Amos 7:10-17

Amaziah Complains to the King

10 Then Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, sent to King Jeroboam of Israel, saying, "Amos has conspired against you in the very center of the house of Israel; the land is not able to bear all his words. 11 For thus Amos has said,

'Jeroboam shall die by the sword,

and Israel must go into exile

away from his land.' "

12 And Amaziah said to Amos, "O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy there; 13 but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king's sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom."

14 Then Amos answered Amaziah, "I am no prophet, nor a prophet's son; but I am a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees, 15 and the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, 'Go, prophesy to my people Israel.'

16 "Now therefore hear the word of the LORD.

You say, 'Do not prophesy against Israel,

and do not preach against the house of Isaac.'

17 Therefore thus says the LORD:

'Your wife shall become a prostitute in the city,

and your sons and your daughters shall fall by the sword,

and your land shall be parceled out by line;

you yourself shall die in an unclean land,

and Israel shall surely go into exile away from its land.' " (Amos 7:10-17, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from December 6, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two); there is some comparison with comments from an email sent December 8, 2003, for December 9, 2003:

In his Introduction to the Book of Amos, Gregory Mobley lists different types of material, including “one narrative, about Amos’s encounter with Amaziah, priest of the Northern Kingdom’s royal sanctuary at Bethel (7:10-17)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed.). In the “one narrative,” apart from reports of having seen visions, and the like, is today’s Old Testament reading, in which Amaziah reports on Amos' prophetic activity to the king (Jeroboam II). “Amos,” says Amaziah, “has conspired against you in the very center of the house of Israel; the land is not able to bear all his words” (Amos 7:10). Amos has predicted the death of the king and the exile of the nation, according to Amaziah, who says, “For thus Amos has said, ‘Jeroboam shall die by the sword, / and Israel must go into exile / away from his land” (v. 11). Mobley points out that Amaziah, with the phrase, “For thus Amos has said,” “does not attribute the prophet’s words to God. The first utterance Amaziah cites (Jeroboam shall die . . .) is the rough but not exact equivalent of 7:9; the second phrase (Israel must go . . .) of 4:2-3; 5:5, 26-27; 6:7; 9:4). As we noted yesterday, though Jeroboam II had a long and prosperous reign (788-747 B.C.), his son, Zechariah reigned only six months (2 Kgs. 15:8) and was assassinated (v. 10).

We are not told how Jeroboam responds to the announcement of his imminent death, but he presumably concurs with Amaziah’s order to leave: “O seer” [chōzeh] says Amaziah, “go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy [tinnāvē’] there; but never again prophesy [l^ehinnāvēh]at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom” (vv. 12-13). Amos first replies that he is not a prophet. “I am no prophet [nāvî], nor a prophet’s son [ben-nāvî]; but I am a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees” (v. 14), but he qualifies that, for he adds, “the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, ‘Go prophesy [hinnāvē’] to my people Israel” (v. 15). Are we in a position to say whether Amos is a prophet or not? According to William L. Holladay, the term chōzeh (“seer”) was “originally distinguished from nāvî (prophet), [but] then [became] identical: chōzēh dāwîd 2 Sam. 24:11” [in reference to Gad, “David’s seer] (Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1971, s.v. hz@Ho, chōzēh). Holladay adds that the term is “used with contempt [in] Am. 7:12.” There is some irony here, for as Mobley noted (above), Amaziah has not acknowledged Amos’s words as from God (v. 11). Although the noun “vision” (chāzôn) does not appear in the Book of Amos, we are told at the outset that the book contains “the words [divrê] of Amos . . . which he saw [chāzāh] concerning Israel” (1:1). And though Amos denies being a “prophet” (nāvî), using the noun, he acknowledges Gods command for him to “prophesy” (hinnāvē’), using the related verb, which even Amaziah uses when he tells Amos to return home “and prophesy [tinnāvē’] there” (v. 12).

So Amos fulfills his calling to prophesy (v. 15), and addresses King Jeroboam–perhaps through the intermediation of Amaziah–“Now therefore hear the word of the LORD. / You say, ‘Do not prophesy against Israel, / and do not preach against the house of Isaac’ ” (v. 16). And Amos continues with what Mobley calls “a dreadful string of curses” (on v. 17): “Therefore thus says the LORD: / 'Your wife shall become a prostitute in the city, / and your sons and your daughters shall fall by the sword, / and your land shall be parceled out by line; / you yourself shall die in an unclean land, / and Israel shall surely go into exile away from its land’ ” (v. 17). The time when Jeroboam II was king of the northern kingdom of Israel has been called a "second golden age," the first being the times of David and Solomon. The prosperity of this time is evident in the luxuries which Amos condemns, e.g. double houses, "winter" and summer," and "houses of ivory" (3:15), "beds of ivory" (6:4), idle pursuits (6:5-6), not a condemnation of riches per se, but rather because they have been accumulated through unjust practices (2:7-8; 4:1; 5:24; 6:12-13). It did not take long for Amos' predictions of disaster to be fulfilled. The tragic and precipitous downfall of the northern kingdom after Jeroboam's time is interspersed with the ongoing story of the southern kingdom of Judah in 2 Kings 15-17. Of the six kings who succeeded Jeroboam, four took the throne by conspiracy, usurpation, each killing his predecessor (2 Kgs. 15:10, 14, 25, 30), this in the shadow of the advancing Assyrian menace. Additional details of the northern kingdom’s precipitous slide from prosperity to oblivion were noted yesterday. Lord, save us from such a fate!

Revelation 1:9-16

9 I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

12 Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest. 14 His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining with full force. (Revelation 1:9-16, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with some editing and supplement from December 6, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two) and from an E-mail message sent December 8, 2003, for December 9, 2003:

John continues to address “the seven churches that are in Asia” (Rev. 1:4), as noted yesterday, but his audience is not limited to those churches when he identifies himself as “I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance” (v. 9a). He says he “was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (v. 9b). Although not a martyr–at least not yet–John was in some sense a victim of oppression and persecution perpetrated by the Roman authorities. “Patmos,” says David E. Aune, was “a populated island thirty-seven miles southwest of Ephesus. There is no evidence that it was ever a Roman penal colony, but John may have been banished from his home territory and forced to go there during the reign of the emperor who banished him” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Rev. 1:9). However, more important than his physical surroundings or circumstances, John makes it plain that, like the prophets of old who spoke the word of the Lord, he writes this book under divine inspiration. “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day,” he says, “and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet” (v. 10).

While each of the seven churches in Asia is addressed in turn (chaps. 2, 3), the book as a whole is addressed to one and all among Christian believers. After each church is addressed in turn (chaps. 2, 3), the book is addressed to one and all among Christian believers. It closes with the Lord’s open-ended invitation, “‘Come!’ / And let everyone who hears say, ‘Come!’ / And let everyone who is thirsty come. / Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift” (Rev. 22:17). But in today’s reading, the voice behind John instructs him to “write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches,” which are then listed by name in the order in which they will be addressed (1:11): Ephesus (2:1-7), Smyrna (2:8-11), Pergamum (2:12-17), Thyatira (2:18-29, Sardis (3:1-6), Philadelphia (3:7-13), and Laodicea (3:14-22).

John says that he turned “to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands” (v. 12). The lampstands symbolize the seven churches, in the midst of which John sees “one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest” (v. 13). In this vision John sees the presence of the exalted Christ in the midst of the churches that he is addressing. But the language continues to relate to Daniel’s vision of the “Son of Man, “ as noted yesterday (Dan. 7:13-14; cf. Rev. 1:7). Jean Pierre Luiz (building on the work of Bruce M. Metzger) calls attention to an impressive array of Old Testament imagery relating to the power and majesty of God himself.

In the midst of the churches (see v. 20) stands the exalted Christ, whose royalty, eternity, wisdom, and immutability are suggested by means of symbols; the effect is that of terrifying majesty (compare v. 17 with Isa. 6:5). [The] seven golden lampstands [are] reminiscent of those that stood in the wilderness tabernacle and in the Jerusalem Temple (cf. Zech. 4:1-14). [For] Son of Man (cf. 14:14; Mk. 2:10), a title Jesus used of himself, had two meanings (1) a typical human being in accordance with a common extended meaning of ‘son of’ (see Mt. 5:45; (2) a reference to the heavenly figure of Dan. 7:13-14 who was to embody God’s rule over the nations. (Luiz, NOAB, 3^rd ed., on Rev. 1:12-26; cf. Metzger, NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Rev. 1:12-16).

The description of Christ seems to merge here into the image of the Ancient One (Dan. 7:13). “His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters” (Rev. 1:14-15). With the words, “sound of many waters, Ezekiel also makes a similar comparison with the voice of the Almighty (Ezek. 1:24; 43:2),” says Metzger (loc. cit.).

As the vision continues (tomorrow’s reading), the Lord commissions John to "write" (v. 19), after words of reassurance, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living one. I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades" (vv. 17-18). “Hades,” says Metzger, “used here with its synonym Death, is the abode of the dead; Christ has the keys to release those confined within its gates (Mt. 16:18; Jn. 5:25-29)” (on Rev. 1:18).

Matthew 22:34-46

The Greatest Commandment (Mk 12.28-34; Lk 10.25-28)

34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

The Question about David's Son (Mk 12.35-37; Lk 20.41-44)

41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question: 42 "What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." 43 He said to them, "How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying,

44 'The Lord said to my Lord,

"Sit at my right hand,

until I put your enemies under your feet" '?

45 If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?" 46 No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:34-46, NRSV)

On July 8, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), comments on Matthew 22:23-40 were combined and revised from July 3, 2004 in an email sent July 1, 2004, for July 2-4, from December 5, 2005 (Monday in the week of the second Sunday in Advent) on Matthew 22:23-33, and from December 6, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the second Sunday in Advent) on Matthew 22:34-46. Relevant comments are repeated here.

Parallel texts for this reading from Matthew are presented in two separate files: First Commandment and David’s Son or David’s Lord. For recent comments on Mark’s version of these texts, see the Archives for August 23 and 24, 2007 (Thursday and Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year One). For recent comments on Luke’s version of the Question about David’s Son, see the Archive for June 21, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One). For recent comments on Luke’s version of the Question about the Great Commandment, see the Archive for October 28, 2007 (the Sunday closest to October 26, Year One), which includes the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

On the First (Great) Commandment

After the Sadducees’ question for Jesus about the Resurrection, the Pharisees return with another question, “Which commandment in the law is the greatest?” (Mt. 22:36). Jesus answers) by citing the beginning of the Shema (Deut. 6:5) and Leviticus 19:18 (vv. 37, 39). He adds, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (v. 40). "The Law contains many ways of applying to life the principle of Love" (E.E. Tilden, B.M. Metzger, NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Mt. 22:40). Dale C. Allison, Jr., points out that Akiba, a leading rabbi and martyr in the time of the second Jewish revolt against Rome (early 2^nd century A.D.), called Leviticus 19:18 “the greatest principle in the law” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 874, on Mt. 22:34-40, citing Sipre Lev. 19:18). Allison adds: “Together [these two commandments] summarizes the Decalogue (cf. Philo, Dec. 19-20, 50-1, 106-10, 121, 154). Jesus, although asked for the greatest commandment, answers with two which are inextricable.”

On Jesus’ Question about whether the Messiah is David’s Son or David’s Lord

Then Jesus poses a question, citing Psalm 110:1, which understands the words "my Lord" in the line, "The LORD said to my Lord," as a reference to the Messiah. His implication is that King David has addressed the Messiah as "my Lord"! He points out another absurdity: “If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?” (v. 45). The Messiah, it seems, cannot be both David’s Lord and David’s son. So, in the series of challenges by questioning, it appears that Jesus has the last word, to be followed (in readings Wed., Thurs. and Fri.) by his scathing criticism of the Pharisees. (Comments are repeated here with adaptation and supplement from an E-mail message sent December 8, 2003, for December 9, 2003.)

The three Synoptic Gospels (Mt., Mk. and Lk.) present this dialogue with essentially the same content, but several differences in specific wording. In Matthew, Jesus broaches the subject with a question: “What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?” (Mt. 22:42a). In form the question is not rhetorical, that is, implying the answer by the form of the question, but he knew, of course, what the Pharisees’ answer would be: “The son of David” (v. 42b). Earlier, the morning after the cleansing of the temple, the chief priests and elders challenged Jesus, asking “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” (Mt. 21:23). But in the ensuing dialogues and parables, Jesus clearly takes the lead and is in control, as here. In Mark and Luke he simply introduces the subject of David’s son with a rhetorical question. “How can the scribes (Mk.) / they (Lk.) say that the Messiah is the son of David (Mk.) / David’s son (Lk.)?” (Mk. 12:35b; Lk. 20:41b). In Matthew, Jesus follows the Pharisees’ answer with another question: “How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying [and he quotes Ps. 110:1]”? (Mt. 22:43). The equivalent in Mark and Luke simply introduces the Psalm quotation. “David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared [and he quotes the Psalm]” (Mk. 12:36a); “For David himself says in the book of Psalms [and he quotes the Psalm]” (Lk. 20:42a).

As for the wording of the Psalm quotation, Matthew and Mark end with “until I put your enemies under your feet” (Mt. 22:44c; Mk. 12:36d), whereas Luke and the Psalm itself say “until I make your enemies your footstool” (Ps. 110:1; Lk. 20:43). In the Psalm, “footstool” is the reading of both the Hebrew (h^a dōm) and Greek (LXX, hypopodion) texts. Mark apparently interpreted the reference to the footstool with “put your enemies under your feet,” and was followed by Matthew.

But the point is in the final question, “If (Mt.) David thus / himself (Mk.) calls him Lord; so (Mk., Lk.) How can he be his son?” (Mt. 22:45; Mk. 12:37a; Lk. 20:44). In the Psalm, the first “LORD” (YHWH, pronounced ’adōnay, plural) refers to God, and the second (“my lord,” ’adōnî, singular) is understood as a reference to the Messiah, or so Jesus could assume for his hearers. In effect, then, the question is, How can the Messiah be David’s son since David himself spoke by divine inspiration and called the Messiah “my lord”? J. Andrew Overman says, “The argument turns on the belief that the offspring cannot be greater than the progenitor” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., on Mt. 22:44). In the Old Testament context of the Psalm, “God promises the Davidic monarch in Jerusalem (Zion) victory over his enemies, prostrate before him” (John S. Kselman, NOAB, 3^rd ed., on Ps. 110:1-2), but the Psalm is frequently interpreted as a reference to Jesus in the New Testament (Acts 2:34-36; 1 Cor. 15:25, cf. vv. 27-28; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:13: 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). I take this as an example of what some call “the fuller sense (sensus plenior) of scripture.” Richard a Horsley comments on Mark’s version of this dialogue: “This passage constitutes a rejection of any triumphant restoration of the Davidic state (which Bartimaeus and the shouts of the crowd may have suggested” (Richard A. Horsley, NOAB, 3^rd ed., on Mk. 12:35-37). Jesus certainly did not intend to incite a political revolution. But Matthew puts the clincher, so to speak, on the dialogue. “No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.” (Mt. 22:46)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net