Blogs are hard to use. To date, blogs are for geeks like me, but not for normal people who just want to have an easy way to communicate with their friends. Herein lies the problem. I use Blogger (thanks Google) to make my blog. This way my website can have a iFrame on it (you’re looking at it) and the blog can be displayed inline, but I can update it from anywhere in the world.

What if I’m not at a computer? Use SMS? Right, the problem with blogger is it’s still FTP based, so I *can* post with my cellphone, but it won’t update until I’m in front of a computer to click a button. Why can’t a SMS message to straight to my webpage?

I am working on a project right now with a couple friends to re-invent a couple common things. One is blogs. The other is secret right now, but it will be great. The goal is to make it easy and non-geeky to have a blog (or blog-like page). I want my mom to have one. I want Caleb to have one. Check back in here later for more information, I hope to have it all up and running in a month or so.

Things are a little rocky at work right now, and I’m not sure about my future at said place of work. I’m not looking for work, but if someone’s looking for an employee, I might be interested.

I launched a new website: lachmullen.com to get my resume out there.

By Steve Swinburne

The doctrine of predestination, election, calling and foreknowledge is difficult to understand and has created confusion and division within the body of Christ. This paper is meant to deal biblically with this complex issue, which in the end only God can fully understand.

Let us start by defining the terms in which we will be speaking of. The word “called” or “calling” as translated in our English bible comes from the Greek word kletos. This word literally means “to be invited”. The second word we must look at is the Greek word proginosko, which is translated in our bibles as “foreknew” or “foreknowledge”. This word in the Greek means “to have knowledge before hand”. This word is used in 1 Peter 3:17 in talking about things the believers already knew, as well as being used in other passages to speak of the foreknowledge of God relating to predestination. The third word which is important in this topic is proorizo, which is translated as “predestined”. Proorizo means “to predetermine before hand” or “of God decreeing before eternity”. The last word we will look at is eklektos, which is translated from Greek to English as “chosen” or “elect”. The meaning of this word is “to pick out”. Now that we have defined from the Greek the words which will be discussed we can dive into the application of this words and their usage in the doctrine of salvation.

The first point that we need to realize is that everyone matters to God. Jesus made this known in their parable of the lost sheep is which the shepherd searches for the lost sheep and rejoices when it is found (Luke 15:3-7). God loves his creation and created man to worship Him, and thus he desires all men to know him. 1 Timothy 2:3-4 says: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, [4] who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” In addition 2 Peter 3:9 says that: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” God desires all of mankind to come to him, however we know that all men will not come to God because many will ultimately choose to reject His calling (Matt. 19:16-30).

The bible teaches that Jesus gave himself as ransom for all men (1 Tim. 2:5-6). Therefore Jesus’ death represents a chance for all people to be drawn to Him (John 12:32). Since Jesus died for all and desires all mankind to know Him, anyone who receives Him will be saved. The elect is not made up of a special group of people who God chose before hand to go to heaven and thus they cannot choose to reject God. The Lord did not create a special group of robots to worship Him, he lets men choose whether they will accept Him or reject Him. Jesus gives salvation to whoever believes in Him and to as many who receive Him (John 1:12, John 3:16, 1 John 2:2). Paul teaches that men are without excuse for not knowing God because the law of God has been written on their hearts and creation alone reveals that God is real (Romans 1:19-20; 2:14-16).

Perhaps the clearest explanation of the Kingdom of God is found in Matthew 22:1-14. In this parable Jesus relates the Kingdom of Heaven to a King who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. The parable explains that men had been invited to the banquet but choose not to come, they paid no attention to the King or the Son and ultimately denied them (Matt. 22:4-5). The King sent his servants to invite anyone who would come (Matt. 22:9). The wedding hall was then filled with all types of people who choose to accept the invitation (Matt. 22:10). The parable ends with Matt. 22:14 which says: “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” God has invited all of mankind to His wedding banquet and we can choose whether to accept or reject the invitation (Matt. 22:3,5,8). Thus if we accept God we become part of the chosen or elect who receive salvation through God’s grace because of the work of Jesus Christ, this work was foreordained by God and God chooses salvation through Jesus as the only way to enter heaven (Romans 6:23). Therefore, mankind’s attempts to seek God through any other way than Jesus are worthless, because God choose Jesus as the only means by which we can be reconciled to God. Thus we can become part of God’s elected not by works or human will, but by the means of grace provided through Christ Jesus (John 1:12-13).

The next main point is that in order to understand predestination we must also understand the role of Israel and God’s covenant with Abraham. God chose Abraham to be the father of people who would glorify his name (Deut. 14:2). However being a descendant of Abraham or a member of the nation of Israel did not guarantee salvation. The descendants of Abraham had to choose to worship God in order to receive the grace of God (Ex. 19:5, Deut. 11:22, 26-28). In addition the descendants of God’s “chosen man” and “chosen people” evolved into many nations and tribes of people. God’s grace was shown in that one did not have to be part of the nation of Israel to receive grace, they only had to believe. This is confirmed by the story of the prostitute Rahab, who makes the Hall of Fame of faith in Hebrews (Hebrews 11:31). God chose Abraham and the nation of Israel to spread his word to the nations and to be a blessing to all nations (Genesis 12:3). The danger we must avoid is always comparing the nation of Israel to the body of believers today, because not everyone in the nation of Israel followed God, many chose to reject God and fell away from God. Thus we can see that God abides by the decisions of humans to exclude themselves from being part of the chosen people. Romans 9:27 says: “Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.” This remnant are those that choose God through the means by which he has provided (Luke 12:32, Romans 9:32).

Romans chapter nine has traditionally been the support for the Calvinist view of predestination. However, I believe by properly understanding of what Paul is saying here we can correctly interpret this passage. The first point I want to address is that Pharaoh first hardened his heart against God before God hardened his heart. Pharaoh had hardened his heart seven times, and consequently God let Him have his own way and hardened his heart three more times (Ex. 7-9, Romans 9:17,18). In fact, Pharaoh helped God’s work and showed more of God’s power by hardening his heart (Romans 9:17). The second section of Romans nine I want to address is the story of Jacob and Esau. Many people believe that God just decided before time that he would hate Esau and love Jacob. This is simply a poor interpretation. In Romans 9:13-15 Paul is explaining that it was never enough just to be a Jew in order to obtain salvation. These two brothers who were part of Israel made two different decisions. Jacob choose to serve God and thus he stood for the people of God. On the other hand Esau rejected God and began the nation of Edom who chose to be an enemy of God (Mal. 1:1-5). Thus God loved Jacob who loved Him, and hated Esau because Esau turned away from Him. This had been spoken of before hand by God (Gen. 25:23), according to his foreknowledge. Paul explains that because God rejected Esau he is not unjust. God had chosen before the creation of the world that only through faith in Him would man be saved. Esau rejected this faith and because of this no matter what his works were, or how much he desired to go to heaven, God would not have mercy upon Him. ?16? It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy (Romans 9:16).

The election and predestination of man for salvation is a collective reality. This is displayed throughout Paul’s epistles when he writes the Church bodies and says that they were chosen by God. This is true; God chose the body of Christ and the means by which man could come into union with God. Ephesians 1:4-6 says:

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love [5] he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will- [6] to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.”

It was God’s pleasure and will that those who would receive his grace would receive it only through adoption as sons through Christ Jesus. Those who come to God through Jesus become part of the body of Christ and have thus joined his chosen people. This is our blessed hope and our purpose as the body of Christ as outlined here is to praise God for his grace.

Another aspect of God’s election is that he chooses individuals for ministry. Before Jeremiah was born he was appointed to become a prophet (Jer. 1:5). He reluctantly accepted this calling (Jer. 1:6-7) and fulfilled God’s purpose for Him. God also choose Cyrus the Great to fulfill his purposes (Isa. 44:28-45:5). Jesus choose his disciples (Mark 3:13-19), and chose Paul to bring his salvation message to the world (Acts 9:6, 26:16). This is not to say God forces people to do his work or to come to Him. He chooses people to fulfill his purposes and invites them to do so. Jonah first disobeyed God’s purpose for Him in ministry, yet finally conceded to God’s will and preached to the city of Nineveh (Jonah 1-3). God’s call to ministry in these cases is usually so convincing and appealing that man cannot reject it and thus God’s will is carried out by those he chooses for special ministry.

There are two types of predestination. The first is a collective predestination in which God chose the body of believers in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time. This body is not a closed club but open for all who accept him (John 1:12). The second type of predestination is individual. This is God choosing people to carry out his purpose in ministry. It is important to keep these two types of predestination separate and to look at who the audience is in passages in the bible which speak about predestination. God has left the door to salvation open to those who will receive Him (John 3:16), all creation matters to Him (1 Tim. 2:4) and all men are without excuse (Rom.1:19-20). God places Jesus as a cornerstone, a precious cornerstone and if we trust in Him we become part of a chosen people (1 Peter 2:4-12).

Charlie Trimm

ETS NW Regional

March 1, 2003

God had a message for the people of Israel. Not wanting to simply speak from the heavens, he chose Amos to deliver this message. But since this message was not one that Israel would readily accept, Amos delivers a “trap” for the people of Israel to get the attention of his audience, which is recorded for us in Amos 1-2. After he draws his listeners in and gains their sympathy with his condemnation of the surrounding nations, he gradually turns the spotlight closer and closer to home until he suddenly turns the tables and delivers a fierce attack upon Israel. “Suddenly the cheering stops and no one shouts ‘Amen’” (Smith 2001 256). But is the oracle against Israel really the point of the passage? Is it really that much of a surprise? Have some of the oracles been inserted by a clumsy redactor? And how does Amos 1-2 relate to the rest of the book?

These are some of the questions that textlinguistics can help answer. Textlinguistics (also called discourse analysis) could be characterized several ways. One way is that it examines the way that a writer communicates using structural clues in the text (Bergen 1987 327-336). The exegete is not simply looking for semantic content contained in the structure, but also looking for the semantic content of the structure itself. The author highlights the most important information in the section using structure, resulting in a peak or focus of attention.

Longacre describes discourse peak as a “zone of turbulence in otherwise placid flow of discourse.” Changes from the “routine” within a discourse serve as cues to mark the progression of a discourse. Longacre explains that languages possess a number of possible strategies to mark discourse peak. These strategies vary across languages. Essentially the regular flow of the discourse is altered at peak. A given discourse may employ one or several strategies. Such strategies may include rhetorical underlying (e.g., paraphrase), change in word order, discourse peak particle, change of tense-aspect-mood, change of sentence length, al. The underlying assumption is that variation is not random nor arbitrary (Christopher 209).

An example is seen in 1 Samuel 16:13-23 where the three major themes of the passage are shown by three morphosyntactically marked sections (Bergen Evil Spirits 320). Another way of viewing textlinguistics is that of extending the limit of study from the sentence, as is done in traditional grammars, to the level of discourse (Reed 231). For example, the use or non-use of a preterite in Biblical Hebrew narrative has more to do with discourse function (introduction of topic or closing of section as examples) than with the semantic content of the sentence by itself.

So how does textlinguistics help us with Amos 1-2? This paper will examine three topics in regards to Amos 1-2 through the lens of textlinguistics. These topics have usually received either little attention or are simply stated without proof in the commentaries. First, data will be given to show that the oracle against Israel is the peak of Amos 1-2. Second, the foreshadowing of the Israel oracle in the first seven oracles will be studied, including an examination to see if any of the oracles were added later. Third, the foreshadowing of the rest of the book of Amos in Amos 1-2 will be examined.

OVERVIEW OF THE ORACLES AND THEIR PATTERN

Amos begins the book after an introduction with eight oracles, one each against Syria, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Judah, and Israel. There are several ways of understanding the order, but a helpful way is to see the first four as cutting chiastically across Israel (NE, SW, NW, SE) and the next three as blood brothers to Israel (Ammon, Moab, and Judah), with Edom serving as a transition since it is in both categories (Finley 134, Wendland 9). The boundaries of the oracles are easy to determine and employ similar boundary markers as those used in the books of Haggai and Zechariah (Clark 23).

Each oracle proceeds according to a tight structure. First comes the introductory formula hw”ëhy> rm:Ã¥a’ hKo (Köh ´ämar yhwh, Thus says the LORD), which is exactly the same for all eight oracles. Second comes God’s statement of determination to not revoke his punishment, where the only variation is the place: WNb,_yvia] al{Ã¥ h['ÞB'r>a;-l[;w> qf,M,êd; y[eäv.Pi 'hv'l{v.-l[; (`al-šülöšâ PiÅ¡`ê dammeºSeq wü`al-´arBä`â lö´ ´ášîbeºnnû, For three transgressions of Damascus and for four I will not turn back).

Major variation begins in the third portion, which is the reason God gives for the punishment to follow. Every oracle has the preposition l[; (`al) followed by an infinitive construct to describe the reason. The exact reason and formal number of reasons varies for each oracle. A similarity in wording between some of the reasons is evident occasionally, such as the hm'Þlev. tWlïG" (Gälût šülëmâ ) in Philistia and Tyre (Paul 397-403). In the oracle against Israel this section starts in a similar fashion to the other oracles, but quickly becomes very different. One of the major differences is the inclusion of an "Acts of God on behalf of Israel" section that serves to highlight the evil things Israel was doing by contrasting it with the good things God had done for them. The punishment section is the last section in the Israel oracle that bears any formal resemblance to the prior pattern.

The fourth section in the pattern is the description of punishment. In the first part of this section, strong formal similarity is seen, as each of the first seven oracles begins with yTix.L;îviw> B. vaeÞ (wüšillaºHTî ´ëš Bü, And I will send fire on) and tAnðm.r>a; hl'Þk.a'w> (wü´äklâ ´armünôt, And fire will consume the citadels). Only minor variations are seen, such as the use of yTiC;Ûhiw> (wühiccaºTTî, And I will kindle) instead of yTix.L;îviw> (wüšillaºHTî, And I will send) in the Ammon oracle, or a pronominal suffix on tAnðm.r>a; (armünôt, citadels). But a significant variation in the formal number of punishments is also seen. The Israel oracle has a punishment section, but its formal characteristics are totally different than the previous seven.

The last section is a concluding formula, hw")hy> rm:ïa' (´ämar yhwh, says the LORD). The Philistia oracle has hwI)hy> yn"ïdoa] rm:ßa’ (´ämar ´ádönäy yhwh, says the Lord GOD), while the Tyre, Edom, and Judah oracles lack the formula entirely. The Israel oracle concludes with hw”)hy>-~aun> (nü´um-yhwh, declares the LORD). This formula is often a concluding formula in other sections of the prophets, as it is here (Clark 23).

ISRAEL ORACLE AS PEAK OF AMOS 1-2

Recognition of the Israel oracle as the point or the peak of Amos 1-2 is agreed upon by commentators, but few reasons are usually given besides the fact that it is longer and last (Stuart 316, Wendland 10), although there are a few exceptions, such as Chisholm, who lists two of the points given below briefly in his article (189-190). A close look at the Israel oracle in comparison with the other seven reveal that there are several textual indicators here that show peak. A demonstration of those textual indicators in this text, where there is no doubt that this is the peak, might prove to be helpful in other texts in Amos where peak is in doubt.

The first indicator is the word order of the various clauses. In the first seven oracles, a vast majority of the clauses have the verb first (VX). The only regular exception is the statement of determination (D section) in each oracle, which does not have the verb first (XV). But outside of this regularly occurring section, there are only three clauses that are VX. These three clauses occur in the Edom, Moab, and Judah oracles. There are 45 VX clauses in the first seven oracles with only ten XV clauses, seven of which are in the D section of each oracle. But in the Israel oracle there are seven VX to fifteen XV clauses. This sudden switch in sentence structure would be sure to grab the reader’s attention and highlight this section. This is seen especially in the reason section, where in the previous seven oracles, except for one in Edom, there were only VX clauses. But here five out seven are XV.

Table 1: Word Order in the Oracles

VX (Verb First)XV (Verb not First)

First Seven Oracles45 (82%)10 (18%)

Israel Oracle7 (32%)15 (68%)

First Seven Oracles, Not Counting D Section45 (94%)3 (6%)

Israel Oracle, Not Counting D Section7 (33%)14 (67%)

The added section, the acts of God, is another indicator of peak. Anderson and Freedman consider this section to be an inclusion by a later editor due to its prose nature and its difference from the previous oracles. They even speculate about what the end of the original oracle looked like based on analogy (342-3). However, this would unduly make the prophet a slave to his own pattern and not allow him any artistic freedom to make his point. If the prophet’s purpose is to emphasize the Israel oracle, how much clearer could he be than by adding this section only to the Israel oracle? The turbulence in the pattern shows that this is part of the peak.

The acts of God section is included in the midst of the reason section to provide a contrast to what the people of Israel are doing. They are rejecting God by their deeds, including oppressing the poor, desecrating marriage and not allowing the prophets to prophesy. But the deeds of God show his love for the people, whether it be destroying their enemies before them or guiding them in the wilderness or giving them messengers so that they can know him. This contrast with what he is doing versus what they are doing is heightened by the use of first person pronoun, which is technically redundant when used with a suffixed verb. And not only does it remind them of what God did for them, it reminds them that they were the weak people at that point who were oppressed by the greater power. But now, the people who were weak, the people whom God rescued from this power, they are now oppressing other people (Smith 1991 38). Far from being the product of a sloppy redactor, the acts of God section fits nicely with the emphasis Amos is giving the oracle against Israel and highlights the depravity of Israel by showcasing the goodness of God.

The third textual indicator of peak is the concrete imagery used in verse 12. The exact meaning of the verse is obscure, but whatever it refers to it is a concrete picture of God’s relation with Israel. This is similar peak material to what Finley and Payton found as peak in Isaiah 7-12 (330). This use of metaphor is not found in the other oracles, and so its inclusion here highlights this oracle and introduces the lengthy and unusual punishment section.

The different formal structure for the concluding formula and the punishment section also serve to highlight this oracle. The previous punishment sections were very stereotyped and focused on the buildings and rulers of the people being punished. In this oracle, however, the focus is upon the individuals in the army and the desperate straits they will be in. There will be no escape for any. The concluding formula is also different for Israel. First, there are two concluding formulas in this oracle, one to conclude the new acts of God section, and one to close the oracle as a whole. Second, instead of hw”)hy> rm:ïa’ (´ämar yhwh, says the LORD), hw”)hy>-~aun> (nü´um-yhwh, declares the LORD) is used instead.

When Amos composed the Israel oracle, he finely crafted it to achieve maximum effect on his hearers. After hearing of all the evil deeds of their neighbors, Israel expects a glorious end with a victory song or a promise of special treatment to God’s beloved and chosen people. And indeed, Israel does receive special treatment, but not the kind of special treatment they are expecting. Their sins are not overlooked and forgiven simply because they are God’s people. Instead, their sins are punished precisely because they are God’s people. The oracle against Israel is not the shoddy work of a half-awake redactor, but is a masterpiece of a prophet who desires to grab the attention of his audience and shake them up to bring them back to the Lord.

FORESHADOWING OF THE ISRAEL ORACLE IN THE FIRST SEVEN ORACLES

In the first two chapters of Amos, a trap is sprung on unsuspecting Israel, who has been cheering on the condemnation of all the surrounding nations. But now, they are now being regarded in a similar light as these foreign nations: guilty and condemned! But a close study of the first seven oracles reveals that the surprise is not really that surprising. Several textual indicators along the way reveal that “things just aren’t quite right.”

The structure of the Judah oracle is the major indication that all is not quite right. There are a few indications that Judah might be the last oracle in the series. Judah is the seventh oracle, an important number. (Note, for example, the three and the four used in the statement of determination.) The Judah oracle itself is also somewhat unusual, both in its form (more reasons, fewer punishments, no concluding formula) and in its content (no warfare reasons, but a rejection of the law). Then there is a lack of any other near neighbors to condemn. Who else would there be left to condemn? The list seems complete: Start the victory song on behalf of Israel!

Table 2: Pattern of the Oracles

Number of ReasonsNumber of PunishmentsConcluding Formula

Syria 15Yes

Philistia 15Yes

Tyre 22No

Edom 42No

Ammon 13Yes

Moab 14Yes

Judah 32No

Israel 77Yes, but different

But a closer look at the previous oracles reveals there should be another. Although there are not any more neighbors to condemn, “[t]here is a big hole in the map where Israel goes” (Vreeland). A study of the structure of the oracles confirms this thought. A comparison of the Judah oracle to Tyre and Edom reveal striking similarities, as seen in Table 2. It appears that Amos has set up these oracles in pairs, with the pairs being determined by the number of reasons, number of punishments, and the inclusion or exclusion of a concluding formula. The groupings are Syria and Philistia as the first pair, Tyre and Edom for the second pair, Ammon and Moab as the third pair, and Judah and ? for the fourth pair (Smith 40). Even though the Judah oracle is unusual, something even more unusual is coming which will clearly break the pattern set up so far. These groupings demonstrate as well that the three minority oracles which have often been on the cutting block of the critics (Tyre, Edom, and Judah) are vital to what Amos is doing. Scholars who take out these oracles either entirely or just excise the Judah oracle due to Deuteronomistic language and then extensively rearrange the other oracles based on such things as meter (Christensen 427-436) are missing the point. To take these oracles out is to ruin the delicate trap that Amos is setting for Israel and to miss the meaning in the structure.

Another indicator of the unsurprising surprise is the use of word order. In the first seven oracles, VX predominates. The one exception is the statement of determination, which is consistently XV. But there are three places, once in the Edom oracle, once in the Moab oracle, and once in the Judah oracle where a XV clause is used when a VX is expected. This increase in use of a non-normal word order occurs increasingly as the end approaches. (Edom is the fourth oracle, Moab the sixth, and Judah the seventh.) This XV use foreshadows the Israel oracle, where XV predominates significantly over VX (14 XV vs. 5 VX). As the end gets closer, things get more and more unusual, tipping off the observant reader that something even more unusual might be coming up.

FORESHADOWING OF THE BOOK OF AMOS IN AMOS 1-2

Although Amos 1-2 serve a very important purpose of themselves, they also serve as an introduction to the entire book of Amos. Most of the major themes of the book are introduced in these two chapters and several important concepts are foreshadowed. To claim that Amos 1-2 are simply a later addition tacked onto an entirely different literary work is to miss the literary ties and connections that are present between Amos 1-2 and 3-9.

The oppression of the poor by Israel is a very common theme in Amos and one of the major complaints Amos has with the people. This oppression is given as a reason for the punishment of Israel in 2:6-8 and foreshadows many of the charges in the rest of book. This same theme is seen again in 4:1, 5:10-12, 15, 24, and 8:4-6. The wording in 8:4-6 is significant, as it has the same obscure phrase as in 2:7 and almost exactly the same phrase as found in 2:6.

Another common theme in Amos is a contrast between what God has done and what Israel is doing. This theme is foreshadowed in the act of God section that was added to the Israel oracle in 2:9-11 to highlight the depravity of Israel. This same listing of what God has done and how Israel is special to him is seen in 3:1-2, 4:6-13, 5:8, and 9:5-6. Amos delights to point out the irony of how Israel acts in relationship to God: no matter what God does, Israel still just doesn’t get it.

The focus on Israel is clearly foreshadowed in Amos 1-2. The other nations against which Amos proclaims oracles are not mentioned again except in passing, while Israel receives constant attention for the rest of the book. Amos is primarily concerned with the spiritual status of Israel, not the other nations. While they are certainly lacking in many moral and spiritual categories (as the oracles clearly show), that is no excuse for Israel to be evil herself. She must be responsible for her own actions, and Amos goes about highlighting what they are doing wrong and what they should do about it.

Several wordplays and minor foreshadowings are done as well. The Lord declares that vaeÞ yTix.L;îviw> (wüšillaºHTî ´ëš, and I will send fire) upon the seven nations, to which Israel would give hearty approval. But later on the tables are turned, as God says yTix.L;’vi (Å¡illaºHTî, I sent) a plague upon Israel (4:10), and yTiîx.l;v.hi (hiÅ¡laHTî, I sent) a famine upon Israel (8:11). The fire and eating terminology is also later directed against Israel, as it was against the nations (5:6). And just as the citadels of the nations will be burnt, the citadels of Israel will be looted (3:11) and be the object of the hatred of God (6:8).

The nations continue to play a role in the rest of the book, although it is not a role that Israel would desire them to have. Even though the inhabitant of Ashdod will be cut off (1:8), Amos calls on the citadels of Ashdod to witness the tumult of Samaria. God does not simply cause tumult for Samaria, he makes other nations see it as well. And in the same verse (1:8), the remnant of the Philistines would Wdb.a’ (´äbdû, perish). But a few verses after inviting the nations to watch the tumult in Samaria, Amos says that the houses of ivory of Samaria would Wdb.a’ (´äbdû, perish). But a glimmer of hope is given at the very end of Amos, as he says that the ruins of David will be raised up and that they would posses the remnant of Edom. Once again, the surrounding nations play a supporting role, even in this breath of hope given to Israel.

One of the charges that God brings against the people of Israel is that they commanded the prophets Wa)b.N”Ti alo (lö´ Tinnäb´û, you shall not prophesy). A very vivid example of this is given later on in the book when Amaziah the priest commands Amos to go to Judea abe(N”Ti ~v’Þw> (wüšäm Tinnäbë´, and there you shall prophesy).

A possible word-play might involve the root #ma (´mc). The root is used three times in the book, and the first two times are in the punishment section against Israel, declaring that none will escape. The third time it appears is in the name of Amaziah, the priest who opposes Amos. His name will remind the readers that no one, not even the priest, will escape the judgment of God, and this is confirmed by the condemnation of Amaziah that comes from Amos (Schmidt 141-142).

Textlinguistics is a helpful tool in the analysis of the book of Amos. First, it was clearly demonstrated textually that the peak of Amos 1-2 is the oracle against Israel, since the other seven oracles are given to lure the Israelites into a trap. Second, this trap is not all that surprising and might have been noticed by an observant hearer: “something isn’t right here.” A demonstration of this tension revealed that the variation in several oracles that makes many critics want to delete them is essential to the trap of Amos. Third, the rest of the book of Amos is foreshadowed in Amos 1-2. There are several textual ties and foreshadowings that reveal that the book is a unified whole. What we have in Amos is a fine piece of highly effective literary art.

Works Cited

Anderson, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Amos. New York: Doubleday, 1989.

Bergen, Robert D. “Evil Spirits and Eccentric Grammar.” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Ed. Robert D. Bergen. Dallas: SIL, 1994.

—. “Text as a Guide to Authorial Intention: An Introduction to Discourse Criticism.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:3 (1987): 327-336.

Chisholm, Robert B. “‘For Three Sins… Even for Four’: The Numerical Sayings in Amos.” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 188-198.

Christensen, Duane L. “The Prosodic Structure of Amos 1-2.” Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974): 427-436.

Christopher, Gregory T. “A Discourse Analysis of Colossians 2:16-3:17.” Grace Theological Journal 11:2 (1990): 205-220.

Clark, David J. “Discourse Structure in Haggai.” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 5:1 (1992):13-24.

Finley, Thomas J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah. Chicago: Moody, 1990.

Finley, Thomas J. and George Payton. “A Discourse Analysis of Isaiah 7-12.” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 6:4 (1993): 317-335.

Paul, Shalom M. “Amos 1:3-2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern.” Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (1971): 397-403.

Reed, Jeffrey T. “Discourse Analysis as New Testament Hermeneutic: A Retrospective and Prospective Appraisal.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:2 (1996): 223-240.

Schmidt, Daniel. “Critical Note: Another Word-Play in Amos?” Grace Theological Journal 8:1 (1987): 141-142.

Smith, Gary V. “Continuity and Discontinuity In Amos’ Use of Tradition.” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 34:1 (1991): 33-42.

—. Hosea / Amos / Micah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

—. Amos. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Stuart, Douglas. Hosea – Jonah. Waco: Word, 1987.

Vreeland, Gerald. Personal Communication, December 2002.

Wendland, Ernst R. “The ‘Word of the Lord’ and the Organization of Amos.” Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 2:4 (1988): 1-51.