Amos 5:18-27

The Dark Day of the Lord

18 Alas for you who desire the day of the Lord!

Why do you want the day of the Lord?

It is darkness, not light;

19 as if someone fled from a lion,

and was met by a bear;

or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall,

and was bitten by a snake.

20 Is not the day of the Lord darkness, not light,

and gloom with no brightness in it?

21 I hate, I despise your festivals,

and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.

22 Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,

I will not accept them;

and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals

I will not look upon.

23 Take away from me the noise of your songs;

I will not listen to the melody of your harps.

24 But let justice roll down like waters,

and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

25 Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 26 You shall take up Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwan your star-god, your images, which you made for yourselves; 27 therefore I will take you into exile beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts. (Amos 5:18-27, NRSV)

On December 8, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the first Sunday of Advent, Year One), comments were repeated with extensive and supplement from December 3, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), and some refection of comments in an E-mail sent December 5, 2003 for the weekend. The comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

This reading begins what Gregory Mobley calls, “a series of ‘woe’ [yOh, hôy] sayings” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Amos 5:18-6:14). As noted yesterday, with a correction to the Hebrew text at 5:7, followed by the NRSV, another “woe” (yOh, hôy) saying may be included (“Ah,” 5:7, “Alas,” 5:18; “Alas,” 6:1 NRSV). Also note the statement that, “in all the streets they will say, “Alas! Alas! ( Oh7-Oh, hô-hô )” (5:16). The “Alas” of 6:4 (NRSV, not in AV/KJV or TNIV), not based on the Hebrew text, apparently assumes a thought parallel to 6:1: “Alas for those who . . .” (6:1, 4; cf. 5:18).

“Alas (yOh, hôy),” says Amos, “for you who desire the day of the LORD! / Why do you want the day of the LORD? / It is darkness, not light” (Amos 5:18). According to R. Lansing Hicks and Walter Brueggemann, Amos preaches that “the day of the LORD, in which Israelites piously expected to be vindicated against their enemies, will be darkness and gloom (Am. 8:9-14; see Zeph. 1:14-18n)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Amos 5:18-20). In their note on Zephaniah 1:14-18, they say, “Zephaniah elaborates the preaching of Amos (Am. 5:18-20; 8:9-14) that the day of the LORD will be darkness and not light, woe and not weal (Isa. 45:7) upon Israel as well as the Gentiles (see also Isa. 13:90-16; Ezek. 7:19; Joel 1:15; 2:1-2)” (ibid., on Zeph. 1:14-18). In their comments on Amos 5:18-20, they add, “Amos’s profound reinterpretation of this popular concept is among his most significant contributions” (op. cit., on Amos 5:18-20). Gene M. Tucker, revised by J. Andrew Dearman, refers to this as “the earliest prophetic reference to the expectation” ( HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Amos 5:18-20), but, with Hicks and Brueggemann, assume a pre-existing more favorable understanding of “the day of the LORD” on the part of the people, based on the earlier (oral, not written) prophetic activity. They say, “Amos repudiates and reverses the false hopes of his hearers through the use of rhetorical questions and metaphorical language” (op. cit., on Amos 5:18-20).

Amos continues to describe the day of the LORD:

It is darkness, not light;

as if someone fled from a lion,

and was met by a bear;

or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall,

and was bitten by a snake. (Amos 5:18c, 19, NRSV)

 It’s as if we might say, jumping from the frying pan into the fire; but Amos’s lion imagery that continues is more vivid. This is Amos’s only mention of bears, but for relating the ferocity of the lion and the bear, compare the LORD’s threat to Ephraim through Hosea: “I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs, / and will tear open the covering of their heart; / there I will devour them like a lion, / as a wild animal would mangle them” (Hos. 13:8). Another unpleasant surprise is the snake in the house (v. 19c, d). Amos drives the point home with a rhetorical question: “Is not the day of the Lord darkness, not light, / and gloom with no brightness in it?” (v. 20).

In what is perhaps Amos’s best known passage, he speaks for the LORD, citing a strong preface for justice, as opposed to mere formalities of worship: “I hate, I despise your festivals,” says the LORD, “and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies” (v. 21). According to Mobley, “The language is harsh. Festivals refers to the three pilgrimage feasts (Ex. 23:14-17; 34:18, 22-23; Deut. 16:16), as does solemn assemblies (Lev. 23:36; Deut. 16:8)” (op. cit., on vv. 21-23). “Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,” says the LORD through Amos, “I will not accept them; / and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals / I will not look upon” (v. 22). “The sacrifices in v. 22,” says Mobley, “were prescribed; see, e.g., Lev. 7:8-14” (ibid.). Tucker and Dearman put it bluntly: “Three common types of sacrifices are rejected” (op. cit., on Amos 5:22). But Ben Zvi points out, “The text does not state that sacrifices–or any other cultic rituals–are wrong per se, but rather that those brought by people who behave in a manner offensive to God are unacceptable to God” (op. cit., on Amos 5:21-25). In a memorable simile, Amos calls for justice and righteousness, which, in the synonymous parallelism here, are essentially the same thing. “But let justice (FPAw4m9, mišpāt) roll down like waters, / and righteousness (hqAdAc4, ts ^edāqāh) like an ever-flowing stream” (v. 24). According to Mobley, “An ever-flowing stream is a riverbed that never fails, as opposed to a wadi, common in Israel’s landscape, which had run-off water only in the rainy season “ (op. cit., on v. 24). According to Tucker and Dearman, “Amos frequently speaks of justice and righteousness in tandem (see also v. 7; 6:12). Justice is the establishment of the right, and of the person in the right, through fair legal procedures (v. 1`5; Deut. 25:1), in accordance with the will of the Lord. Righteousness is that quality of life in relationship with others in the community that gives rise to justice” (on v. 24).

Before moving on to the next “woe” (6:1), Amos cites an early period of Israel’s history characterized by idolatry. Still speaking for the LORD, he asks, “Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?” (v. 25). Some understand this as a rhetorical question that, in effect, affirms a negative response, a charge that, as Tucker and Dearman put it, “Contrary to the pentateuchal account of Israel’s history (Ex. 19-Num. 10) . . . sacrifices and offerings were not given during the wandering in the wilderness (see also Jer. 7:21-26)” (op. cit., on v. 25; cf. Mobley, on v. 25, and Ben Zvi, on v. 25). But Andersen and Freedman think otherwise. They first cite the opinion of others that the verse is a “gloss” (i.e., later scribal addition), and rule it out (Amos; A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible, 24A, 1989, p. 530, on Amos. 5:25-27). But then they note “several unusual features” of syntax, and conclude that, “The word order rules out the inference that the expected answer [to the question] is ‘nothing.’ Far-reaching conclusions have been drawn from this inference, as if Amos imagined that Israel had no cult whatever in the desert and idealized this situation.” They assert, based on the word order, that “What is presupposed by the question is that the Israelites did bring something into the desert. The question is, was it sacrificial gifts? Or something instead? Or something in addition?” (p. 531, on v. 25). After further discussion of various views–especially critical views that would imply a rewriting of the history of Israel’s sacrificial system–they reject the basis for much of those arguments. They say, for example,

Because there is no doubt that Israel sacrificed animals in the desert, the question is, did they also bring produce, as now, or was this feature an addition, learned from the Canaanites, that contaminated the true offerings (Cain’s sacrifice not acceptable, while Abel’s is)? It is doubtful that Amos is making such a point, for nowhere else does he denounce produce but endorse animals as valid sacrifice. (ibid., p. 532, on v. 25).

Ben Zvi says, “From the perspective of the intended readers of the book, the time in the wilderness is comparable to the time between the destruction of the First and the building of the Second Temple, since there was no Temple at either time” (op. cit., on vv. 21-25). That certainly implies a rather late date for the writing of what is usually regarded as the first written prophetic book.

Today’s reading concludes with two verses that Andersen and Freedman believe go together. “You shall take up Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwan your star-god, your images, which you made for yourselves; therefore I will take you into exile beyond Damascus, says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts” (vv. 26-27). Their discussion suggests that taking verses 25 and 26 together would imply that Israel was worshipping these Mesopotamian (i.e. Assyrian) deities already during their wilderness wanderings, but that taking verses 26 and 27 together would relate this worship to Amos’s own time period, that is, the eighth century B.C. when Assyria was the major superpower and threat to Israel (op. cit., pp. 532-533, on v. 26). They interpret verse 26 as a reference to the worship of Saturn as an astral deity, and conclude, “If Israelites ever worshiped this planet, it was most likely a practice lately borrowed from Assyria” (ibid., p. 533).

Jude 17-25

A Reminder of the Apostles’ End-time Predictions

17 But you, beloved, must remember the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 for they said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, indulging their own ungodly lusts.” 19 It is these worldly people, devoid of the Spirit, who are causing divisions. 20 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; 21 keep yourselves in the love of God; look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on some who are wavering; 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; and have mercy on still others with fear, hating even the tunic defiled by their bodies.

Benediction

24 Now to him who is able to keep you from falling, and to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 17-25, NRSV)

On December 20, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One), comments were repeated from December 8, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were based with editing and supplement on comments from December 3, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), and from comments of December 23, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One) that were repeated with some revision and adaptation from December 18, 2004 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One). The revised comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

Today’s reading concludes the book of Jude with several exhortations. Recent Epistle readings have been drawn from 2 Peter, chapters one and three (Mon.-Thur. of this week, Nov. 30, Dec. 1-3, 2009); yesterday’s and today’s are from Jude. Much of 2 Peter is parallel to Jude, and some believe that Jude was used as a source by 2 Peter. As noted yesterday, Patrick A. Tiller compares 2 Peter 2:1-22 with Jude 4-18. “Beginning with 2:1 the author borrows language from Jude 4-18 but modifies it extensively to accommodate a different polemic. The ethical condemnations are fairly standard polemical attacks: greed, licentiousness, and deception; the author adds disregard for authority ( [2 Pet.] 2:10)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 2 Pet. 2:1-22). For a comparison, see the separate file, Jude - 2 Peter 2.

So we continue today in Jude, reminding us (as they did their generation) that the Apostles predicted that there would be “scoffers, indulging their own ungodly lusts” (Jude 17-18; cf. 2 Pet. 3:2-3). Both exhort us to differ from these “scoffers,” but Jude adds that we should “build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on some who are wavering; save others by snatching them out of the fire; and have mercy on still other with fear, hating even the tunic defiled by their bodies” (vv. 20-23). Peter’s continuation emphasizes the certainty of the Lord’s coming (2 Pet. 3:10), in spite of apparent delays (vv. 8, 9), and our need to lead “lives of holiness and godliness” (v. 11). Where Jude’s doxology speaks of “him [God] who is able to keep you from falling, and to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing” (Jude 24), Peter urges us to “strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish” (2 Pet. 3:14). But whereas Peter’s admonitions continue (vv. 15, 17-18) before the closing doxology, “To him [Jesus Christ] be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen” (v. 18), Jude’s admonition to stand without blemish (v. 24) becomes doxology, “to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen”(v. 25).

Matthew 22:15-22

On Paying Taxes to the Emperor (Mk 12.13-17; Lk 20.20-26)

15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. 16 So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” 21 They answered, “The emperor's.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away. (Matthew 22:15-22, NRSV)

On July 4, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), comments were repeated from December 8, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated with supplement from July 7, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two) when comments were combined and revised from July 2, 2004 in an email sent July 1, 2004, for July 2-4, and from December 3, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the first Sunday in Advent, Year Two, with some repetition there from an earlier E-mail, sent December 5, 2003, for the weekend.). The supplemented comments are repeated here:

Mark’s version of the reading about the question of paying taxes to the emperor (Mk. 12:13-17) and Luke’s version (Lk. 20:20-26) are presented with Matthew’s version in a table in a separate file, On Tribute to Caesar. For recent comments on Mark’s version, see the Archive for August 19, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, 2007, Year One). For recent comments on Luke’s version, see the Archive for June 16, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One).

In today’s Gospel reading, Jesus responds to questions from the Pharisees about paying taxes to the emperor (Mt. 22:15-22; cf. Mk. 12:13-17 and Lk. 20:20-26, where the details are essentially the same). (Monday’s reading will include the question from the Sadducees about the resurrection, Mt. 22:23-33). The Pharisees “sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians” with a question that, as it is introduced, seems innocent enough: “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality” (v. 16). But we are informed in advance that the question is a trap. “Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said” (v. 15; cf. Mk. 12:13; Lk. 20:20). The question itself seems simple enough: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to the [Roman] emperor, or not?” (Mt. 22:17; cf. Mk. 12:14; Lk. 20:22).

Matthew sees the question as motivated by “malice” (v. 18). According to Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger, “If Jesus approved paying taxes he would offend the nationalistic parties; if he disapproved payment he could be reported as disloyal to the empire” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Mt. 22:17). A former student of mine, Dr. Sue Scott, passed on an interesting perspective on this incident. When Jesus asked for a coin and his opponents produced one which bore the emperor’s “head” and “title,” they proved to be breaking the commandment about “graven images”:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” (Exodus 20:4, NRSV)

J. Andrew Overman comments on the question, “Whose head?” “Only coins from the imperial mint, probably silver denarii, had images and inscriptions honoring the emperor as divine” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 22:20). The Rabbis would have considered the image as such as breaking this commandment. By that standard, the Pharisees in effect condemned themselves.

Jesus’ first response seems the sharpest in Matthew. “But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, ‘Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?’” (Mt. 22:18). “But knowing their hypocrisy, he said, ‘Why are you putting me to the test?’” (Mk. 22:15). “But he perceived their craftiness . . .” (Lk. 20:20). When writing later, perhaps Matthew’s sharpness reflects unpleasant tension between his Christian community and neighboring Pharisaic synagogues. In any case, Jesus’ question about the coin, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” (Mt. 22:20 = Mk. 12:16); “Whose head and whose title does it bear?” (Lk. 20:24) and his conclusion, underscored by Matthew’s “therefore” and Luke’s “then,” foiled their attempt to entrap him. “[Then] Give [therefore] to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt. 22:21b; Mk. 12:17; Lk. 20:25).

N. T. Wright offers a subtle, but more complex, understanding of Jesus’ response on this occasion. He proposes “that Jesus’ cryptic saying should be understood as a coded and subversive echo of Mattathias’ last words,” which he quotes from 1 Maccabees 2:66-8. The final sentence, in effect a call to arms against the Syrian oppressors, says, “Pay back the Gentiles in full, and obey the commands of the law,” which Antiochus Epiphanes had forbidden them to do. According to Wright, Jesus’ response echoes Mattathias. “Pay Caesar back what he is owed! Render to Caesar what he deserves!” (Jesus and the Victory of God, 1992, 1996, p. 504). But in context, there is “a second layer of meaning.” Jesus

was facing a questioner with a Roman coin in his hand. Suddenly a counterpoint appears beneath the coded revolutionary meaning; faced with the coin, and with the implicit question of revolution, Jesus says, in effect, ‘Well then, you’d better pay Caesar back as he deserves!’ Had he told them to revolt? Had he told them to pay the tax? He had done neither. He had done both. Nobody could deny that the saying was revolution, but nor could anyone say that Jesus had forbidden payment of the tax. (ibid., p. 505)

But Wright adds that “Jesus the Galilean envisaged a different sort of revolution from that of Judas the Galilean. He was not advocating compromise with Rome; but nor was he advocating straightforward resistance of the sort that refuses to pay the tax today and sharpens its swords for battle tomorrow.” (ibid.). “The real revolution,” says Wright, “would not come about through the non-payment of taxes and the resulting violent confrontation. It would be a matter of total obedience to, and imitation of, Israel’s God; this would rule out violent revolution, as Matthew 5 makes clear. Jesus was summoning his hearers to the real revolution, which would come about through Israel reflecting the generous love of YHWH [God] into the whole world” (ibid., p. 507).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net