Discovery Box2 Kings 10:32-33
Context10:32 In those days the Lord began to reduce the size of Israel’s territory. 1 Hazael attacked their eastern border. 2 10:33 He conquered all the land of Gilead, including the territory of Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh, extending all the way from the Aroer in the Arnon Valley through Gilead to Bashan. 3
2 Kings 12:17
Context12:17 At that time King Hazael of Syria attacked 4 Gath and captured it. Hazael then decided to attack Jerusalem. 5
2 Kings 13:3
Context13:3 The Lord was furious with 6 Israel and handed them over to 7 King Hazael of Syria and to Hazael’s son Ben Hadad for many years. 8
2 Kings 13:7
Context13:7 Jehoahaz had no army left 9 except for fifty horsemen, ten chariots, and 10,000 foot soldiers. The king of Syria had destroyed his troops 10 and trampled on them like dust. 11
Amos 1:3-4
Context1:3 This is what the Lord says:
“Because Damascus has committed three crimes 12 –
make that four! 13 – I will not revoke my
decree of judgment. 14
They ripped through Gilead like threshing sledges with iron teeth. 15
[10:32] 1 tn Heb “began to cut off Israel.”
[10:32] 2 tn Heb “Hazael struck them down in all the territory of Israel, from the Jordan on the east.” In the Hebrew text the phrase “from the Jordan on the east” begins v. 33.
[10:33] 3 tn Heb “all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the Manassehites, from Aroer which is near the Arnon Valley, and Gilead, and Bashan.”
[12:17] 4 tn Heb “went up and fought against.”
[12:17] 5 tn Heb “Hazael set his face to go up against Jerusalem.”
[13:3] 6 tn Heb “and the anger of the
[13:3] 7 tn Heb “he gave them into the hand of.”
[13:3] 8 tn Heb “all the days.”
[13:7] 9 tn Heb “Indeed he did not leave to Jehoahaz people.” The identity of the subject is uncertain, but the king of Syria, mentioned later in the verse, is a likely candidate.
[13:7] 10 tn Heb “them,” i.e., the remainder of this troops.
[13:7] 11 tn Heb “and made them like dust for trampling.”
[1:3] 12 tn Traditionally, “transgressions” or “sins.” The word refers to rebellion against authority and is used in the international political realm (see 1 Kgs 12:19; 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:5, 7; 8:22). There is debate over its significance in this context. Some relate the “rebellion” of the foreign nations to God’s mandate to Noah (Gen 9:5-7). This mandate is viewed as a treaty between God and humankind, whereby God holds humans accountable to populate the earth and respect his image as it is revealed in all people. While this option is a possible theological explanation of the message in light of the Old Testament as a whole, nothing in these oracles alludes to that Genesis passage. J. Barton suggests that the prophet is appealing to a common morality shared across the ancient Near East regarding the conduct of war since all of the oracles can be related to activities and atrocities committed in warfare (Amos’s Oracles against the Nations [SOTSMS], 39-61). The “transgression” then would be a violation of what all cultures would take as fundamental human decency. Some argue that the nations cited in Amos 1-2 had been members of the Davidic empire. Their crime would consist of violating the mutual agreements that all should have exhibited toward one another (cf. M. E. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire). This interpretation is connected to the notion that Amos envisions a reconstituted Davidic empire for Israel and the world (9:11-15). Ultimately, we can only speculate what lay behind Amos’ thinking. He does not specify the theological foundation of his universal moral vision, but it is clear that Amos believes that all nations are responsible before the Lord for their cruelty toward other human beings. He also assumes that even those who did not know his God would recognize their inhumane treatment of others as inherently wrong. The translation “crimes” is general enough to communicate that a standard (whether human or divine) has been breached. For a survey of the possible historical events behind each oracle, see S. M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia).
[1:3] 13 tn Heb “Because of three violations of Damascus, even because of four.”
[1:3] 14 tn Heb “I will not bring it [or “him”] back.” The pronominal object (1) refers to the decree of judgment that follows; the referent (the decree) has been specified in the translation for clarity. See S. M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia), 46-47. Another option (2) is to understand the suffix as referring to the particular nation mentioned in the oracle and to translate, “I will not take him [i.e., that particular nation] back.” In this case the
[1:3] 15 tn Heb “they threshed [or “trampled down”] Gilead with sharp iron implements” (NASB similar).
[1:4] 16 tn “Hazael’s house” (“the house of Hazael”) refers to the dynasty of Hazael.
[1:4] 17 tn Heb “it”; the referent (the fire mentioned in the previous line) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[1:4] 18 sn Ben-hadad may refer to Hazael’s son and successor (2 Kgs 13:3, 24) or to an earlier king (see 1 Kgs 20), perhaps the ruler whom Hazael assassinated when he assumed power.
