/I> expressing the full completion<\/I>of the measure of their guilt (Lev 26:18<\/span>;Lev 26:21<\/span>; Lev 26:24<\/span>;compare Mt 23:32<\/span>). <\/P>

threshed<\/B>the very termused of the Syrian king Hazael’s oppression of Israel under Jehu andJehoahaz (2Ki 10:32<\/span>; 2Ki 10:33<\/span>;2Ki 13:7<\/span>). The victims werethrown before the threshing sledges, the teeth of which tore theirbodies. So David to Ammon (2Sa12:31<\/span>; compare Isa 28:27<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Thus saith the Lord<\/strong>,…. Lest it should be thought that the words that Amos spoke were his own, and he spake them of himself, this and the following prophecies are prefaced in this manner; and he begins with the nations near to the people of Israel and Judah, who had greatly afflicted them, and for that reason would be punished; which is foretold, to let Israel see that those judgments on them did not come by chance; and lest they should promise themselves impunity from the prosperity of these sinful nations; and to awaken them to a sense of their sin and danger, who might expect the visitation of God for their transgressions; as also to take off all offence at the prophet, who began not with them, but with their enemies:<\/p>\n

for three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof<\/strong>; Damascus was an ancient city; it was in the times of Abraham, Ge 15:2<\/span>. It was the “metropolis” of Syria, Isa 7:8<\/span>; and so Pliny calls it, “Damascus of Syria” u. Of the situation of this place, and the delightfulness of it,<\/p>\n

[See comments on Jer 49:25]<\/span>; and of its founder, and the signification of its name, [See comments on Ac 9:2]<\/span>; to which may be added, that though Justin w says it had its name from Damascus, a king of it before Abraham and Israel, whom he also makes kings of it; and Josephus x would have Uz the son of Aram the founder of it, to which Bochart y agrees; yet the Arabic writers ascribe the building of it to others; for the Arabs have a tradition, as Schultens z says, that there were Canaanites anciently in Syria; for they talk of Dimashc the son of Canaan, who built the famous city of Damascus, and so it should seem to be called after his name; and Abulpharagius a says, that Murkus or Murphus, as others call him, king of Palestine, built the city of Damascus twenty years before the birth of Abraham: from this place many things have their names, which continue with us to this day, as the “damask” rose, and the “damascene” plum, transplanted from the gardens that were about it, for which it was famous; and very probably the invention of the silk and linen called “damasks” owes its rise from hence. It is here put for the whole country of Syria, and the inhabitants of it, for whose numerous transgressions, signified by “three” and “four”, the Lord would not turn away his fury from them, justly raised by their sins; or the decree which he had passed in his own mind, and now made a declaration of, he would not revoke; or not inflict the punishment they had deserved, and he had threatened. The sense is, that he would not spare them, or have mercy on them, or defer the execution of punishment any longer; he would not forgive their transgressions. So the Targum,<\/p>\n

“I will not pardon them.”<\/p>\n

De Dieu refers it to the earthquake before mentioned, that God would not turn away that, but cause it to come, as he had foretold, for the transgressions of these, and other nations after spoken of; but rather it refers to Damascus; and so some render it, “I will not turn”, or “convert it” b; to repentance, and so to my mercy; but leave it in its sins, and to my just judgments. Kimchi thinks that this respects four particular seasons, in which Damascus, or the Syrians, evilly treated and distressed the people of Israel; first in the times of Baasha; then in the times of Ahab; a third time in the days of Jehoahaz the son of Jehu; and the fourth in the times of Ahaz; and then they were punished for them all:<\/p>\n

because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron<\/strong>; that is,<\/p>\n

“the inhabitants of the land of Gilead,”<\/p>\n

as the Targum; this country lay beyond Jordan, and was inhabited by the Reubenites and Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh; who were used in a very cruel manner, by Hazael king of Syria, as was foretold by Elisha, 2Ki 7:12<\/span>; not literally, as in 2Sa 12:31<\/span>; but by him they were beat, oppressed, and crushed, as the grain of the threshingfloor; which used to be threshed out by means of a wooden instrument stuck with iron teeth, the top of which was filled with stones to press it down, and so drawn to and fro over the sheaves of corn, by which means it was beaten out, to which the allusion is here; [See comments on 1Co 9:9]<\/span>. This was done by Hazael king of Syria, who is said to destroy the people, and make them “like the dust by threshing”, 2Ki 10:32<\/span>.<\/p>\n

u Nat. Hist. l. 36. c. 8. w E Trogo, l. 36. c. 2. x Antiqu. l. 1. c. 6. sect. 4. y Phaleg. l. 2. c. 8. z Apud Universal History, vol. 2. p. 280. a Hist. Dynast. p. 13. b “non convertam eam”, Montanus, Vatablus, Drusius.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Aram-Damascus. – Amo 1:3<\/span>. “Thus saith Jehovah, For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I shall not reverse it, because they have threshed Gilead with iron rollers,<\/em> Amo 1:4<\/span>. I send fire into the house of Hazael, and it will eat the palaces of Ben-hadad,<\/em> Amo 1:5<\/span>. And break in pieces the bolt of Damascus, and root out the inhabitant from the valley of Aven, and the sceptre-holder out of Beth-eden: and the people of Aram will wander into captivity to Kir, saith Jehovah.” <\/em> In the formula, which is repeated in the case of every people, “for three transgressions, and for four,” the numbers merely serve to denote the multiplicity of the sins, the exact number of which has no bearing upon the matter. “The number four is added to the number three, to characterize the latter as simply set down at pleasure; in other words, it is as much as to say that the number is not exactly three or four, but probably a still larger number” (Hitzig). The expression, therefore, denotes not a small but a large number of crimes, or “ungodliness in its worst form” (Luther; see at Hos 6:2<\/span>)<\/p>\n

(Note: J. Marck has correctly explained it thus: “When this perfect number ( three<\/em>) is followed by four<\/em>, by way of gradation, God not only declares that the measure of iniquity is full, but that it is filled to overflowing and beyond all measure.”).<\/p>\n

That these numbers are to be understood in this way, and not to be taken in a literal sense, is unquestionably evident from the fact, that nit he more precise account of the sins which follows, as a rule, only one especially grievous crime is mentioned by way of example. (I will not reverse it) is inserted before the more minute description of the crimes, to show that the threat is irrevocable. signifies to turn, i.e., to make a thing go back, to withdraw it, as in Num 23:20<\/span>; Isa 43:13<\/span>. The suffix attached to refers neither to qolo <\/em> (his voice), nor “to the idea of which is implied in (thus saith), or the substance of the threatening thunder-voice” (Baur); for heshbh dabhar <\/em> signifies to give an answer, and never to make a word ineffectual. The reference is to the punishment threatened afterwards, where the masculine stands in the place of the neuter. Consequently the close of the verse contains the epexegesis of the first clause, and Amo 1:4<\/span> and Amo 1:5<\/span> follow with the explanation of (I will not turn it). The threshing of the Gileadites with iron threshing-machines is mentioned as the principal transgression of the Syrian kingdom, which is here named after the capital Damascus (see at 2Sa 8:6<\/span>). This took place at the conquest of the Israelitish land to the east of the Jordan by Hazael during the reign of Jehu (2Ki 10:32-33<\/span>, cf. 2Ki 13:7<\/span>), when the conquerors acted so cruelly towards the Gileadites, that they even crushed the prisoners to pieces with iron threshing-machines, according to a barbarous war-custom that is met with elsewhere (see at 2Sa 12:31<\/span>). Charuts <\/em> (= charts <\/em>, 2Sa 12:31<\/span>), lit., sharpened, is a poetical term applied to the threshing-roller, or threshing-cart ( morag charuts <\/em>, Isa 41:15<\/span>). According to Jerome, it was “a kind of cart with toothed iron wheels underneath, which was driven about to crush the straw in the threshing-floors after the grain had been beaten out.” The threat is individualized historically thus: in the case of the capital, the burning of the palaces is predicted; and in that of two other places, the destruction of the people and their rulers; so that both of them apply to both, or rather to the whole kingdom. The palaces of Hazael and Benhadad are to be sought for in Damascus, the capital of the kingdom (Jer 49:27<\/span>). Hazael was the murderer of Benhadad I, to whom the prophet Elisha foretold that he would reign over Syria, and predicted the cruelties that he would practise towards Israel (2Ki 8:7<\/span>.). Benhadad is generally regarded as his son; but the plural “palaces” leads us rather to think of both the first and second Benhadad, and this is favoured by the circumstance that it was only during his father’s reign that Benhadad II oppressed Israel, whereas after his death, and when he himself ascended the throne, the conquered provinces were wrested from him by Joash king of Israel (2Ki 13:22-25<\/span>). The breaking of the bar (the bolt of the gate) denotes the conquest of the capital; and the cutting off of the inhabitants of Biqath<\/em> – Aven <\/em> indicates the slaughter connected with the capture of the towns, and not their deportation; for hikhrth <\/em> means to exterminate, so that galah <\/em> (captivity) in the last clause applies to the remainder of the population that had not been slain in war. In the parallel clause , the sceptre-holder, i.e., the ruler (either the king or his deputy), corresponds to yoshebh <\/em> (the inhabitant); and the thought expressed is, that both prince and people, both high and low, shall perish.<\/p>\n

The two places, Valley-Aven<\/em> and Beth-Eden<\/em>, cannot be discovered with any certainty; but at any rate they were capitals, and possibly they may have been the seat of royal palaces as well as Damascus, which was the first capital of the kingdom. , valley of nothingness, or of idols, is supposed by Ewald and Hitzig to be a name given to Heliopolis or Baalbek, after the analogy of Beth-aven = Bethel (see at Hos 5:8<\/span>). They base their opinion upon the Alex. rendering , taken in connection with the Alex. interpretation of the Egyptian On<\/em> (Gen 41:45<\/span>) as Heliopolis. But as the lxx have interpreted by Heliopolis in the book of Genesis, whereas here they have merely reproduced the Hebrew letters by , as they have in other places as well (e.g., Hos 4:15<\/span>; Hos 5:8<\/span>; Hos 10:5<\/span>, Hos 10:8<\/span>), where Heliopolis cannot for a moment be thought of, the of the lxx furnishes no evidence in favour of Heliopolis, still less does it warrant an alteration of the Hebrew pointing (into ). Even the Chaldee and Syriac have taken as a proper name, and Ephraem Syrus speaks of it as “a place in the neighbourhood of Damascus, distinguished for idol-chapels.” The supposition that it is a city is also favoured by the analogy of the other threatenings, in which, for the most part, cities only are mentioned. Others understand by it the valley near Damascus, or the present Bekaa between Lebanon and Antilibanus, in which Heliopolis was always the most distinguished city, and Robinson has pronounced in favour of this ( Bibl. Res.<\/em> p. 677). Beth<\/em> – Eden <\/em>, i.e., house of delight, is not to be sought for in the present village of Eden, on the eastern slope of Lebanon, near to the cedar forest of Bshirrai, as the Arabic name of this village ‘hdn <\/em> has nothing in common with the Hebrew (see at 2Ki 19:12<\/span>); but it is the of the Greeks, which Ptolemy places ten degrees south and five degrees east of Laodicea, and which Robinson imagines that he has found in Old Jusieh, not far from Ribleh, a place belonging to the times before the Saracens, with very extensive ruins (see Bibl. Researches<\/em>, pp. 542-6, and 556). The rest of the population of Aram would be carried away to Kir<\/em>, i.e., to the country on the banks of the river Kur<\/em>, from which, according to Amo 9:7<\/span>, the Syrians originally emigrated. This prediction was fulfilled when the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in the time of Ahaz, and broke up the kingdom of Syria (2Ki 16:9<\/span>). The closing words, ‘amar Y e hovah <\/em> (saith the Lord), serve to add strength to the threat, and therefore recur in Amo 1:8<\/span>, Amo 1:15<\/span>, and Amo 2:3<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Threatenings of Judgment.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD>

B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 790.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE>

      3 Thus saith the LORD<\/B>; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment<\/I> thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron:   4 But I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad.   5 I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden: and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir, saith the LORD<\/B>.   6 Thus saith the LORD<\/B>; For three transgressions of Gaza, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment<\/I> thereof; because they carried away captive the whole captivity, to deliver them<\/I> up to Edom:   7 But I will send a fire on the wall of Gaza, which shall devour the palaces thereof:   8 And I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, and him that holdeth the sceptre from Ashkelon, and I will turn mine hand against Ekron: and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord GOD<\/B>.   9 Thus saith the LORD<\/B>; For three transgressions of Tyrus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment<\/I> thereof; because they delivered up the whole captivity to Edom, and remembered not the brotherly covenant:   10 But I will send a fire on the wall of Tyrus, which shall devour the palaces thereof.   11 Thus saith the LORD<\/B>; For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment<\/I> thereof; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever:   12 But I will send a fire upon Teman, which shall devour the palaces of Bozrah.   13 Thus saith the LORD<\/B>; For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment<\/I> thereof; because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border:   14 But I will kindle a fire in the wall of Rabbah, and it shall devour the palaces thereof, with shouting in the day of battle, with a tempest in the day of the whirlwind:   15 And their king shall go into captivity, he and his princes together, saith the LORD<\/B>.<\/P>

      What the Lord says here may be explained by what he says Jer. xii. 14<\/span>, Thus said the Lord, against all my evil neighbours that touch the inheritance of my people Israel, Behold, I will pluck them out.<\/I> Damascus was a near neighbour to Israel on the north, Tyre and Gaza on the west, Edom on the south, Ammon and (in the next chapter) Moab on the east; and all of them had been, one time, one way, or other, pricking briers and grieving thorns<\/I> to Israel, evil neighbours to them; and, because God espouses his people’s cause, he there calls them his evil neighbours,<\/I> and here comes forth to reckon with them. The method is taken in dealing with each of them is, in part, the same, and therefore we put them together, and yet in each there is something peculiar.<\/P>

      I. Let us see what is repeated, both by way of charge and by way of sentence, concerning them all. The controversy God has with each of them is prefaced with, Thus said the Lord,<\/I> Jehovah the God of Israel. Though those nations will not worship him as their God, yet they shall be made to know that they are accountable to him as their Judge. The God of Israel is the God of the whole earth,<\/I> and has something to say to them that shall make them tremble. Against them the Lord roars out of Zion.<\/I> And before God, by the prophet, threatens Israel and Judah, he denounces judgments against those nations whom he made use of as scourges to them for their being so, which might serve for a check to their pride and insolence and a relief to his people under their dejections; for hereby they might see that God had not quitted his interest in them, and therefore might hope they had not lost their interest in him. Now as to all these nations here arraigned,<\/P>

      1. The indictment drawn up against them all is thus far the same, (1.) That they are charged in general with three transgressions, and with four,<\/I> that is, with many transgressions (as by one or two we mean a few,<\/I> so by three or four we mean many, as in Latin a man that is very happy is said to be terque quarterque beatus–three and four times happy<\/I>); or with three and four,<\/I> that is, with seven transgressions, a number of perfection, intimating that they have filled up the measure of their iniquities,<\/I> and are ripe for ruin; or with three<\/I> (that is, a variety of sins) and with a fourth<\/I> especially, which is specified concerning each of them, though the other three are not, as Pro 30:15<\/span>; Pro 30:18<\/span>; Pro 30:21<\/span>; Pro 30:29<\/span>, where we read of three things, yea, four,<\/I> generally one seems to be more especially intended. (2.) That the particular sin which is fastened upon as the fourth, and which alone is specified, is the sin of persecution: it is some mischief or other done to the people of God that is particularly charged upon every one of them, for persecution is the measure-filling sin of any people, and it is this sin that will be particularly reckoned for–I was hungry, and you gave me no meat;<\/I> much more if it may be said, I was hungry, and you took my meat from me.<\/I><\/P>

      2. The judgment given against them all is thus far the same, (1.) That, their sin having risen to such a height, God will not turn away the punishment thereof.<\/I> Though he has granted them a long reprieve, and has often turned away their punishment,<\/I> yet now he will turn it away no longer, but justice shall take its course. “I will not revoke it<\/I> (so some read it); I will not recall the voice<\/I> which has gone forth<\/I> from Zion to Jerusalem (v.<\/I><\/span> 2<\/span>), speaking death and terror to the sinful nations.” It is an irrevocable sentence. God has spoken it, and he will not call it back.<\/I> Note, Though God bear long, he will not bear always, with those that provoke him; and, when the decree brings forth, it will bring up. (2.) That God will kindle a fire<\/I> among them; this is said concerning all these evil neighbours,<\/I>Amo 1:4<\/span>; Amo 1:7<\/span>; Amo 1:10<\/span>; Amo 1:12<\/span>; Amo 1:14<\/span>. God will send a fire<\/I> into their cities. When fires are kindled that lay cities, towns, and houses in ashes, whether designedly or casually, God must be acknowledged in it; they are of his sending. Sin stirs up the fire of his jealousy, and that kindles other fires.<\/P>

      II. Let us see what is mentioned, both by way of charge and by way of sentence, that is peculiar to each of them, that every one may take his portion.<\/P>

      1. Concerning Damascus, the head-city of Syria, a kingdom that was often vexatious to Israel. (1.) The peculiar sin of Damascus was using the Gileadites barbarously: They threshed Gilead with threshing-instruments of iron<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 3<\/span>), which may be understood literally of their putting to the torture, or to cruel deaths, the inhabitants of Gilead whom they got into their hands, as David put the Ammonites under saws and harrows<\/I> 2 Sam. xii. 31<\/I><\/span>. We read with what inhumanity Hazael king of Syria prosecuted his wars with Israel (2 Kings viii. 12<\/span>); he dashed their children,<\/I> and ripped up their women with child;<\/I> and see what desolations he made in their land, 2Ki 10:32<\/span>; 2Ki 10:33<\/span>. Or it may be taken figuratively, for his laying the country waste, and this very similitude is used in the history of it. 2 Kings xiii. 7<\/span>, He destroyed them, and made them like the dust by threshing.<\/I> Note, Men often do that unjustly and wickedly, and shall be severely reckoned with for it, which yet God just permits them to do. The church is called God’s threshing, and the corn of his floor<\/I> (Isa. xxi. 10<\/span>); but if men make it their threshing, and the chaff of their floor, they shall be sure to hear of it. (2.) The peculiar punishment of Damascus is [1.] That the fire which shall be sent shall fasten upon the court in the first place, not on the chief city, nor the country towns, but on the house of Hazael,<\/I> which he built; and it shall devour the palaces of Ben-hadad,<\/I> the royal palaces inhabited by the kings of Syria, many of whom were of that name. Note, Even royal palaces are no defence against the judgments of God, though ever so richly furnished, though ever so strongly fortified. [2.] That the enemy shall force his way into the city (v.<\/I><\/span> 5<\/span>): I will break the bar of Damascus,<\/I> and then the gate flies open. Or it may be understood figuratively: all that which is depended upon as the strength and safety of that great city shall fail, and prove insufficient. When God’s judgments come with commission it is in vain to think of turning them out.<\/I> [3.] That the people shall be destroyed with the sword: I will cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven,<\/I> the valley of idolatry,<\/I> for the gods of the Syrians were gods of the valleys<\/I> (1 Kings xx. 23<\/span>), were worshipped in valleys; as the idols of Israel were worshipped on the hills; him also that holdeth the sceptre<\/I> of power, some petty king or other that used to boast of the sceptre he held from Beth-Eden, the house of pleasure.<\/I> Both those that were given to idolatry and those that were given to sensuality should be cut off together. [4.] That the body of the nation shall be carried off. The people shall go into captivity unto Kir,<\/I> which was in the country of the Medes. We find this fulfilled (2 Kings xvi. 9<\/span>) about fifty years after this, when the king of Assyria went up against Damascus,<\/I> and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin,<\/I> at the instigation of Ahaz king of Judah.<\/P>

      2. Concerning Gaza, a city of the Philistines, and now the metropolis of that country. (1.) The peculiar sin of the Philistines was carrying away captive the whole captivity,<\/I> either of Israel or Judah, which some think refers to that inroad made upon Jehoram when they took away all the king’s sons<\/I> and all his substance<\/I> (2 Chron. xxi. 17<\/span>), or, perhaps, it refers to their seizing those that fled to them for shelter when Sennacherib invaded Judah, and selling them to the Grecians<\/I> (Joel iii. 4-6<\/span>), or (as here) to the Edomites, who were always sworn enemies to the people of God. They spared none, but carried off all they could lay their hands on, designing, if possible, to cut off the name of Israel,<\/I> Ps. lxxxiii. 4-7<\/I><\/span>. (2.) The peculiar punishment of the Philistines is that the fire which God will send shall devour the palaces of Gaza, and that the inhabitants<\/I> of the other cities of the Philistines, Ashdod (or Azotus), Ashkelon, and Ekron, shall all be cut off,<\/I> and God will make as thorough work with them in their ruin as they would have made with God’s people when they carried away the whole captivity; for even the remnant<\/I> of them shall perish,<\/I> v.<\/span> 8<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. Note, God will make a full end of those that think to make a full end of his church and people.<\/P>

      3. Concerning Tyre, that famous city of wealth and strength, that was itself a kingdom, v.<\/I><\/span> 9<\/span>. (1.) The peculiar sin of Tyre is delivering up the whole captivity to Edom,<\/I> that is, selling to the Edomites those of Israel that fled to them for shelter, or in any way fell into their hands; not caring what hardships they put upon them, so that they could but make gain of them to themselves. Herein they forgot the brotherly covenant,<\/I> the league that was between Solomon and Hiram king of Tyre (1 Kings v. 12<\/span>), which was intimate that Hiram called Solomon his brother,<\/I> 1 Kings ix. 13<\/I><\/span>. Note, It is a great aggravation of enmity and malice when it is the violation of friendship and of a brotherly covenant.<\/I> (2.) Here is nothing peculiar in the punishment of Tyrus but that the palaces thereof<\/I> shall be devoured,<\/I> which was done when Nebuchadnezzar took it after thirteen years’ siege. Their merchants were all princes, and their private houses were as palaces; but the fire shall make no more of them than of cottages.<\/P>

      4. Concerning Edom, the posterity of Esau. (1.) Their peculiar sin was an unmerciful, unwearied, pursuit of the people of God, and their taking all advantages against them to do them a mischief, v.<\/I><\/span> 11<\/span>. He did pursue his brother with the sword,<\/I> not only of old, when the king of Edom took up arms to oppose the children of Israel’s passage through his border<\/I> (Num. xx. 18<\/span>), but ever since upon all occasions; they had not strength and courage enough to face them in the field of battle, but, whenever any other enemy had put Judah or Israel to flight, then the Edomites set in with the pursuers, fell upon the rear, slew those that were half dead already, and (as is usual with cowards when they have an enemy at an advantage) they did cast off all pity.<\/I> Those that are least courageous are commonly most cruel. Edom was so; his malice destroyed his compassion<\/I> (so the word is); he stripped himself of the tenderness of a man, and put on the fierceness of a beast of prey; and, as such a one, he did tear, his anger did tear perpetually.<\/I> His cruelty was insatiable, and he never knew when he had sucked enough of the blood of Israel, but, like the horse-leech, still cried, Give, give.<\/I> Nay, he kept his wrath for ever;<\/I> when he wanted objects of his wrath, and opportunity to show it, yet he kept it in reserve (it rested in his bosom<\/I>), he rolled it under his tongue as a sweet morsel, and had it ready to spit in the face of Israel upon the next occasion. Cursed be such cruel wrath, and anger so fierce, so outrageous, which makes men like the devil, who continually seeks to devour,<\/I> and unlike to God, who keeps not his anger for ever.<\/I> Edom’s malice was unnatural, for thus he pursued his brother, whom he ought to have protected: it was hereditary, as if it had been entailed upon the family ever since Esau hated Jacob, and time itself could not wear it out, no, nor the brotherly conduct of Israel towards them (Deut. ii. 4<\/span>), and the express law given to Israel (Deut. xxiii. 7<\/span>), Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother.<\/I> (2.) Here is nothing peculiar in their punishment; but (v.<\/I><\/span> 12<\/span>) a fire<\/I> shall be sent to devour their palaces.<\/I> Note, The fire of our anger against our brethren kindles the fire of God’s anger against us.<\/P>

      5. Concerning the Ammonites, v.<\/I><\/span> 13-15<\/span>. (1.) See how violently the fire of their anger turned against the people of God; they not only triumphed in their calamities (as we find, Eze 25:2<\/span>; Eze 25:6<\/span>), but they did themselves use them barbarously; they ripped up the women with child of Gilead,<\/I> a piece of cruelty the very mention of which strikes a horror upon one’s mind; one would think it is not possible that any of the human race should be so inhuman. Hazael was guilty of it, 2 Kings viii. 12<\/span>. It was done not only in a brutish rage, which falls without consideration upon all that comes before it, but with a devilish design to extirpate the race of Israel by killing not only all that were born, but all that were to be born, worse than Egyptian cruelty. It was that they might enlarge their border,<\/I> that they might make the land of Gilead their own, and there might be none to lay claim to it or given them any disturbance in the possession of it. We find (Jer. xlix. 1<\/span>) that the Ammonites inherited Gad<\/I> (that is, Gilead) under pretence that Israel had no sons, no heirs. We know how heavy the doom of those was, and how heinous their crime, who said, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours<\/I> by occupancy. See what cruelty covetousness is the cause of, and what horrid practices those are often put upon that are greedy to enlarge their own border.<\/I> (2.) See how violently the fire of God’s anger burned against them; shall not God visit for these things<\/I> done to any of mankind, especially when they are done to his own people? Shall not his soul be avenged on such a nation as this?<\/I> No doubt, it shall. The fire shall be kindled with shouting in the day of battle,<\/I> that is, war shall kindle the fire; it shall be a fire accompanied with the sword, or a roaring fire, which shall make a noise like that of soldiers ready to engage, and it shall be as a tempest<\/I> in the day of the whirlwind,<\/I> which comes swiftly, furiously, and bears down all before it. Or this tempest and whirlwind shall be as bellows to the fire, to make it burn the stronger, and spread the further. It is particularly threatened that their king and his princes shall go together into captivity,<\/I> carried away by the king of Babylon, not long after Judah was. See what changes God’s providence often makes with men, or rather their own sin; kings become captives, and princes prisoners. Milchom shall go into captivity;<\/I> some understand it of the god of the Ammonites, whom they called Moloch–a king. He, and his princes,<\/I> and his priests that attended him, shall to into captivity;<\/I> their idol shall be so far from protecting them that it shall itself go into captivity with them. Note, Those who by violence and fraud seek to enlarge their own border will justly be expelled and excluded their own border; nor is it strange if those who make no conscience of invading the rights of others be able to make no resistance against those who invade theirs.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Six Transgressions Judged<\/strong><\/p>\n

Verses 3-5 describe <\/strong>transgressions of Damascus, Isa 7:8<\/span>; Isa 17:1<\/span>. The number three and four <\/strong>denote multiplied sins, unnumbered, indicating ungodliness in its worst forms. The term “turn away” is used in verse 3 to affirm that God will not reverse or withdraw His punishment from Damascus, Num 23:20<\/span>; Isa 43:13<\/span>. Had Israel sinned once or twice, or even ignorantly, God may have turned away His judgment, but not when they willfully sinned for so long a time, Luk 12:47-48<\/span>; Jas 4:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Verse 4 announces <\/strong>a devouring fire that is to be divinely sent upon the house of Hazael and the palaces of Ben-hadad, his son of Syria, 2Ki 13:3<\/span>; Jer 49:27<\/span>. The fire sent indicates the kind of fire used in “sacking” cities in times of war, Psa 78:63<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Verse 5 threatens <\/strong>the breaking of the bar (gate security) of Damascus, Jer 51:30<\/span>; 2Ki 14:18<\/span>. A sweeping judgment is announced against the subjects or inhabitants with their ruler from the plain of Aven and Eden, meaning pleasantness, between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains, some 40 miles west of Damascus. The people of Syria are to become captives of Kir.<\/p>\n

Verses 6-8 charge <\/strong>transgressions of Divine law to Gaza, the southernmost of the five capitals of Philistia. They had left none whom they had not taken as captives, men, women, and children, and delivered them as slaves to the Edomites, Israel’s bitterest enemies, 1Sa 6:17<\/span>; 2Ch 28:17-18<\/span>; Isa 14:29<\/span>; Isa 14:31<\/span>; Jer 47:4-5<\/span>; Zec 9:5-6<\/span>; Act 8:26<\/span>; 2Ch 21:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Verse 7 warns <\/strong>of a fire on the wall of Gaza, a blaze of armed seizure, that will destroy their palaces of pleasure and ease. The flame of war and fire of enemies were instruments of judgment against the Gentiles of Philistia, Num 21:28<\/span>; Isa 26:11<\/span>; 2Ki 18:8<\/span>; Isa 14:29<\/span>; Isa 14:31<\/span>; Isa 47:1<\/span>. These fires of judgment were fulfilled through men like Hezekiah, Sennacherib, and Alexander.<\/p>\n

Verse 8<\/strong> warns that Ashdod and the king of Ashkelon and their inhabitants and subjects shall perish. Ekron and the remnant of the Philistines were to be slain or taken as slaves. Only Gath is not mentioned of the five chief cities of the Philistines, perhaps having already been destroyed by David and Uzziah, 2Ch 26:6<\/span>; or at least having lost its prominence, under sieges of Tartan and Sargon, of the Assyrians, Isa 20:1<\/span>. The five chief capitals of Philistia were Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath, the latter alone not here mentioned is believed to have lost its prominence by the time of Amos’ prophecy.<\/p>\n

Verses 9, 10. <\/strong>The third group <\/strong>of people spoken against are those of Tyre. Like other nations they also had offended God, engaged in the traffic of human souls, selling them to the Edomites, a mortal enemy of the Jews. They violated the sacred covenant, trust, or pledge into which David and Solomon had entered for friendship with Hiram, King of Tyre, 2Sa 5:11<\/span>; 1Ki 5:15<\/span>; 1Ki 9:11<\/span>. Hiram furnished Solomon timber and carpenters in exchange for oil and corn. Hiram recognized David as chosen of God and “was ever a lover of David,” 1Ki 5:1<\/span>. But Tyre and Phoenecia had now turned to the slave traffic in the sale of captive Jews to the Edomites, as Gaza before them had done. Because of this God warns that their palaces of Tyre shall be destroyed.<\/p>\n

Verses 11, 12 describe the fourth <\/strong>nation to be destroyed. It was Edom. She had pursued her brethren of Jacob’s line (Israel and Judah) with the sword, without pity or mercy, Isa 34:5<\/span>. Her hatred and cruelty had continued against Israel from generation to generation, perpetually, without ceasing, though it should not have, Gen 25:24-26<\/span>. Esau’s hatred for Jacob seemed to increase through the Edomites, his offspring, as the years passed, Eze 35:5<\/span>; Exo 20:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Verse 12 describes <\/strong>a fiery judgment God will send against Edom, upon Teman in particular, so that the palaces (kingly estate) of Bozrah should be destroyed, Gen 36:11<\/span>; Gen 36:15<\/span>; Oba 1:8-9<\/span>. It was to become a desolation, a reproach, a waste, and a curse as described Jer 49:7<\/span>; Jer 49:13<\/span>; Isa 63:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Verses 13-15 describe <\/strong>the guilt of the crimes of the Ammonites, fifth <\/strong>of the Gentile nations on whom God was to send judgment, as here announced by Amos. Verse 13 charges that with inhumane cruelty they had ripped open the belly of women of Gilead who were with child, in order to extend the borders of their own rule, Hos 13:16<\/span>. Hazael and Ammon of Syria and the Ammonites, offspring of Lot, were in colleague to exterminate the Israelites, and plunder Judea, v. 3, 13; Hazael perpetrated it, 2Ki 8:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Verse 14 asserts <\/strong>that God would kindle a fire against these of Rabbah, capitol of Ammon, who were engaged in this selfish, covetous, course of cruelty against the people of Israel. He threatened to make Rabbah a “stable for camels” and the Ammonites a “couching place for flocks,” preceded by shouting of defeat in the day of battle, irresistible, like a tempest in the day of the whirlwind. Destruction and doom were appointed for them in the day of battle, as due retribution for their willful, wanton sins.<\/p>\n

Verse 15 asserts <\/strong>that both the king and princes shall go into captivity together, reaping what they had sown, as hand to hand they had collaborated in wickedness against God and His people, Israel, Isa 43:28<\/span>; Jer 49:3<\/span>. Neither could their idol god (Moleoh) deliver them, for their sins had found them out, pay day had come, Gal 6:7-8<\/span>; Pro 1:23-31<\/span>; Pro 11:21<\/span>; Pro 29:1<\/span>; Psa 115:4-9<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

It is singular that Amos said that his words were concerning Israel, and that he should now turn to speak of Damascus and the country of Syria. This seems inconsistent; for why does he not perform the office committed to him? why does he not reprove the Israelites? why does he not threaten them? why does he not show their sins? and why does he speak of the destruction then nigh to the people of Syria? But it is right here to consider what his design was. He shows briefly, in the last verse, that ruin was nigh the Israelites; for God, who had hitherto spared them, was now resolved to ascend his tribunal. But now, that he might better prepare the Israelites, he shows that God, as a judge, would call all the neighboring nations to an account. For had the Prophet threatened the Israelites only, they might have thought that what they suffered was by chance, when they saw the like things happening to their neighbors: “How is it credible that these evils and calamities have flowed from God’s vengeance, since the Idumeans, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Syrians, and the Sidonians, are implicated in these evils in common with ourselves? For if God’s hand pursues us, it is the same with them: and if it is fate, that with blind force exercises its rule over the Moabites, the Idumeans, and the Syrians, the same thing, doubtless, is to be thought of our case.” Thus all the authority of the Prophet must have lost its power, except the Israelites were made to know that God is the judge of all nations. <\/p>\n

We must also bear in mind, that the kingdom of Israel was laid waste, together with other neighboring countries, as war had spread far and wide; for the Assyrian, like a violent storm, had extended through the whole of that part of the world. Not only, then, the Israelites were distressed by adversities at that time, but all the nations of which Amos prophesied. It was hence necessary to add the catalogue which we here find, that the Israelites might have as many confirmations respecting God’s vengeance, as the examples which were presented to their eyes, in the dire calamities which everywhere prevailed. This is to be borne in mind. And then the Prophet regarded another thing: If the Idumeans, the Moabites, the Syrians, and Ammonites, were to be treated so severely, and the Prophet had not connected the Israelites with them, they might have thought that they were to be exempted from the common punishments because God would be propitious to them; for hypocrites ever harden themselves the more, whenever God spares them: “See, the Ammonites and the Moabites are punished; the Idumeans, the Syrians, and other nations, are visited with judgment: God then is angry with all these; but we are his children, for he is indulgent to us.” But the Prophet puts here the Israelites in the same bundle with the Moabites, the Idumeans, and other heathen nations; as though he said, “God will not spare your neighbors; but think not that ye shall be exempt from his vengeance, when they shall be led to punishment; I now declare to you that God will be the judge of you all together.” <\/p>\n

We now apprehend the design of the Prophet. He wished here to set before the eyes of the Israelites the punishment of others to awaken them, and also to induce them to examine themselves for we often see, that those who are intractable and refractory in their disposition, when directly addressed are not very attentive; but when they hear of the sins of others, and especially when they hear something of punishment, they will attend. The Prophet therefore designed by degrees to lead the Israelites to a teachable state of mind, for he knew them to be torpid in their indulgences, and also blinded by presumption, so that they could not be easily brought under the yoke: hence he sets before them the punishment which was soon to fall on neighboring nations. <\/p>\n

We must yet observe that there was another reason I do not throw aside what I have already mentioned; but the Prophet no doubt had this also in view, — that God would punish the Syrians, because they cruelly raged against the Israelites especially against Gilead and its inhabitants. As God, then, would inflict so grievous a punishment on the Syrians, because they so cruelly treated the inhabitants of Gilead, what was to be expected by the Israelites themselves who had been insolent towards God, who had violated his worship who had robbed him of his honor, who had in their turn destroyed one another! For, as we shall hereafter see, there was among them no equity, no humanity; they had forgotten all reason. Since, then, the Israelites were such, how could they hope that so many and so detestable crimes should go unpunished, when they saw that the Syrians, though uncircumcised, were not to be spared, because they so cruelly treated professed enemies, on whom they lawfully made war? <\/p>\n

I now come to the words of the Prophet: Thus saith Jehovah, For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, will not be propitious to it; literally, I will not convert it (18) : but I take this actively that God would not turn himself to mercy, or that he would not be propitious to Damascus. We know that Damascus was the capital of Syria; And the Prophet here, by mentioning a part for the whole, threatens the whole people, and summons all the Syrians to God’s tribunal, because they had inhumanely treated, as we shall see, the city of Gilead. But he says, God will not be propitious for three and four transgressions of Damascus. Some take this meaning, “For three transgressions I have been propitious, for four I will not be.” But there is no need of adding anything to the Prophet’s words; for the most suitable sense here is that for the many sins of Damascus God would not be propitious to it: and the Prophet, I have no doubt, intended by the two numbers to set forth the irreclaimable perverseness of the Syrians. Seven in Scripture is an indefinite number, and is taken, as it is well known, to express what is countless. By saying then, three and four transgressions, it is the same as if he had said seven: but the Prophet more strikingly intimates the progress the Syrians made in their transgressions, until they became so perverse that there was no hope of repentance. This then is the reason, that God declares that he would no more forgive the Syrians, inasmuch as without measure or limit they burst forth into transgressions and ceased not, though a time for change was given them. This is the true meaning. And the Prophet repeats the same form of speech in speaking of Gaza, of Amman, of Edom, and of other nations. <\/p>\n

Let us learn from this place, that God, whom the world regards as too cruel, when he takes vengeance on sins, shows really and by sure proof the truth of what he declares so often of himself in Scripture, and that is, that he bears long and does not quickly take vengeance: though men are worthy to perish yet the Lord suspends his judgments. We have a remarkable proof of this in these prophecies; for the Prophet speaks not only of one people but of many. Hence God endured many transgressions not only in the Syrians, but also in other nations: there was not then a country in which a testimony to God’s forbearance did not exist. It hence appears, that the world unjustly complains of too much rigor, when God takes vengeance, for he ever waits till iniquity, as it was stated yesterday, reaches its highest point. <\/p>\n

There is besides presented to us here a dreadful spectacle of sins among so many nations. At the same time, when we compare that age with ours, it is certain that greater integrity existed then: all kinds of evils so overflow at this day, that compared with the present, the time of Amos was the golden age; and yet we hear him declaring here, that the people of Judah and of Israel, and all the other nations, were monstrously wicked, so that God could not bring them to repentance. For he testifies not here in vain, that he would punish wickedness wholly obstinate since they had not turned to him, who had advanced to the number seven; that is, who had sinned, as it has been before stated, without measure or limits: and this ought also to be noticed in the Prophet’s words; but I cannot now proceed farther. <\/p>\n

(18) Eam non restituam — ‘I will not restore it.’ — Bishop Lowth. Of all commentators, Dathius gives the best explanation of the first part of this verse. His remarks are these: — “There is here mentioned a fourth sin, for which God would no longer defer punishment. The three sins, which had preceded the fourth, signify all those sins which they had besides committed, a definite number being put for a number indefinite.” But as to the phrase, לא אשיבנו, non avertam illud — ‘I will not turn it away,’ so as to forgive it, that is, the fourth sin, he seems not to have been so felicitous; for the reference is evidently to Damascus. It will admit of either these renderings, — “I will not restore it,” that is, to favor; or “I will not turn away from it,” so as to let it go unpunished. The whole verse I would render thus: — <\/p>\n

Thus saith Jehova, — For three transgressions of Damascus, Yea, for the fourth, I will not turn away from it; For it threshed Gelead with iron wains. <\/p>\n

Literally, it is, “ they threshed;” for it is usual with the prophets, when speaking of a city or people, to pass from the singular to the plural number. — Ed. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CRITICAL NOTES<\/strong>.] <\/strong><\/p>\n

Amo. 1:3<\/span><\/strong>. Three<\/strong>] The numbers serve to denote the multiplicity of sins, ungodliness in its worst form [Luther<\/em>]. Turn<\/strong>] Reverse, to make a thing go back, to withdraw it (Num. 23:20<\/span>; Isa. 43:13<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Amo. 1:4<\/span><\/strong>. A fire<\/strong>] Material, as cities burned in war (Psa. 78:63<\/span>); or an emblem of Gods judgments. <\/p>\n

Amo. 1:5<\/span><\/strong>. Bar<\/strong>] of its gates (Jer. 51:30<\/span>). Inhab<\/strong>.] Subject. Him that holdeth<\/strong>] Ruler. Saith<\/strong>] Strengthens the threat, which was fulfilled when the Assyrian king conquered Damascus and broke up the kingdom (2Ki. 16:9<\/span>). <\/p>\n

HOMILETICS<\/em><\/p>\n

THE JUDGMENT ON DAMASCUS.Amo. 1:3-5<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The prophet having declared the object of his mission, and the authority by which he was sent, now gives the several messages in order. First<\/em> to the surrounding nations, grouped together into two classes. Damascus (Syria), Gaza (Philistia), and Tyre, more distantly related to Israel; Edom, Ammon, and Moab allied in origin, and nearer to Israel. Then<\/em> to Judah, and finally<\/em> to Israel herself, the chief transgressor. In the succession of groups we see a climax of guilt.<\/p>\n

I. The guilt of Damascus<\/strong>. For three transgressions of Damascus and for four. All the judgments are introduced by the same formula, which does not mean that four transgressions were added to three, but that there was a series of sins, each one greater than the one before it, and the last the greatest, the climax of all. All these nations were guilty of multiplied sins. We notice those specially mentioned in each case. Damascus, that is, the Syrians under the reign of Hazael, invaded and subdued the eastern regions of Israel. They treated the captured Gileadites with great cruelty, and crushed them under iron threshing-machines (2Ki. 10:32-33<\/span>; 2Ki. 8:12<\/span>). Elisha foretold this cruelty, and Hazael actually did it, though he stood aghast at the prediction. The women of Israel were thrown like sheaves on the threshing-floor. <\/p>\n

II. The punishment<\/strong> of Damascus<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

1. It is irreversible<\/em>. I will not turn away the punishment thereof. There are antecedent stages when the consequences may be averted. There are times of warning and patient waiting. But when men abuse Gods patience, and continue in sin till there be no remedy, they must reap what they deserve. <\/p>\n

2. It is wide-spread<\/em>. (a<\/em>) The royal palaces are destroyed<\/em>. I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad. Royal palaces, though richly furnished and strongly built, avail nothing before God. The habitations of the rich are no protection against the wrath of God. They turn to dust and ashes before the fire. (b<\/em>) The capital is made defenceless<\/em>. I will break also the bar of Damascus. The bar, the gates of the city were broken. It was exposed to the enemy, who could go in and out at pleasure. The seat of empire and the empire itself was shorn of its strength. All means of resistance were shivered Disgrace and ruin followed. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap (Isa. 17:1<\/span>). (c<\/em>) The inhabitants greatly suffered<\/em>. Some were cut off by the sword. The people from the plain of Aven and princes from the house of Eden, the inhabitants of the valley and the cities, were put to death. Neither their wealth nor their gods could protect them. Others were taken captives to the land of Kir, an Assyrian province on the banks of the river Kir, the modern Georgia. This was accomplished when the king of Assyria took Damascus, and carried away its people into captivity (2Ki. 16:9<\/span>). How easily can God uproot and transplant a nation that sins against him, and acts with cruelty towards his people! Those who abuse the power which God bestows upon them to uproot others, shall themselves be uprooted.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CURSE ON DAMASCUS.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(3) Three transgressions . . .<\/strong>This form of transgression, which occurs eight times in the prologue, is not an arithmetical, but a strongly idiomatic phrase, signifying multiplied or repeated delinquencies<\/strong> (Henderson<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Turn away<\/strong> . . .Rather, will not turn it backi.e.,<\/em> the sore judgment I have purposed. (Comp. 2Ki. 10:32-33<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3-5<\/strong>. <\/strong> The sin and punishment of Damascus. <\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Thus saith Jehovah <\/strong> A solemn formula repeated before each denunciation (Amo 1:6<\/span>; Amo 1:9<\/span>; Amo 1:11<\/span>; Amo 1:13<\/span>; Amo 2:1<\/span>; Amo 2:4<\/span>; Amo 2:6<\/span>). The prophet desires to make it plain that in all he says he is the spokesman of Jehovah (compare Zec 1:3<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Three four <\/strong> There is no reason for thinking that Amos had in mind three or four specific transgressions which exhausted the patience of Jehovah, as Kimchi undertook to show: (1) the campaign against Baasha (1Ki 15:18<\/span> ff.), (2) against Ahab (1Ki 20:1<\/span> ff.), (3) against Jehoahaz (2Ki 13:3<\/span>), (4) against Ahaz of Judah (2Ki 16:5-6<\/span>). The last one took place about twenty-five years after this prophecy was delivered. The numbers must be explained as ascending enumeration <\/em> (see on Hos 6:2<\/span>); the prophet wants to say that the measure of their guilt is more than full. <\/p>\n

Transgressions <\/strong> More correctly, rebellions. <\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Damascus <\/strong> The capital of Syria, here representing the whole country. The beginnings of the hostility between Israel and Syria may be traced to the days of Solomon, when Rezon established himself in Damascus and became “an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon” (1Ki 11:23-25<\/span>). The Syrian power increased steadily, until in the ninth century B.C. Syria became the most powerful nation in western Asia and seriously troubled Israel. In Amos’s days its prestige had begun to decline, Jeroboam II having waged successful war against Damascus (2Ki 14:25-26<\/span>; compare 2Ki 13:25<\/span>). <\/p>\n

I will not turn away the punishment thereof <\/strong> Literally, I will not turn it back. <\/em> The object must be supplied from the context. Since it is left so indefinite there has been great difference of opinion with regard to it. The more important interpretations are, “I will not convert <\/em> it,” that is, Damascus; “I will not revoke <\/em> it,” that is, the wrath of Jehovah, or the resulting sentence of judgment, or a threat uttered at an earlier period and now recalled by Amos. The English translation gives a correct interpretation by adding “punishment.” <\/p>\n

Because <\/strong> Introduces a typical example of the transgressions of Damascus. <\/p>\n

Threshed <\/strong> Literally, tread down. <\/em> One primitive method of threshing was to make animals tread out the grain with their feet (Mic 4:13<\/span>; Deu 25:4<\/span>). Even when other methods of threshing were adopted the term was retained.<\/p>\n

With threshing instruments of iron <\/strong> The threshing machines to which reference is here made are described by Thomson in The Land and the Book, <\/em> ii, p. 315, as follows: “The most common mode of threshing is with the ordinary slab, called mowrej, <\/em> which is drawn over the floor by a horse or yoke of oxen, until not only the grain is shelled out, but the straw itself is ground up into chaff. To facilitate this operation bits of rough lava (or iron teeth, Isa 41:15-16<\/span>) are fastened into the bottom of the mowrej, <\/em> and the driver sits or stands upon it. The Egyptian mowrej <\/em> is a little different from this, having rollers which revolve on the grain, and the driver has a seat upon it. In the plains of Hamath I saw this machine improved by having circular saws attached to the rollers.” Whether the prophet means that the Syrians actually used these instruments to torture captives, or whether he simply uses the expressions to give a vivid description of cruelties of every sort is not certain (compare 2Ki 13:7<\/span>; Pro 20:26<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Gilead <\/strong> In the narrow sense, the east Jordan territory between the Yarmuk and the Arnon (Deu 3:13<\/span>), in the broader sense, the whole Hebrew territory east of the Jordan; so here, equivalent to “inhabitants of Gilead.” Gilead, being nearest to Syria, would suffer first in the case of a Syrian invasion. The prophet may have in mind the invasion under Hazael during the latter half of the ninth century (compare 2 Kings 8-13).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1). YHWH’s Judgment On Damascus ( Amo 1:3-5<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

YHWH’s judgment on Damascus, a city (representing Aram) which had proved through the years to be Israel’s most dangerous enemy, would be because of their continually cruel treatment of Gilead at the time when they had invaded Israel again and again, ‘threshing them with instruments of iron’. Gilead was the land east of Jordan which was especially vulnerable when the kings of Israel were weak, and was in the path of any Aramaean invasion from the north. The picture is of a huge threshing board with its iron teeth which was, as it were, being dragged over the helpless Gileadites.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:3-4<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

“Thus says YHWH.<\/p>\n

For three transgressions of Damascus, yes, for four,<\/p>\n

I will not turn away their punishment,<\/p>\n

Because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron,<\/p>\n

But I will send a fire into the house of Hazael,<\/p>\n

And it will devour the palaces of Ben-hadad.”<\/p>\n

Firstly YHWH has spoken against Damascus. Damascus was the capital city of Aram (Syria), with which a number of local Aramaean tribes were associated. Its ‘empire’ had had its beginnings in the days of Solomon (1Ki 11:23-25<\/span>). It thus represents the whole of Aram. They were the amalgamated people to the north of Israel, occupying land which had been designated to Israel, and who did so much damage to Israel before Assyria appeared on the scene. Three transgressions would indicate a complete number of transgressions. Four is therefore ‘over the top’. They had multiplied their transgressions against Israel. This was especially so in the case of their treatment of Gilead through which Aram had trampled again and again when invading Israel. Gilead, east of the Jordan, was an especial temptation to Aram when Israel were weak. The Aramaeans had slain the Gileadites mercilessly ‘threshing them with threshing instruments of iron’ (we might have said ‘mowing them down’ or ‘steamrollering over them’). The threshing instruments would have had points of iron attached to them for the purpose of separating the wheat from the chaff, and the picture is one of unyielding savagery, the swords of the Aramaeans no doubt doing the work of the iron teeth. The consequence of this was that Aram itself was similarly to suffer through the fires of judgment kindled by invading armies. As they had done, so would it be done to them. Benhadad was of the house of Hazael. Hazael had been the king who most assailed Israel (see 2Ki 8:12<\/span>; 2Ki 10:32<\/span>; 2Ki 13:22<\/span>), and both he, and Benhadad who followed him, suffered under the invading armies of Assyria. The burning of captured cities which resisted was common policy.<\/p>\n

‘I will not turn away their punishment.’ Or ‘I will not reverse\/revoke it (i.e. My punishment on them)’. The verb ’ashibenu can have a wide variety of meaning, the basic idea being ‘I will not turn it’.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:5<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

“And I will break the bar of Damascus,<\/p>\n

And cut off the inhabitant from the valley of Aven,<\/p>\n

And him who holds the sceptre from the house of Eden,<\/p>\n

And the people of Aram (Syria) will go into captivity to Kir,<\/p>\n

Says YHWH.”<\/p>\n

The bar of Damascus was the great bar that held the gates of the city closed and prevented them from being opened from outside. Once that was broken access for the enemy would be simple. The valley of Aven may have been the Beqa Valley between Lebanon and anti-Lebanon. Thus both town and country would be affected. Furthermore the one who ruled in Eden would also be affected. This may refer to Beth-eden, the Bit-Adini of Assyrian records, which was a small state on the banks of the Euphrates south of Carchemish. ‘Damascus’ is thus seen as indicating all the local Aramaean tribes. No Aramaeans would escape.<\/p>\n

After the desolation described, the people of Aram would be transported to Kir. Kir was the area from which they originally came (Amo 9:7<\/span>), thus it was the equivalent of Israel being returned to Egypt. It was a sign that YHWH had ‘foreclosed’ on them. They would have lost their freedom, independence and separate identity. This policy of transportation was one for which the Assyrians (and later the Babylonians) were notorious.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Seven Judgments Against The Neighbouring Nations, Including Judah ( Amo 1:3<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> to Amo 2:5<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The announcing of YHWH’s judgments on seven nations (including Judah) can be looked at in two ways. First it was an assurance to Israel that YHWH was watching over their basic interests and had observed the behaviour of the nations round about. By this he was gaining their interest. But even more importantly, as the inclusion of Judah brings out, Amos was cleverly gaining Israel’s consent to his message as they approved of what God was doing to those nations (we can see them nodding their heads with approval as each judgment is pronounced), with the result that when he suddenly slid the knife in and showed them that they too were coming under YHWH’s judgment his words would have hit home.<\/p>\n

Lest Israel think that they were alone in coming under YHWH’s judgment Amos first outlined the judgment coming on the surrounding nations. It was a poignant reminder to them that in spite of their behaviour YHWH had been watching over their interests, in that He had noted the ill-treatment meted out to them by their neighbours. These were depicted in a sevenfold group of prophecies, each one following a similar pattern. The judgments would come respectively on Damascus, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab and, last but not least, Judah, and it is apparent from this that it includes all the nations immediately surrounding Israel. They were also the nations who either dwelt in the original inheritance given to Israel (Philistia, Aram, Tyre and Judah), or had had their land specifically given to them by YHWH (Edom, Ammon and Moab). They all came within YHWH’s sphere of activity (compare Psa 60:8<\/span>). Apart from Moab and Judah judgment was to come on them because of their continual bestial behaviour towards Israel. In the case of Moab it was for more general barbarism towards a related tribe. In the case of Judah it was because they had strayed from the Law of YHWH.<\/p>\n

The nations in question were probably given in the order of the severity of the treatment that they meted out towards Israel and Judah, with Aram being the most severe, followed by Philistia and then Tyre, with Moab the least severe (nothing is in fact indicated about Moab’s behaviour towards Israel). Others have seen a geographical pattern commencing in the north east (Aram), moving to the south west (Philistia, with four cities involved), going up to the north east (Tyre), and finally dealing with the three small nations in the south east (Edom, Ammon, Moab). But all had to be included for the point of the oracles was of YHWH’s concern for the whole land that had been originally promised to Abraham and allocated to Israel, combined with the land of their acknowledged relatives, Edom, Moab and Ammon, which had specifically been given to those nations by YHWH for Lot’s sake (Deu 2:5<\/span>; Deu 2:9<\/span>; Deu 2:19<\/span>). And the point was that that whole area was to be devastated because it had come short of YHWH’s most basic requirements. That is why all the nations bordering on Israel were included. YHWH’s judgments would not be restricted. They would be ‘universal’ to the whole area.<\/p>\n

It will be noted that each description dealing with a nation commences with the refrain ‘thus says YHWH’. Nothing of what Amos warns about will come about accidentally Rather he is stressing that because YHWH has spoken, His word will actively go forth to accomplish His purpose (Isa 55:11<\/span>) This declaration is then in each case followed by the reason why YHWH was acting. It was because of their multiplied transgressions. ‘For three transgressions, and for four, of — I will not turn away their punishment because —’. Three transgressions (three is the number of completeness) would be seen as fullness of transgression. To add a fourth was therefore to be excessive. It represented overflowing and continual transgression. The pattern then goes on to outline what they are being punished for (‘because –’), and in each case it is for some particularly heinous act of inhumanity of a type which would be condemned by all decent nations. This is then followed up with the threat of ‘fire’ on the transgressor, accompanied in all cases except Tyre, Edom and Judah by a further threat and a further assurance that it was what YHWH had spoken. The exception in the case of Tyre and Edom was probably in order to link Philistia, Tyre and Edom together because they were involved together in their inhuman slave-trading. Judah was excepted because it would still have a future. YHWH would not forget His covenant with David, therefore those who ‘held the sceptre’ would not finally be cut off in Judah’s case. ‘Fire’ was a regular means of divine judgment (Deu 16:13<\/span>; Jos 6:24<\/span>; Jos 8:8<\/span>; Jos 11:9<\/span>), and may have included the thought that they were being ‘devoted as offerings to YHWH’ (compare Num 31:10<\/span>; Deu 7:25-26<\/span>; Deu 12:3<\/span>; Jdg 1:8<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Prophecy Against Damascus <\/strong> Amo 1:3-5<\/span><\/em><\/strong> is a prophecy against the people of Syria, with Damascus as its leading city. We read in 1Ki 11:23-25<\/span> about Syria’s rebellion against Israel since the time of King David. During the reign of Hazael, king of Damascus, Israel seems to have suffered its worst aggression from these hostile neighbours. Syria’s hostility was so wicked against Israel that Elisha wept when the Lord showed him this brutality coming to pass (2Ki 8:7-13<\/span>).<\/p>\n

1Ki 11:23-25<\/span>, “And God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: And he gathered men unto him, and became captain over a band, when David slew them of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus. And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria.”<\/p>\n

Amo 1:3<\/strong><\/span> Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron:<\/p>\n

Amo 1:3<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Word Study on “transgressions” <\/em><\/strong> Strong<\/em> says the Hebrew word “transgression” “ pesha`<\/em> ” ( ) (H6588<\/span>) means, “a revolt, rebellion, sin, transgression.” The Enhanced Strong <\/em> says it is found in the Old Testament 93 times, being translated in the KJV as “transgression 84, trespass 5, sin 3, rebellion 1.” This Hebrew word is used frequently in the book of Amos (Amo 1:3<\/span>; Amo 1:6<\/span>; Amo 1:9<\/span>; Amo 1:11<\/span>; Amo 1:13<\/span>; Amo 2:1<\/span>; Amo 2:4<\/span>; Amo 2:6<\/span>; Amo 3:14<\/span>; Amo 5:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Amo 1:3<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Gilead was the north-eastern most region of Israel, located to the immediate south of Damascus. There was nothing to stop Syria from invading this part of Israel. Stuart notes how the descriptive language of the Syrians using threshing instruments against the inhabitants of Gilead is intended to bring to mind the brutality of this nation against helpless people. On this passage G. A. Smith describes these threshing instruments as curved slabs of basalt, rather than iron, drawn swiftly by horses over the fields of grain, studded with sharp basalt teeth so that the grain is thoroughly threshed when trampled in this manner. [17] 2Ki 13:7<\/span> describes Syria’s threshing of Jehoahaz’s army, who “made them like the dust by threshing”.<\/p>\n

[17] George A. Smith, Amos<\/em>, <\/em> in The Expositor’s Bible<\/em>, ed. William R. Nicoll and Oscar L. Joseph (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), in Ages Digital Library<\/em>, v. 1.0 [CD-ROM] (Rio, WI: Ages Software, Inc., 2001), comments on Amos 1:3<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2Ki 13:7<\/span>, “Neither did he leave of the people to Jehoahaz but fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Syria had destroyed them, and had made them like the dust by threshing.”<\/p>\n

Amo 1:4<\/strong><\/span> But I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:4<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “But I will send a fire” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Judgment by fire will be mentioned in the first seven of these eight oracles.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:4<\/strong><\/span> “into the house of Hazael” – <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Hazael’s rise to power as king over Syria is recorded in 2Ki 8:7-15<\/span>. This king’s rule was significant in relation to Israel because his reign was prophesied by Elijah and Elisha (1Ki 19:15-18<\/span>, 2Ki 8:7-13<\/span>). He took power by assassinating King Ben-Hadad. Evidently, Hazael, and his son who was also named Benhadad, were raised up to be used by God as an instrument to judge Israel for her sins (1Ki 19:17<\/span>, 2Ki 8:12 ; 2Ki 10:32<\/span>; 2Ki 13:3<\/span>). Under his reign Syria warred against Israel and wounded King Joram the son of Ahab, who was then murdered by Jehu (2Ki 8:25-29<\/span>, 2Ch 22:1-6<\/span>). When King Hazael had strengthened himself he went up against Jerusalem, and King Jehoash gave him the royal treasures as an offering to appease him, thus saving the city from a Syrian attack (2Ki 12:17-21<\/span>). Hazael oppressed Israel all the days of his reign, and his son Benhadad extended this reign of oppression (2Ki 13:22-25<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Amo 1:4<\/strong><\/span> “which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad” – <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Stuart notes that this oracle’s focus upon the palaces of these Syrian kings implies that God’s judgment will be complete, bringing to ruin the fortified palaces that were the pride of the Syrian kingdom. [18]<\/p>\n

[18] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah<\/em>, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, <\/em> vol. 31, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System<\/em>, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on Amos 1:4<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:4<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> G. A. Smith notes that Hazael and Benhadad were the two Syrian kings that oppressed Israel the most, thus their names were chosen for judgment. [19] <\/p>\n

[19] George A. Smith, Amos<\/em>, <\/em> in The Expositor’s Bible<\/em>, ed. William R. Nicoll and Oscar L. Joseph (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), in Ages Digital Library<\/em>, v. 1.0 [CD-ROM] (Rio, WI: Ages Software, Inc., 2001), comments on Amos 1:4<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:4<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Of the eight oracles in Amo 1:1<\/span> to Amo 2:16<\/span>, the first seven oracles contain a similar statement about God sending fire upon the walls of the major city and devouring the palaces (Amo 1:4<\/span>; Amo 1:7<\/span>; Amo 1:10<\/span>; Amo 1:12<\/span>; Amo 1:14<\/span> a; Amo 2:2<\/span> a, 5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Amo 1:5<\/strong><\/span> I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden: and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir, saith the LORD.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:5<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “I will break also the bar of Damascus” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The city of Damascus was the leading city of the Arameans, or Syrians. The breaking of the bar refers to the enemy breaking into city through the main city gate by breaking the heavy gate bar made of strong timber or metal.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:5<\/strong><\/span> “and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The location of the plain of Aven, or valley of Aven, in Syria is uncertain. The name “Aven” is found only one other time in Eze 30:17<\/span>, where the context of the passage lists various cities in Egypt. Hosea refers to a place called “Bethaven” (Hos 4:15<\/span>; Hos 10:5<\/span>), in which is thought to be used as a term of contempt for Beth-el in Israel. [20]<\/p>\n

[20] “Aven,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,<\/em> ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project<\/em>, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).<\/p>\n

Eze 30:17<\/span>, “The young men of Aven and of Pibeseth shall fall by the sword: and these cities shall go into captivity.”<\/p>\n

Hos 4:15<\/span>, “Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Bethaven , nor swear, The LORD liveth.”<\/p>\n

Hos 10:5<\/span>, “The inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the calves of Bethaven : for the people thereof shall mourn over it, and the priests thereof that rejoiced on it, for the glory thereof, because it is departed from it.”<\/p>\n

G. A. Smith believes valley of Aven refers to “the valley between the Lebanons, still called the Bek’a, in which lay Heliopolis.” [21]<\/p>\n

[21] George A. Smith, Amos<\/em>, <\/em> in The Expositor’s Bible<\/em>, ed. William R. Nicoll and Oscar L. Joseph (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), in Ages Digital Library<\/em>, v. 1.0 [CD-ROM] (Rio, WI: Ages Software, Inc., 2001), comments on Amos 1:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:5<\/strong><\/span> “and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The name “Eden” is generally understood as Beth-Eden, which is the name of a historical place in ancient Assyrian records. Stuart says it was “a city-state area located between the Euphrates and the Balikh rivers, to the north of Aram proper”. Stuart says it is also called Eden (2Ki 19:12<\/span>, Eze 27:23<\/span>). [22]<\/p>\n

[22] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah<\/em>, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, <\/em> vol. 31, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System<\/em>, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 31.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:5<\/strong><\/span> “and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir, saith the LORD” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The Syrians evidently originated from Kir (Amo 9:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Amo 9:7<\/span>, “Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?”<\/p>\n

Amo 1:5<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Syria’s divine punishment will be by war, suggested by the statement, “I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven.” The destruction from this war will make its way to the king himself. The punishment will extend to exile for those who survive the war, suggested in the statement, “and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir.” Thus, the conquest by Syria’s enemy will be complete, ending the dynasty of King Hazael.<\/p>\n

The ISBE<\/em> says that the prophecy of Amo 1:5<\/span> came to pass when the king of Assyria (named Tiglath-pileser IV) took Damascus and carried its people off to Kir (2Ki 16:9<\/span>). [23]<\/p>\n

[23] “Aven,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,<\/em> ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project<\/em>, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).<\/p>\n

2Ki 16:9<\/span>, “And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Oracles Against Eight Nations Amo 1:3<\/span><\/strong> to Amo 2:6<\/span> makes up a series of similar eight oracles against Judah, Israel and six adjacent Syro-Palestinian nations. Amos included all of Israel’s bordering neighbours in this list, leaving none out. There appears to be no geographical order to the list of eight oracles found in this opening passage. Several suggestions have been made to identify a logical order. (1) The Degree of Aggression Against Israel – <\/em> Perhaps it can be said that Syria, which heads this list, was Israel’s worst enemy during the time of the northern kingdom, while Judah, which ends the list of Israel’s neighbours, was least aggressive against the northern kingdom of Israel. However, Stuart says there is no historical documentation that mentions the attacks that these pagan nations inflicted upon Judah and Israel, suggesting they were primarily border skirmishes that took place after Solomon’s reign. (2) The Degree of Blood Kin to Israel – <\/em> More obvious is the fact that the first three countries (Syria, Philistia, Tyre) are the most distant relatives of the Jews, while Edom, Ammon, and Moab are more closely related by blood. (3) Israel’s Sins are the Climax to a List of Testimonies of Divine Judgment Against All Nations <\/em> The most logical order suggests that the sins of Israel are deliberately placed at the end of a list of testimonies of divine judgment against all nations, meaning that God’s people are not excluded. Stuart notes that final oracle against Israel is longer, serving as a climax to this collection of oracles. G. A. Smith suggests Amos uses the strategy of declaring the sins of Israel’s surrounding nations before declaring to them similar sins, thus proving their guilt through the prophetic testimonies of divine judgment preceding her list of sins. Smith notes that although the nations have sinned in the areas of war and broken treaties, while Israel’s sins were internal civic violations of the Law, Amos declares a worse doom upon Israel than upon her neighbours. As barbaric as are the sins of the nations, Israel’s sin of pride and backsliding just as evil in God’s eyes. Thus, God judges the nations for violating their conscience, where the law of God is written (Rom 2:12<\/span>; Rom 2:14-16<\/span>), but He judges His people for violating their covenant with Him. [14]<\/p>\n

[14] George A. Smith, Amos<\/em>, <\/em> in The Expositor’s Bible<\/em>, ed. William R. Nicoll and Oscar L. Joseph (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), in Ages Digital Library<\/em>, v. 1.0 [CD-ROM] (Rio, WI: Ages Software, Inc., 2001), “Introduction.”<\/p>\n

Amo 1:3-5<\/span> Oracle against Syria<\/p>\n

Amo 1:6-8<\/span> Oracle against Philistia<\/p>\n

Amo 1:9-10<\/span> Oracle against Tyre<\/p>\n

Amo 1:11-12<\/span> Oracle against Edom<\/p>\n

Amo 1:13-15<\/span> Oracle against Ammon<\/p>\n

Amo 2:1-3<\/span> Oracle against Moab<\/p>\n

Amo 2:4-5<\/span> Oracle against Judah<\/p>\n

Amo 2:6-16<\/span> Oracle against Israel<\/p>\n

These oracles contain similar content. The prophet Amos introduces his message as a word from the Lord, reveals the sins of the nation, pronounces an appropriate judgment, and confirms its certainty with the closing phrase “says the (Sovereign) Lord.” <\/p>\n

Stuart says one theological insight to these eight oracles is the fact that God rules over all nations, whether they acknowledge it or not, and He does not put up with sinful deeds from any of them without penalty. He holds each one accountable for their deeds. [15] In Rom 2:12-16<\/span> Paul explains that God judges the deeds of the nations by their conscience, in which God has written His divine law. Stuart calls this “a basic sort of international law”.<\/p>\n

[15] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah<\/em>, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, <\/em> vol. 31, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System<\/em>, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 308.<\/p>\n

Rom 2:12-16<\/span>, “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”<\/p>\n

G. A. Smith notes that although Assyria is not mentioned in these eight oracles, these divine judgments reflect this empire’s style of destroying cities and conquering nations. Thus, God will use Assyria to punish these nations in the second half of the eighth century. [16]<\/p>\n

[16] George A. Smith, Amos<\/em>, <\/em> in The Expositor’s Bible<\/em>, ed. William R. Nicoll and Oscar L. Joseph (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), in Ages Digital Library<\/em>, v. 1.0 [CD-ROM] (Rio, WI: Ages Software, Inc., 2001), “Introduction.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Amo 1:3<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>I will not turn away the punishment thereof<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> I will not revoke it; <\/em>that is, the voice which denounced their destruction. Houbigant renders the verse, After three transgressions of Damascus, I will not bear that which was the fourth; because, <\/em>&c. The prophet first threatens the people of Syria, the capital of which was Damascus, for the several transgressions which they had committed, and particularly for their cruelties exercised against the Israelites by Hazael and Benhadad. 2Ki 10:32<\/span>; 2Ki 13:7<\/span>. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Lord begins with Damascus, one of the most ancient enemies of Israel when in Canaan. The three or four transgressions means many and for every one of which the Lord will account with them, and a dreadful account it will be when it comes. All the palaces of their kings shall be destroyed, and the inhabitants of their cities shall be punished. And these things were literally accomplished, as we read 2Ki 16:9<\/span> . If the Reader compares dates, he will find the distance between the prophecy and the accomplishment near fifty years.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Amo 1:3 Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron:<\/p>\n

Ver. 3. For three transgressions of Damascus and for four<\/strong> ] For their seven, that is, several sins, not a few; for their many and bony provocations, for their progress in sin, without mean or measure. The Jews here note, that for three faults God will pardon a man, but let him beware of the fourth: God will not always serve man for a sinning stock, but break off his abused patience, and proceed to punishment. Lo, all these things worketh God twice and thrice with man, Job 33:29<\/span> , but let him not thereupon grow overly bold, lest he pay for his presumption. Sin iterated is greatly aggravated; as ciphers added increase the sum; and though it may sleep a long time, yet it is but a sleeping debt, not called for of many years, required at length; as Saul’s sin in slaying the Gibeonites was not punished till forty years after; as Joab’s killing of Abner slept all David’s days. Now, lest Israel, looking upon Syria yet flourishing, should promise themselves like impunity, they are here thus threatened. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I will not turn away the punishment thereof<\/strong> ] But pay them home for the new and the old; yea, for the old by occasion of the new; for their obstinate and incurable wickedness, I will punish them seven times more, and seven times more, and seven to that, Lev 26:24<\/span> , and so hang them up, as it were, in gibbets, for a warning to Israel, that they may wash their feet in the blood of these heathens, and redeem their own sorrows. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Because they have threshed Gilead<\/strong> ] i.e.<\/em> the Gileadites whom they had taken captive, and thus cruelly intreated; see 2Ki 13:7<\/span> ; 2Ki 10:32<\/span> , where it appeareth, that all this was done not without the Lord; which yet is no excuse to Hazael’s cruelty. That conquerors were wont to use this kind of torment and punishment, see 2Sa 12:31<\/span> . But that David should do so, is some wonder: he was hardly recovered of his late foul fall; and thence, haply, so much harshness. Certain it is, that the merciful God abhorreth cruelty toward his creature, and severely punisheth it; such as was this of Hazael toward Israel, foretold by Elisha, 2Ki 8:12<\/span> , and afterwards of Ptolemy Lathurus, king of Egypt, who slew 30,000 Jews at once; and forced the rest to eat up their dead carcases. (Joseph.) So that barbarous Duke of Alva roasted some of his prisoners to death, starved others, and that even after quarter, saying, though he promised to give them their lives, he did not promise to find them food. Dio telleth us of the Jews that dwelt about Cyrene in the days of Trajan; that they slaughtered a great sort of Romans and Greeks after a miserable manner; sawing them down the middle from the crown of the head, tearing their flesh with their teeth, smearing themselves with their blood, and wearing their skins for coverings, &c., so that 220,000 people perished there; and besides, in Egypt and Cyprus, 240,000, by the like abhorred cruelty, and about the same time, by the same hands. Dio, In Vitae Trajan, l. 58. c. 75. 8:421,423<\/em> “Beware of men,” Mat 10:17<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Amo 1:3-5<\/p>\n

3Thus says the LORD,<\/p>\n

For three transgressions of Damascus and for four I will not revoke its punishment,<\/p>\n

Because they threshed Gilead with implements of sharp iron.<\/p>\n

4So I will send fire upon the house of Hazael<\/p>\n

And it will consume the citadels of Ben-hadad.<\/p>\n

5I will also break the gate bar of Damascus,<\/p>\n

And cut off the inhabitant from the valley of Aven,<\/p>\n

And him who holds the scepter, from Beth-eden;<\/p>\n

So the people of Aram will go exiled to Kir,<\/p>\n

Says the LORD.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:3 to Amo 2:3 This is a literary unit which serves a theological purpose.<\/p>\n

1. YHWH is God of the whole earth.<\/p>\n

2. All who sin must face His wrath.<\/p>\n

3. His people were sinning and, even more so, because they were covenant people (cf. Luk 12:48).<\/p>\n

This unit must have been read or heard with glee as Israelites gladly welcomed God’s judgment on these neighboring nations; yes, even Judah (cf. Amo 2:4-5). But suddenly, and surprisingly, Amos turns in climactic fashion, to Israel’s sin (cf. Amo 2:6 to Amo 6:14). Their prosperity, military power, and land expansion were not a sign of God’s covenantal blessing (cf. Deuteronomy 27-29). Amos, the enforcer of Moses’ Covenant, demands reckoning! The Day of the Lord would not be a blessing, but a curse (cf. Amo 5:18-20)!<\/p>\n

Amo 1:3 Thus says the LORD This prophetic formula was a way of showing that the message was not the personal opinion of the prophet, but the very word of God. How much of the message was from the prophet (specific vocabulary, literary form) is uncertain. The mood or manner of inspiration is uncertain and may have variations, but the important truth is that it is a message from God. This message, though given in a certain language, historical situation, and culture, has a relevance to all cultures and times. Hermeneutically every passage has one meaningthat which the original inspired author meant to saybut many applications or significances related to the reader\/hearer’s historical and cultural situation. However, the application must be directly related to the original author’s intent\/message!<\/p>\n

In this context the phrase announces the judgment of YHWH on nations and peoples (cf. Jer 47:2; Jer 48:1; Eze 25:3; Eze 30:2; Amo 1:3; Amo 2:1).<\/p>\n

For three transgressions of Damascus and for four This is a standard introductory phrase in Amos (cf. Amo 1:3; Amo 1:6; Amo 1:9; Amo 1:11; Amo 1:13; Amo 2:1; Amo 2:4; Amo 2:6). It has also been found in other Near Eastern literature. It means that they sinned again and again.<\/p>\n

The term four was used often in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n

1. four phases of the moon<\/p>\n

2. four divisions of the year (NIDOTTE, vol. 1, p. 495)<\/p>\n

In the OT itself it represented<\/p>\n

1. compass directions (i.e., a man facing east)<\/p>\n

2. wind directions (e.g., Dan 7:2; Dan 8:8)<\/p>\n

3. corners of the earth (e.g., Isa 11:12)<\/p>\n

From these came its implied meaning of completeness or fullness. Also the numbers three and four equals seven, which is another OT way to show completeness; the sins of these nations were full\/complete!<\/p>\n

The term transgressions (BDB 833) is one of several Hebrew words which are used to describe sin and rebellion. In Amos this term takes on a sense of social sins (cf. NIDOTTE, vol. 3, p. 708). These nations rebel by attacking neighbors and relatives. Their actions show that they do not know YHWH. These nations were part of the Davidic empire and had been exposed to YHWH. The nations will be a part of a restored Davidic kingdom (cf. Amo 9:11-15)!<\/p>\n

Prophets often spoke of YHWH’s judgment on the nations (cf. Isaiah 13-23; Jeremiah 46-51; Ezekiel 25-32). The nation of Syria is also known as Aram with Damascus as its capital. The capital stands for the nation as a whole.<\/p>\n

NASB, NRSVI will not revoke its punishment<\/p>\n

NKJVI will not turn away its punishment<\/p>\n

TEVI will certainly punish them<\/p>\n

NJBI have made my decree and will not relent<\/p>\n

The NEGATED VERB (BDB 996, KB 1427, Hiphil IMPERFECT) is the usual VERB in the prophets to describe repentance. In this context it refers to God. The only vocabulary available to us to describe God relates to humans. God is an eternal Spirit. We use human words to describe Him (anthropomorphisms), but He is far beyond our ability to describe.<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: REPENTANCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT <\/p>\n

Amo 1:3 they threshed Gilead with implements of sharp iron They refers to the Syrians.<\/p>\n

The VERB (BDB 190, KB 218,Qal INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT) refers to an agricultural procedure of separating grain from its husk (cf. Deu 25:4). It can be used metaphorically as 2Ki 13:7; Isa 21:10; Jer 50:11; and Hos 10:11 show. It is used of God’s judgment (e.g., Mic 4:13 and Hab 3:12).<\/p>\n

Here it could also be metaphorical, but because of the Septuagint’s translation of 2Sa 12:31, it may be literal. Whether metaphorical or literal it speaks of Syrian abuses of Israelites (possibly related to 2Ki 13:1-9).<\/p>\n

Gilead This name (BDB 166) refers to the northern trans-jordan area between the Arnon and Jabbok Rivers that was given to the sons of Jacob, Reuben, and Gad. The specific atrocities of Syria (Aram) may relate to 2Ki 8:28-29 or 2Ki 10:32-33.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:4 I will send fire The VERB (BDB 1018, KB 1511) is a Piel PERFECT and is parallel to consume, break, and cut off. God will destroy the fortifications and dynasty of the house of Hazael (Syria, Aram). Fire is a symbol of the judgment of God on wickedness (e.g., Isa 30:27; Jer 21:14; Eze 20:47-48; Zep 1:18; Zep 3:8; Mal 4:1). See Special Topic: FIRE .<\/p>\n

Hazael This was the usurper monarch of Syria (BDB 303, cf. 2Ki 8:7-15). He reigned from 842-796 B.C.(?). He was a powerful military adversary to Assyria’s western expansion. Syria was invaded several times, but Damascus was not taken (i.e., 841, 837, and possibly 836 B.C.)<\/p>\n

Once Assyrian pressure was lessened Hazael attacked his southern neighbors.<\/p>\n

1. trans-jordan area, 2Ki 10:32-33<\/p>\n

2. Philistia, 2Ki 12:17<\/p>\n

3. Judah, 2Ki 12:17-18<\/p>\n

citadels The term (BDB 74) is translated in various ways:<\/p>\n

1. stronghold<\/p>\n

2. guardroom of the palace or temple<\/p>\n

3. fortress<\/p>\n

The Akkadian loanword, b’rh, is used as a parallel in the Post-Exilic literature (e.g., of forts in 2Ch 17:12; 2Ch 27:4 and of the temple in 1Ch 29:1; Neh 2:8).<\/p>\n

Ben-hadad Literally sons of Hadad, (BDB 122, cf. 2Ki 13:3; 2Ki 13:24-25) this is the son of Hazael (797-775 B.C.?). Probably his father gave him this name (in history as Ben Hadad III) because it became the common name (dynastic title) of many Syrian monarchs, like Pharaoh in Egypt or Caesar in Rome.<\/p>\n

It is also possible that it reflects the worship of the storm god, Hadad (Ba’al or Rimmon, cf. 2Ki 5:18). In this case it would be a condemnation on idolatry.<\/p>\n

Amo 1:5 the gate bar of Damascus Literally this refers to the lock on the main gate, a large wooden beam (or sometimes a metal bar, cf. 1Ki 4:13), which was placed horizontally across two wooden doors. Metaphorically it refers to the destruction and exile of Syria (Aram) as a nation (cf. TEV).<\/p>\n

NASB, NKJV,<\/p>\n

NJBthe inhabitant<\/p>\n

NRSV, TEVthe inhabitants<\/p>\n

NIVthe king<\/p>\n

NETthe ruler<\/p>\n

JBthe one enthroned<\/p>\n

This is a Qal ACTIVE PARTICIPLE MASCULINE SINGULAR (BDB 442, KB 444). It is obvious there is a parallel between this term and<\/p>\n

1. Amo 1:5 c, him who holds the scepter<\/p>\n

2. Amo 1:8 b, him who holds the scepter<\/p>\n

The Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible has in the footnote, him that is seated = that reigneth (p. 873).<\/p>\n

the Valley of Aven The term Aven (BDB 19) can mean<\/p>\n

1. trouble<\/p>\n

2. sorrow<\/p>\n

3. wickedness<\/p>\n

4. idolatry<\/p>\n

It is used in several ways in Amos-Hosea.<\/p>\n

1. a place of idolatry (here)<\/p>\n

2. a reference to Bethel by means of a Hebrew word play (cf. Hos 4:15; Hos 5:8; Hos 10:5; Hos 10:8)<\/p>\n

3. a reference to wickedness (cf. Hos 6:8; Hos 10:8; Hos 12:11)<\/p>\n

4. nothingness (i.e., idolatry as vanity, cf. Amo 5:5)<\/p>\n

Here it refers to a place somewhere in Syria. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 284, notes that it is a Jewish word play on Baalbek, which was called Heliopolis during the Greek period. McComiskey also asserts that because of the contact between Syria and Egypt this city may possibly have taken on the name of an Egyptian city, ‘On (cf. the Septuagint).<\/p>\n

The site is geographically uncertain, but many believe that it refers to the Bukaa valley (cf. the Septuagint).<\/p>\n

him who holds the scepter Originally the term scepter (BDB 986) referred to a wooden implement of war. Leaders were those who fought well. Their wooden weapon became a symbol of authority, rule, or power. It is used of the kings of pagan nations in Isa 14:5; Amo 1:5; Amo 1:8; Zec 10:11, but of God’s power in Isa 10:5 and His Messiah’s power in Isa 11:4.<\/p>\n

Beth-eden This name means house of pleasure (CONSTRUCT BDB 108 and 112). Its geographical location is uncertain, but may refer to (1) a kingdom north of Aram on the bank of the Euphrates River (time of Assurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III) or (2) Baalbek in the Bukaa Valley (time of Tiglath-pileser III).<\/p>\n

So the people of Syria will be exiled to Kir We learn from Amo 9:7 that this was their original homeland; they will be exiled to where they started from (BDB 885, cf. 2Ki 16:9). However, its location is unknown (cf. Isa 22:6). Most identify it as a location in Elam.<\/p>\n

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Thus saith the LORD. Jehovah’s words: not the words of Amos. . The prophetic formula. See App-82. See the twelve with Jehovah, in verses: Amo 3:6, Amo 3:9, Amo 3:11, Amo 3:13; Amo 2:1, Amo 2:4, Amo 2:6; Amo 8:12; Amo 5:4; Amo 5:16; Amo 7:17; and the two with Adonai Jehovah in Amo 3:11; Amo 5:3. <\/p>\n

three . . . four. Hebrew idiom to express several, or many (Job 33:29, margin) Compare Pro 30:15, Pro 30:18, Pro 30:21, Pro 30:29. <\/p>\n

transgressions. Hebrew pasha. App-44. <\/p>\n

turn away = turn it back, or avert it. the punishment thereof. There is no Ellipsis to be supplied, and no separate Hebrew word for “thereof”. The Hebrew is lo’ ashibennu, I will not cause it to turn back: i.e. I will not avert it. <\/p>\n

The pronoun “it” is masculine, agreeing with and referring to earthquake (Amo 1:1), and means that Jehovah would not avert it. So in all the eight occurrences (verses: Amo 3:6, Amo 3:9, Amo 3:11, Amo 3:13; Amo 2:1, Amo 2:4, Amo 2:6). <\/p>\n

thrashed Gilead. Compare Joe 8:14. The very term used in 2Ki 13:7. <\/p>\n

With = [as it were] with. Figure of speech Hypocatastasis. App-6. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Amo 1:3-15<\/p>\n

Judgments pronounced against 7 nations<\/p>\n

(including Judah and Israel) (Amo 1:3-15)<\/p>\n

Thus saith Jehovah: For three transgressions of Damascus, yea, for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron (Amo 1:3).<\/p>\n

It is apparent that the number three yea four is not to be taken literal. The Lord states that for these three yea four sins the nations were to be punished yet gives only one example. The thought is that their sins have come to be so great that they are now due Gods punishment. Note that Gods punishment is directly associated with the nations transgression. The error of Damascus is summed up in their threshing of Gilead with instruments of iron. Acts of cruelty are no doubt under consideration here. Damascus murdered the inhabitants of Gilead with crude instruments that indicated brutality. Damascus was the capital city of Syria located about 55 miles northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Gilead was the region of land due east of the Jordan River (between the Dead Sea and Sea of Galilee). Gilead was occupied by the tribes of Mannasseh and half the tribe of Gad.<\/p>\n

But I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, and it shall devour the palaces of Benhadad. And I will break the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the valley of Aven, and him that holds the scepter from the house of Eden; and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir, saith Jehovah (Amo 1:4-5).<\/p>\n

Gods punishing judgment of fire was to be sent to the house of Hazael, one who had murdered King Benhadad for his place upon the throne of Syria (cf. 2Ki 8:7 ff). Kir was a country in Mesopotamia (Isa 22:6), from which Syrians came (Amo 9:7) and to which they were later exiled (2Ki 16:9; cf. Amo 1:5) (Oxford Bible Atlas, pp. 133).<\/p>\n

Thus saith Jehovah: For three transgressions of Gaza, yea, for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they carried away captive the whole people, to deliver them up to Edom (Amo 1:6). <\/p>\n

Gaza was to be punished for her iniquities too. Gaza was one of the chief cities of Philistia (home of the Philistines). Gaza likely stands as a representative of the whole of Philistia. Gazas punishment is due to their capturing innocent people (likely their neighboring Israelites) and selling them as slaves to Edom. When human beings are treated as treasures to be discovered and sold there is a problem with ones estimation of human life.<\/p>\n

But I will send a fire on the wall of Gaza, and it shall devour the palaces thereof. And I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, and him that holdeth the scepter from Ashkelon; and I will turn my hand against Ekron; and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord Jehovah (Amo 1:7-8).<\/p>\n

Jehovahs fiery judgments would come upon Gaza for her human trafficking and shall devour her palaces. The association of Gaza with all of Philistia is now made more probable as the prophet pronounces woes upon all the chief cities of Philistia (i.e., Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron). The Philistines were devoted to extinction for their part in human trade for money.<\/p>\n

Thus saith Jehovah: for three transgressions of Tyre, yea, for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they delivered up the whole people to Edom, and remembered not the brotherly covenant. But I will send a fire on the wall of Tyre, and it shall devour the palaces thereof (Amo 1:9-10).<\/p>\n

Gods judgments were set against Tyre, a chief city in the region of Phoenicia. Tyre was known for their sea trade due to their location upon the Mediterranean Sea. Ezekiel had pronounced judgment upon Tyre due to her disposition toward Judah as Gods nation fell to the Babylonians. Tyre thought that Judah got her just reward and scoffed at the inhabitants thereof (cf. Ezekiel 26 all). Amos reveals that Tyres chief sin was in their slave trafficking (like as the Philistines) against a people that they had made covenant agreements with. Tyre was thereby dishonest and treacherous for the sake of monetary gain (see Joe 3:4-6).<\/p>\n

Thus saith Jehovah: For three transgressions of Edom, yea, for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath forever. But I will send a fire upon Teman, and it shall devour the palaces of Bozrah (Amo 1:11-12).<\/p>\n

Edom was located south of the Dead Sea (due south of Moab). Teman and Bozrah were chief and capital cities of Edom. Edoms origins were with Esau. The Edomites were descendants of Esau (twin brother of Jacob) (cf. Gen 25:19-24; Gen 25:30; Gen 36:8-9). The sins of Edom, throughout history, are summed up in the words pride and arrogance (cf. Jer 49:16). Edom had no real concern for the lives of their kinsmen of Israel and Judah (Eze 35:6). Edoms corruption is depicted in their rejoicing over the fall of Israel and Judah (cf. Psa 137:7; Eze 35:13-15). When Jehovah brought upon Israel and Judah calamity from the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Edomites reasoned within that they would now possess the land of these two nations (cf. Eze 35:10). There could be nothing further from the truth. Edom had even gone as far as attacking Gods people in their weakened state after doing battle with the Babylonians (cf. Eze 25:12; Eze 35:4-6).<\/p>\n

Ezekiel reveals the perpetual anger and envy against their brethren in Canaan (cf. Eze 35:10-12). This perpetual anger is now reiterated by Amos and is a symptom of their erroneous disease. Edom would be touched by Gods judgment of fire too for their unrepentant state of mind and acts of cruelty toward their brethren (see also Joe 3:19).<\/p>\n

Thus saith Jehovah: For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, yea, for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that they may enlarge their border. But I will kindle a fire in the wall of Rabbah, and it shall devour the palaces thereof, with shouting in the day of battle, with a tempest in the day of the whirlwind; and their king shall go into captivity, he and his princes together, saith Jehovah (Amo 1:13-15).<\/p>\n

The Ammonites (and Moabites) were the descendants of Lot (cf. Gen 19:30 ff). Ammon was located due east of Gilead in the desert. Ammons sins are likened unto the nations listed above in that they treated human life with the basest of ways. God reveals that Ammon killed women and children (women who were pregnant with children) for the sole sake of gaining more territory. Once again, the value of human life was not a value to this nation. Gods fiery judgment would come against Rabbah, the capital city of Ammon for her transgressions.<\/p>\n

Ammon had long been an enemy of Gods people. We find Jotham, King of Judah and son of Uzziah fighting against them at 2Ch 27:5. Jeremiah records that Baalis, King of the children of Ammon, decided to pay to have Gedaliah (appointed governor of Judah) assassinated probably to further disrupt Judah (Jer 40:13-14).<\/p>\n

Jeremiah pronounces an oracle against Ammon at Jer 49:1-6 because they had taken possession of Gad (one of the territories east of the Jordan) at a point in time when Israel was weak. Ammon (along with Moab) had fallen into gross idolatry worshipping the god Malcom (cf. Jer 49:1-6).<\/p>\n

The long history of conflict and strained relations between Israel and Ammon is culminated in the statement by Ammon toward Judah saying, Aha, against my sanctuary, when it was profaned and against Israel, when it was made desolate; and against the house of Judah, when they went into captivity. To say Aha is to exercise contemptuous and malicious joy.<\/p>\n

Jehovahs main complaint against Ammon is that they exercised malicious joy over the fact that Judah had profaned the Lords sanctuary with their idolatry (cf. Eze 5:11; Eze 23:38-39).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

For: Amo 1:6, Amo 1:9, Amo 1:11, Amo 1:13, Amo 2:1, Amo 2:4, Amo 2:6, Job 5:19, Job 19:3, Pro 6:16, Ecc 11:2 <\/p>\n

Damascus: Isa 7:8, Isa 8:4, Isa 17:1, Jer 49:23-27, Zec 9:1 <\/p>\n

and for four: or, yea <\/p>\n

for four: turn away the punishment thereof, or, convert it, or, let it be quiet, and so, Amo 1:6, 9-2:16 <\/p>\n

because: 1Ki 19:17, 2Ki 8:12, 2Ki 10:32, 2Ki 10:33, 2Ki 13:3, 2Ki 13:7, Isa 41:15 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Deu 30:7 – General 2Sa 12:31 – and put them 2Ki 15:29 – Gilead 2Ki 16:9 – went up Pro 30:15 – There Isa 28:27 – threshed Jer 25:22 – isles which are beyond the sea Jer 49:27 – I will Jer 51:33 – is like Dan 2:40 – forasmuch Mic 5:5 – seven Hab 3:12 – thresh Zec 1:15 – and Zec 2:8 – the nations<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Amo 1:3. The prophet now takes up the Lord’s denunciations against certain cities and nations. Damascus was the capital of Syria that lay just north of Palestine. Threshed Gilead is a figurative description of the cruel treatment that Damascus accorded that district, i’or three transgressions, and for four. This form of speech is used a number of times, and means that the ones accused had not been guilty just once or even twice, but they had done so three or four times; had been guilty repeatedly.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Amo 1:3. For three transgressions, &c. The prophet first denounces judgments against foreign countries, and afterward comes to Judah and Israel. He begins with Syria, the head or capital city of which was Damascus. By the expression, for three transgressions and for four, used here, and repeatedly afterward, he means, many or multiplied transgressions, a certain number being put, according to a very common way of speaking, for an uncertain. So we read, Job 5:19, He shall deliver thee in six troubles; yea, in seven no evil shall touch thee: see the like phrase, Pro 6:16; Ecc 11:2; Mic 5:5. Once and twice are used, Psa 62:11; twice and thrice, Job 33:29, (Hebrews) So that the meaning here is, that on account of the frequent transgressions of Damascus, God was now resolved no longer to spare it. Because they have thrashed Gilead, &c. This alludes to the thrashing- drag, or thrashing-wain, used in the eastern countries, and described in the note on Isa 28:27, which see. These instruments, being drawn by horses, or oxen, over the corn-sheaves spread on the floor, were proper and significant emblems of the tyrannical power of Syria, which cruelly oppressed and crushed the weak Gileadites, and other Israelites. It is probable that the cruelties exercised on them by Hazael and Ben-hadad, kings of Syria, are chiefly intended. The fact is recorded 2Ki 10:32-33; 2Ki 13:3-7, where it is said that Hazael made them like the dust by thrashing.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Amo 1:3-5. Damascus.It is Yahweh who speaks by the mouth of the prophets. The mention of Damascus, the capital of the Aramaean or Syrian kingdom, would at once arrest attention, for until recently Israel had been engaged in a severe struggle (p. 69) with this kingdom (Damascus stands here for the whole region). Damascus, then, had committed sins (lit. rebellions) not once or twice or thrice, but again and again (three, yea, four). It might look as though an earlier threat of punishment had been forgotten by Yahweh and the sentence of doom revoked. But such was not the case (I will not turn it back, a formula repeated in Amo 1:6; Amo 1:9; Amo 1:11; Amo 1:13; Amo 2:1; Amo 2:4; Amo 2:6). For it is typical of the brutal crimes of the Syrians that they threshed Gilead with sharp threshing instruments of iron (or basalt). When this barbarity was perpetrated is not known. It may have been done by Hazael when he conquered Gilead in the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz (2Ki 10:32 f; 2Ki 13:3; 2Ki 13:7; for the same kind of barbarity cf. 2Sa 12:31, Pro 20:26). But in any case, in punishment of their brutality Yahweh (Amo 1:4) will send fire (a symbol of war; cf. Deu 4:24, Jdg 9:20) into the house of Hazael, i.e. the dynasty founded by that usurper (2Ki 8:15), and it shall devour the paces of Benhadad, i.e. Hazaels son and successor, Benhadad III (2Ki 13:24). The inhabitants (Amo 1:5) of the valley of Aven, the broad plain that stretched between the two ranges of Lebanon and Hermon (cf. Jos 11:17; the Coele-Syria of the Greeks, modern el-Bek), will be cut off from their pleasant abode. The same fate will befall the rulers of those who hold the sceptre at Beth-eden (mg.), probably the Assyrian Bt-adini, a district on both sides of the Euphrates about 200 miles NNE. of Damascus. Damascus itself will suffer; its defences, depicted as the bars which secured the gates of the city (cf. Deu 3:5, Nah 3:13), will be broken. Then the people of Syria (Aram), or those who are left of them, will go into exile to Kir, that is, to their original home (Amo 9:7). 2Ki 16:9 also tells us that the Syrians were deported to Kir, after Tiglath-pileser IV had attacked Damascus and slain Rezin, its king (732 B.C.). Its situation is unknown. It is possible that the name should be pronounced Kor, and has some connexion with the Karians mentioned by Arrian (III. viii. 5) along with the Sittakenians (Winckler, Forsch., ii. 254ff.).<\/p>\n

Amo 1:3. threshing instruments: boards armed underneath with bits of stone or iron (Thomson, i. 150ff.; Driver, pp. 130, 227).<\/p>\n

Amo 1:4. palaces: we must not be misled by the word, which sometimes means fortress or citadel (1Ki 16:18).<\/p>\n

Amo 1:5. the inhabitant: mg. may be correct, him that sitteth.Aven: LXX has On for Aven (lit. wickedness, idolatry). On is the Egyptian name for Heliopolis in Egypt, and in Eze 30:17 it is pointed Aven. Possibly the name On was applied also to Baalbek in Syria, since this too was called Heliopolis as being another centre of sun-worship.holdeth the sceptre: or possibly, upholds the people (lit. the tribe, another meaning of shebet; cf. LXX).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1:3 Thus saith the LORD; For {e} three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they have {f} threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron:<\/p>\n

(e) He shows first that all the people round about would be destroyed for their manifold sins: which are meant by three and four, which make seven, so that the Israelites would the more deeply consider God’s judgments toward them.<\/p>\n

(f) If the Syrians will not be spared for committing this cruelty against one city, it is not possible that Israel would escape punishment, which has committed so many and such grievous sins against God and man.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

A. Oracles against nations 1:3-2:16<\/span><\/p>\n

An oracle is a message of judgment. Amos proceeded to deliver eight of these, seven against Israel’s neighbors, including Judah (Amo 1:3 to Amo 2:5), and one against Israel (Amo 2:6 to Amo 6:14). The order is significant. The nations mentioned first were foreign, but those mentioned next were the blood relatives of the Israelites, and Judah was its closest kin. Upon hearing this list the Israelites would have felt "a noose of judgment about to tighten round their [the Israelites’ own] throats." [Note: J. A. Motyer, The Day of the Lion: The Message of Amos, p. 50.] <\/span> This is the "rhetoric of entrapment." [Note: R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, p. 144. Cf. Isaiah 28.] <\/span><\/p>\n

"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 pounced on Israel. One can imagine Amos’s hearers approving the denunciation of these heathen nations. They could 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 played no favorites; he swooped down on the unsuspecting Israelites as well in the severest language and condemned them for their crimes." [Note: McComiskey, pp. 281-82.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Each oracle follows the same basic pattern. First, Amos declared the judgment to come. Second, he defended the judgment by explaining the reason for it. Third, he described the coming judgment. Smith described this pattern, which occurs with some variations in the oracles to follow, as a "messenger speech." [Note: Smith, p. 44. See also F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos, pp. 341-69.] <\/span> It contains five elements: introductory formula, certainty of judgment, charge of guilt, announcement of punishment, and concluding formula.<\/p>\n

"All the things condemned by Amos were recognized as evil in themselves, not merely in Israel, but by all the nations of the western Fertile Crescent." [Note: Ellison, p. 72.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Other major collections of oracles against foreign neighbors appear in Isaiah (chs. 13-17, 19, 21, 23, 34), Jeremiah (chs. 46-51), and Ezekiel (chs. 25-32). One might consider all of Obadiah and Nahum as oracles against foreign nations as well. In fact, all the prophetical books except Daniel and Hosea contain some condemnation of Israel’s neighbor nations. [Note: See the chart of oracles against foreign nations in D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, pp. 405-6.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

II. PROPHETIC MESSAGES THAT AMOS DELIVERED 1:3-6:14<\/span><\/p>\n

The Book of Amos consists of words (oracles, Amo 1:3 to Amo 6:14) and visions (chs. 7-9), though these sections also contain short sub-sections of other types of material.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1. An oracle against Aram 1:3-5<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The expression "for three transgressions [Heb. pesha’im<\/span>, rebellions, i.e., against the universal Sovereign; cf. Gen 9:5-17] and for four" is one of Amos’ trademark phrases (cf. Amo 1:6; Amo 1:9; Amo 1:11; Amo 1:13; Amo 2:1; Amo 2:4; Amo 2:6). It means for numerous transgressions (cf. Job 5:19; Job 33:29; Psa 62:11-12; Pro 6:16; Pro 30:15-16; Pro 30:18-19; Pro 30:21-23; Pro 30:29-31; Ecc 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. [Note: J. Mays, Amos: A Commentary, pp. 23-24.] <\/span> The phrase may also be a poetic way of describing seven transgressions, symbolizing completeness. [Note: Meir Weiss, "The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1-2, A Re-examination," Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967):418.] <\/span> Limberg observed that the number seven plays a significant role in the structure of the whole book and in the makeup of certain of the sayings. [Note: J. Limburg, "Sevenfold Structures in the Book of Amos," Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987):217.] <\/span> This may have been a way Amos certified that the whole book and each section in it was the word of the Lord. [Note: Ibid., pp 222-23.] <\/span> In the oracle against Israel, Amos cited seven sins (one in Amo 2:6, two in Amo 2:7, two in Amo 2:8, and two in Amo 2:12). Israel’s panic would also be sevenfold (Amo 2:14-16).<\/p>\n

"Based on structural parallels with proverbial statements that use the ’three, even four’ numerical pattern (see Pro 30:15-16; Pro 30:18-19; Pro 30:21-23; Pro 30:29-31), one expects to find a list of four specific sins in each oracle. But this never happens in the first seven oracles. After specifying one or two sins, the prophet breaks off the list, announces judgment, and then moves on to the next nation as if the real target of God’s anger lies somewhere else. This stylistic device does not become a bad omen for Israel until the list of Judah’s sins is left truncated, suggesting that another nation, which proves to be Israel, will follow." [Note: Chisholm, p. 379.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Damascus was the capital city of Aram (Syria), and it stands for the whole nation by metonymy. Similarly the capitals Jerusalem and Samaria often represent their respective nations, Judah and Israel, by metonymy, in biblical literature. Yahweh promised that He would not turn back the punishment due Aram because the Arameans had proved to be a scourge to the people of Israel. Threshing Gilead, a transjordanian part of Israel, with sharp iron implements pictures the plowing up of that part of the nation militarily (cf. Isa 41:15; Mic 4:13; Hab 3:12). [Note: See D. A. Hubbard, Joel and Amos, p. 131.] <\/span> Israelite citizens and territory had suffered greatly during constant battles with the Arameans, especially in Transjordan (cf. 2Ki 8:7-12; 2Ki 10:32-33; 2Ki 13:3-7). The Aramean rulers Hazael and his son Ben-hadad III had repeatedly invaded and conquered Israel between 842 and 802 B.C.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

ATROCITIES AND ATROCITIES<\/p>\n

Amo 1:3 – Amo 2:1-16<\/p>\n

LIKE all the prophets of Israel, Amos receives oracles for foreign nations. Unlike them, however, he arranges these oracles not after, but before, his indictment of his own people, and so as to lead up to this. His reason is obvious and characteristic. If his aim be to enforce a religion independent of his peoples interests and privileges, how can he better do so than by exhibiting its principles at work outside his people, and then, with the impetus drained from many areas, sweep in upon the vested iniquities of Israel herself? This is the course of the first section of his book-chapters 1 and 2. One by one the neighbors of Israel are cited and condemned in the name of Jehovah; one by one they are told they must fall before the still unnamed engine of the Divine Justice. But when Amos has stirred his peoples conscience and imagination by his judgment of their neighbors sins, he turns with the same formula on themselves. Are they morally better? Are they more likely to resist Assyria? With greater detail he shows them worse and their doom the heavier for all their privileges. Thus is achieved an oratorical triumph, by tactics in harmony with the principles of prophecy and remarkably suited to the tempers of that time.<\/p>\n

But Amos achieves another feat, which extends far beyond his own day. The sins he condemns in the heathen are at first sight very different from those which he exposes within Israel. Not only are they sins of foreign relations, of treaty and war, while Israels are all civic and domestic; but they are what we call the atrocities of Barbarism-wanton war, massacre, and sacrilege-while Israels are rather the sins of Civilization-the pressure of the rich upon the poor, the bribery of justice, the seduction of the innocent, personal impurity, and other evils of luxury. So great is this difference that a critic more gifted with ingenuity than with insight might plausibly distinguish in the section before us two prophets with two very different views of national sin-a ruder prophet, and of course an earlier, who judged nations only by the flagrant drunkenness of their war, and a more subtle prophet, and of course a later, who exposed the masked corruptions of their religion and their peace. Such a theory would be as false as it would be plausible. For not only is the diversity of the objects of the prophets judgment explained by this, that Amos had no familiarity with the interior life of other nations, and could only arraign their conduct at those points where it broke into light in their foreign relations, while Israels civic life he knew to the very core. But Amos had besides a strong and a deliberate aim in placing the sins of civilization as the climax of a list of the atrocities of barbarism. He would recall what men are always forgetting, that the former are really more cruel and criminal than the latter; that luxury, bribery, and intolerance, the oppression of the poor, the corruption of the innocent and the silencing of the prophet-what Christ calls offences against His little ones-are even more awful atrocities than the wanton horrors of barbarian warfare. If we keep in mind this moral purpose, we shall study with more interest than we could otherwise do the somewhat foreign details of this section. Horrible as the outrages are which Amos describes, they were repeated only yesterday by Turkey: Many of the crimes with which he charges Israel blacken the life of Turkeys chief accuser, Great Britain.<\/p>\n

In his survey Amos includes all the six states of Palestine that bordered upon Israel, and lay in the way of the advance of Assyria-Aram of Damascus, Philistia, Tyre (or Phoenicia), Edom, Ammon, and Moab. They are not arranged in geographical order. The prophet begins with Aram in the northeast, then leaps to Philistia in the southwest, comes north again to Tyre, crosses to the southeast and Edom, leaps Moab to Ammon, and then comes back to Moab. Nor is any other explanation of his order visible. Damascus heads the list, no doubt, because her cruelties had been most felt by Israel, and perhaps too because she lay most open to Assyria. It was also natural to take next to Aram Philistia, as Israels other greatest foe; and nearest to Philistia lay Tyre. The three southeastern principalities come together. But there may have been a chronological reason now unknown to us.<\/p>\n

The authenticity of the oracles on Tyre; Edom, and Judah has been questioned: it will be best to discuss each case as we come to it.<\/p>\n

Each of the oracles is introduced by the formula: “Thus saith,” or “hath said, Jehovah: Because of three crimes of yea, because of four, I will not turn It back.” In harmony with the rest of the book, Jehovah is represented as moving to punishment, not for a single sin, but for repeated and cumulative guilt. The unnamed “It” which God will not recall is not the word of judgment, but the anger and the hand stretched forth to smite. After the formula, an instance of the nations guilt is given, and then in almost identical terms he decrees the destruction of all by war and captivity. Assyria is not mentioned, but it is the Assyrian fashion of dealing with conquered states which is described. Except in the case of Tyre and Edom, the oracles conclude as they have begun, by asserting themselves to be the “word of Jehovah,” or of “Jehovah the Lord.” It is no abstract righteousness which condemns these foreign peoples, but the God of Israel, and their evil deeds are described by the characteristic Hebrew word for sin-“crimes,” “revolts,” or “treasons” against Him.<\/p>\n

1. ARAM OF DAMASCUS.-“Thus hath Jehovah said: Because of three crimes of Damascus, yea, because of four, I will not turn It back; for that they threshed Gilead with iron”-or “basalt threshing-sledges.” The word is “iron,” but the Arabs of today call basalt iron; and the threshing-sledges, curved slabs drawn rapidly by horses over the heaped corn, are studded with sharp basalt teeth that not only thresh out the grain, but chop the straw into little pieces. So cruelly had Gilead been chopped by Hazael and his son Ben-Hadad some fifty or forty years before Amos prophesied. Strongholds were burned, soldiers slain without quarter, children dashed to pieces, and women with child put to a most atrocious end. But “I shall send fire on the house of Hazael, and it shall devour the palaces of Ben-Hadad”-these names are chosen, not because they were typical of the Damascus dynasty, but because they were the very names of the two heaviest oppressors of Israel. “And I will break the bolt of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from Bikath-Aven”-the Valley of Idolatry, so called, perhaps, by a play upon Bikath On, presumably the valley between the Lebanons, still called the Beka, in which lay Heliopolis-“and him that holdeth the scepter from Beth-Eden”-some royal Paradise in that region of Damascus which is still the Paradise of the Arab world-“and the people of Aram shall go captive to Kir”-Kir in the unknown north, from which they had come: (Amo 9:7) “Jehovah hath said” it.<\/p>\n

2. PHILISTIA.-“Thus saith Jehovah: For three crimes of Gaza and for four I will not turn It back, because they led captive a whole captivity, in order to deliver them up to Edom.” It is difficult to see what this means if not the wholesale depopulation of a district in contrast to the enslavement of a few captives of war. By all tribes of the ancient world, the captives of their bow and spear were regarded as legitimate property: it was no offence to the public conscience that they should be sold into slavery. But the Philistines seem, without excuse of war, to have descended upon certain districts and swept the whole of the population before them, for purely commercial purposes. It was professional slave-catching. The Philistines were exactly like the Arabs of today in Africa-not warriors who win their captives in honorable fight, but slave-traders, pure and simple. In warfare in Arabia itself it is still a matter of conscience with the wildest nomads not to extinguish a hostile tribe, however bitter one be against them. Gaza is chiefly blamed by Amos, for she was the emporium of the trade on the border of the desert, with roads and regular caravans to Petra and Elah on the Gulf of Akaba, both of them places in Edom and depots for the traffic with Arabia. “But I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, and the holder of the sceptre from Askalon, and I will turn My hand upon Ekron”-four of the five great Philistine towns, Gath being already destroyed, and never again to be mentioned with the others-“and the last of the Philistines shall perish: Jehovah hath said it.”<\/p>\n

3. TYRE.-“Thus saith Jehovah: Because of three crimes of Tyre and because of four I will not turn It back; for that they gave up a whole captivity to Edom”-the same market as in the previous charge-“and did not remember the covenant of brethren.” We do not know to what this refers. The alternatives are three: that the captives were Hebrews and the alliance one between Israel and Edom; that the captives were Hebrews and the alliance one between Israel and Tyre; that the captives were Phoenicians and the alliance the natural brotherhood of Tyre and the other Phoenician towns. But of these three alternatives the first is scarcely possible, for in such a case the blame would have been rather Edoms in buying than Tyres in selling. The second is possible, for Israel and Tyre had lived in close alliance for more than two centuries; but the phrase “covenant of brethren” is not so well suited to a league between two tribes who felt themselves to belong to fundamentally different races, {Gen 10:1-32} as to the close kinship of the Phoenician communities. And although, in the scrappy records of Phoenician history before this time, we find no instance of so gross an outrage by Tyre on other Phoenicians, it is quite possible that such may have occurred. During next century Tyre twice over basely took sides with Assyria in suppressing the revolts of her sister cities. Besides, the other Phoenician towns are not included in the charge. We have every reason, therefore, to believe that Amos expresses here not resentment against a betrayal of Israel, but indignation at an outrage upon natural rights and feelings with which Israels own interests were not in any way concerned. And this also suits the lofty spirit of the whole prophecy. “But I will send fire upon the wall of Tyre, and it shall devour her palaces”<\/p>\n

This oracle against Tyre has been suspected by Wellhausen, for the following reasons: that it is of Tyre alone, and silence is kept regarding the other Phoenician cities, while in the case of Philistia other towns than Gaza are condemned; that the charge is the same as against Gaza; and that the usual close to the formula is wanting. But it would have been strange if from a list of states threatened by the Assyrian doom we had missed Tyre, Tyre which lay in the avengers very path. Again, that so acute a critic as Wellhausen should cite the absence of other Phoenician towns from the charge against Tyre is really amazing, when he has just allowed that it was probably against some or all of these cities that Tyres crime was committed. How could they be included in the blame of an outrage done upon themselves? The absence of the usual formula at the close may perhaps be explained by omission, as indicated above.<\/p>\n

4. EDOM.-“Thus saith Jehovah: Because of three crimes of Edom and because of four I will not turn It back; for that he pursued with the sword his brother,” who cannot be any other than Israel, “corrupted his natural feelings”-literally “his bowels of mercies”-“and kept aye fretting his anger, and his passion he watched”-like a fire, or “paid heed” to it-“forever.” “But I will send fire upon Teman”-the “South” Region belonging to Edom-“and it shall devour the palaces of Bosrah”-the Edomite Bosrah, southeast of Petra. The Assyrians had already compelled Edom to pay tribute.<\/p>\n

The objections to the authenticity of this oracle are more serious than those in the case of the oracle on Tyre. It has been remarked that before the Jewish Exile so severe a tone could not have been adopted by a Jew against Edom, who had been mostly under the yoke of Judah, and not leniently treated. What were the facts? Joab subdued Edom for David with great cruelty. {2Sa 8:13 with 1Ki 11:16} Jewish governors were set over the conquered people, and this state of affairs seems to have lasted, in spite of an Edomite attempt against Solomon, {1Ki 11:14-25} till 850. In Jehoshaphats reign, 873-850, “there was no king of Edom, a deputy was king,” who towards 850 joined the kings of Judah and Israel in an invasion of Moab through his territory. {2Ki 3:1-27} But, soon after this invasion and perhaps in consequence of its failure, Edom revolted from Joram of Judah (849-842), who unsuccessfully attempted to put down the revolt. {2Ki 8:20-22} The Edomites appear to have remained independent for fifty years at least. Amaziah of Judah (797-779) smote Edom, {2Ki 14:10} but not, it would seem, into subjection; for, according to the Chronicler, Uzziah had to win back Elath for the Jews after Amaziahs death. {2Ch 26:2} The history, therefore, of the relations of Judah and Edom before the time of Amos was of such a kind as to make credible the existence in Judah at that time of the feeling about Edom which inspires this oracle. Edom had shown just the vigilant, implacable hatred here described. But was the right to blame them for it Judahs, who herself had so persistently waged war, with confessed cruelty, against Edom? Could a Judaean prophet be just in blaming Edom and saying nothing of Judah? It is true that in the fifty years of Edoms independence-the period, we must remember, from which Amos seems to draw the materials of all his other charges-there may have been events to justify this oracle as spoken by him; and our ignorance of that period is ample reason why we should pause before rejecting the oracle so dogmatically as Wellhausen does. But we have at least serious grounds for suspecting it. To charge Edom, whom Judah has conquered and treated cruelly, with restless hate towards Judah seems to fall below that high impartial tone which prevails in the other oracles of this section. The charge was much more justifiable at the time of the Exile, when Edom did behave shamefully towards Israel. Wellhausen points out that Teman and Bosrah are names which do not occur in the Old Testament before the Exile, but this is uncertain and inconclusive. The oracle wants the concluding formula of the rest.<\/p>\n

5. AMMON.-“Thus saith Jehovah: Because of three crimes of Ammon and because of four I will not turn It back; for that they ripped up Gileads women with child-in order to enlarge their borders!” For such an end they committed such an atrocity! The crime is one that has been more or less frequent in Semitic warfare. Wellhausen cites several instances in the feuds of Arab tribes about their frontiers. The Turks have been guilty of it in our own day. It is the same charge which the historian of Israel puts into the mouth of Elisha against Hazael of Aram, {2Ki 8:12} and probably the war was the same; when Gilead was simultaneously attacked by Arameans from the north and Ammonites from the south. “But I will set fire to the wall of Rabbah”-Rabbath-Ammon, literally “chief” or “capital” of Ammon-“and it shall devour her palaces, with clamor in the day of battle, with tempest in the day of storm.” As we speak of “storming a city,” Amos and Isaiah use the tempest to describe the overwhelming invasion of Assyria. There follows the characteristic Assyrian conclusion: “And their king shall go into captivity, he and his princes together, saith Jehovah.”<\/p>\n

6. MOAB.-“Thus saith Jehovah: Because of three crimes of Moab and because of four I will not turn It back; for that he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime.” In the great invasion of Moab, about 850, by Israel, Judah, and Edom conjointly, the rage of Moab seems to have been directed chiefly against Edom. Whether opportunity to appease that rage occurred on the withdrawal of Israel we cannot say. But either then or afterwards, balked of their attempt to secure the king of Edom alive, Moab wreaked their vengeance on his corpse, and burnt his bones to lime. It was, in the religious belief of all antiquity, a sacrilege: yet it does not seem to have been the desecration of the tomb-or he would have mentioned it-but the wanton meanness of the deed, which Amos felt. “And I will send fire on Moab, and it shall devour the palaces of The Cities”-Kerioth, perhaps the present Kureiyat, on the Moab plateau where Chemosh had his shrine-“and in tumult shall Moab die”-to Jeremiah (Jer 48:45) the Moabites were the sons of tumult-“with clamor and with the noise of the war-trumpet. And I will cut off the ruler”-literally “judge,” probably the vassal king placed by Jeroboam II “from her midst, and all his princes will I slay with him: Jehovah hath said” it.<\/p>\n

These, then, are the charges which Amos brings against the heathen neighbors of Israel. If we look as a whole across the details through which we have been working, what we see is a picture of the Semitic world so summary and so vivid that we get the like of it nowhere else-the Semitic world in its characteristic brokenness and turbulence; its factions and ferocities, its causeless raids and quarrels, tribal disputes about boundaries flaring up into the most terrible massacres, vengeance that wreaks itself alike on the embryo and the corpse-“cutting up women with child in Gilead,” and “burning to lime the bones of the king of Edom.” And the one commerce which binds these ferocious tribes together is the slave-trade in its wholesale and most odious form.<\/p>\n

Amos treats none of the atrocities subjectively. It is not because they have been inflicted upon Israel that he feels or condemns them. The appeals of Israel against the tyrant become many as the centuries go on; the later parts of the Old Testament are full of the complaints of Gods chosen people, conscious of their mission to the world against the heathen, who prevented them from it. Here we find none of these complaints, but a strictly objective and judicial indictment of the characteristic crimes of heathen men against each other; and though this is made in the name of Jehovah, it is not in the interests of His people or of any of His purposes through them, but solely by the standard of an impartial righteousness which, as we are soon to hear, must descend in equal judgment on Israel.<\/p>\n

Again, for the moral principles which Amos enforces no originality can be claimed. He condemns neither war as a whole nor slavery as a whole, but limits his curse to wanton and deliberate aggravations of them: to the slave-trade in cold blood, in violation of treaties, and for purely commercial ends; to war for trifling causes, and that wreaks itself on pregnant women and dead men: to national hatreds, that never will be still. Now against such things there has always been in mankind a strong conscience, of which the word “humanity” is in itself a sufficient proof. We need not here inquire into the origin of such a common sense-whether it be some native impulse of tenderness which asserts itself as soon as the duties of self-defense are exhausted, or some rational notion of the needlessness of excesses, or whether, in committing these, men are visited by fear of retaliation from the wrath they have unnecessarily exasperated. Certain it is that warriors of all races have hesitated to be wanton in their war, and have foreboded the special judgment of heaven upon every blind extravagance of hate or cruelty. It is well known how the Greeks felt the insolence of power and immoderate anger; they are the fatal element in many a Greek tragedy. But the Semites themselves, whose racial ferocity is so notorious, are not without the same feeling. “Even the Beduins” old cruel rancors are often less than the golden piety of the wilderness. The danger past, they can think of the defeated foemen with kindness putting only their trust in Ullah to obtain the like need for themselves. It is contrary to the Arabian conscience to extinguish a Kabila.” Similarly in Israel some of the earliest ethical movements were revolts of the public conscience against horrible outrages, like that, for instance, done by the Benjamites of Gibeah. {Jdg 19:20} Therefore in these oracles on his old Semitic neighbors Amos discloses no new ideal for either tribe or individual. Our view is confirmed that he was intent only upon arousing the natural conscience of his Hebrew hearers in order to engage this upon other vices to which it was less impressionable-that he was describing those deeds of war and slavery, whose atrocity all men admitted, only that he might proceed to bring under the same condemnation the civic and domestic sins of Israel.<\/p>\n

We turn with him, then, to Israel. But in his book as it now stands in our Bibles, Israel is not immediately reached. Between her and the foreign nations two verses are bestowed upon Judah: “Thus saith Jehovah: Because of three crimes of Judah and because of four I will not turn it back; for that they despised the Torah of Jehovah, and His statutes they did not observe, and their false hoods”-false gods-“led them astray, after which their fathers walked. But I will send fire on Judah, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem.” These verses have been suspected as a later insertion, on the ground that every reference to Judah in the Book of Amos must be late, that the language is very formal, and that the phrases in which the sin of Judah is described sound like echoes of Deuteronomy. The first of these reasons may be dismissed as absurd; it would have been far more strange if Amos had never at all referred to Judah. The charges, however, are not like those which Amos elsewhere makes, and though the phrases may be quite as early as his time, the reader of the original, and even the reader of the English version, is aware of a certain tameness and vagueness of statement, which contrasts remarkably with the usual pungency of the prophets style. We are forced to suspect the authenticity of these verses.<\/p>\n

We ought to pass, then, straight from the third to the sixth verse of this chapter, from the oracles on foreign nations to that on Northern Israel. It is introduced with the same formula as they are: “Thus saith Jehovah: Because of three crimes of Israel and because of four I will not turn it back.” But there follow a great number of details, for Amos has come among his own people whom he knows to the heart, and he applies to them a standard more exact and an obligation more heavy than any he could lay to the life of the heathen. Let us run quickly through the items of his charge. “For that they sell an honest man for silver, and a needy man for a pair of shoes”-proverbial, as we should say “for an old song”-“who trample to the dust of the earth the head of the poor”-the least improbable rendering of a corrupt passage-“and pervert the way of humble men. And a man and his father will go into, the maid,” the same maid, “to desecrate My Holy Name”-without doubt some public form of unchastity introduced from the Canaanite worship into the very sanctuary of Jehovah, the holy place where He reveals His Name-“and on garments given in pledge they stretch themselves by every altar, and the wine of those who, have been fined they drink in the house of their God.” A riot of sin: the material of their revels is the miseries of the poor, its stage the house of God! Such is religion to the Israel of Amos day-indoors, feverish, sensual. By one of the sudden contrasts he loves, Amos sweeps out of it into Gods idea of religion-a great historical movement, told in the language of the open air: national deliverance, guidance on the highways of the world, the inspiration of prophecy, and the pure, ascetic life. “But I, I destroyed the Amorite before you, whose height was as. the cedars, and he was strong as oaks, and I destroyed his fruit from above and his roots from below.” What a contrast to the previous picture of the temple filled with fumes of wine and hot with lust! We are out on open history; Gods, gales blow and the forests crash before them. “And I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and led you through the wilderness forty years, to inherit the land of the Amorite.” Religion is not chambering and wantonness; it is not selfish comfort or profiting by the miseries of the poor and the sins of the fallen. But religion is history-the freedom of the people and their education, the winning of the land and the defeat of the heathen foe; and then, when the land is firm and the home secure, it is the raising, upon that stage and shelter, of spiritual guides and examples. “And I raised up of your sons to be prophets, and of your young men to be Nazarites”-consecrated and ascetic lives. “Is it not so, O children of Israel? (oracle of Jehovah). But ye made the Nazarites drink wine, and the prophets ye charged, saying, Prophesy not!”<\/p>\n

Luxury, then, and a very sensual conception of religion, with all their vicious offspring in the abuse of justice, the oppression of the poor, the corrupting of the innocent, and the intolerance of spiritual forces-these are the sins of an enlightened and civilized people, which Amos describes as worse than all the atrocities of barbarism, and as certain of Divine vengeance. How far beyond his own day are his words stilt warm! Here in the nineteenth century is Great Britain, destroyer of the slave-traffic, and champion of oppressed nationalities-yet this great and Christian people, at the very time they are abolishing slavery, suffer their own children to work in factories and clay-pits for sixteen hours a day, and in mines set women to a labor for which horses are deemed too valuable. Things improve after 1848, but how slowly, and against what callousness of Christians, Lord Shaftesburys long and often disappointed labors painfully testify. Even yet our religious public, that curses the Turk, and in an indignation, which can never be too warm, cries out against the Armenian atrocities, is callous, nay, by the avarice of some, the haste and passion for enjoyment of many more, and the thoughtlessness of all, itself contributes, to conditions of life and fashions of society, which bear with cruelty upon our poor, taint our literature, needlessly increase the temptations of our large towns, and render pure child life impossible among masses of our population. Along some of the highways of our Christian civilization we are just as cruel and just as lustful as Kurd or Turk.<\/p>\n

Amos closes this prophecy with a vision of immediate judgment. “Behold, I am about to crush or squeeze down upon you, as a wagon crushes that is full of sheaves.” An alternative reading supplies the same general impression of a crushing judgment: “I will make the ground quake under you, as a wagon makes it quake,” or “as a wagon” itself “quakes under its load of sheaves.” This shock is to be War. “Flight shall perish from the swift, and the strong shall not prove his power, nor the mighty man escape with his life. And he that graspeth the bow shall not stand, nor shall the swift of foot escape, nor the horseman escape with his life. And he that thinketh himself strong among the heroes shall flee away naked in that day-tis the oracle of Jehovah.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron: 3. For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four ] Similarly Amo 1:6 ; Amo 1:9 ; Amo 1:11 ; Amo 1:13, Amo 2:1; Amo … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Amos 1:3”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22378","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22378","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22378"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22378\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22378"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22378"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22378"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}