Psalms 18:42

18:42 I grind them as fine windblown dust; ¹ 

I beat them underfoot ²  like clay ³  in the streets.

Isaiah 41:2

41:2 Who stirs up this one from the east? ⁴ 

Who ⁵  officially commissions him for service? ⁶ 

He hands nations over to him, ⁷ 

and enables him to subdue ⁸  kings.

He makes them like dust with his sword,

like windblown straw with his bow. ⁹ 

Isaiah 41:15-16

41:15 “Look, I am making you like ¹⁰  a sharp threshing sledge,

new and double-edged. ¹¹ 

You will thresh the mountains and crush them;

you will make the hills like straw. ¹² 

41:16 You will winnow them and the wind will blow them away;

the wind will scatter them.

You will rejoice in the Lord;

you will boast in the Holy One of Israel.

Joel 3:14

3:14 Crowds, great crowds are in the valley of decision,

for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision! ¹³ 

Amos 1:3

1:3 This is what the Lord says:

“Because Damascus has committed three crimes ¹⁴  –

make that four! ¹⁵  – I will not revoke my

decree of judgment. ¹⁶ 

They ripped through Gilead like threshing sledges with iron teeth. ¹⁷ 

[18:42]  ¹ tn Heb “I pulverize them like dust upon the face of the wind.” The phrase “upon the face of” here means “before.” 2 Sam 22:43 reads, “like dust of the earth.”

[18:42]  ² tc Ps 18:42 reads, “I empty them out” (Hiphil of ריק), while 2 Sam 22:43 reads, “I crush them, I stomp on them” (juxtaposing the synonyms דקק and רקע). It is likely that the latter is a conflation of variants. One, but not both, of the verbs in 2 Sam 22:43 is probably original; “empty out” does not form as good a parallel with “grind, pulverize” in the parallel line.

[18:42]  ³ tn Or “mud.”

[41:2]  ⁴ sn The expression this one from the east refers to the Persian conqueror Cyrus, as later texts indicate (see 44:28-45:6; 46:11; 48:14-16).

[41:2]  ⁵ tn The interrogative particle is understood by ellipsis.

[41:2]  ⁶ tn Heb “[in] righteousness called him to his foot.”

[41:2]  ⁷ tn Heb “he [the Lord] places before him [Cyrus] nations.”

[41:2]  ⁸ tn The verb יַרְדְּ (yardÿ) is an otherwise unattested Hiphil form from רָדָה (radah, “rule”). But the Hiphil makes no sense with “kings” as object; one must understand an ellipsis and supply “him” (Cyrus) as the object. The Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a has יוֹרִד (yorid), which appears to be a Hiphil form from יָרַד (yarad, “go down”). Others suggest reading יָרֹד (yarod), a Qal form from רָדַד (radad, “beat down”).

[41:2]  ⁹ sn The point is that they are powerless before Cyrus’ military power and scatter before him.

[41:15]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “into” (so NIV); ASV “have made thee to be.”

[41:15]  ¹¹ tn Heb “owner of two-mouths,” i.e., double-edged.

[41:15]  ¹² sn The mountains and hills symbolize hostile nations that are obstacles to Israel’s restoration.

[3:14]  ¹³ sn The decision referred to here is not a response on the part of the crowd, but the verdict handed out by the divine judge.

[1:3]  ¹⁴ 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]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “Because of three violations of Damascus, even because of four.”

[1:3]  ¹⁶ 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 Lord makes it clear that he does not intend to resume treaty relations with the nation in view. See M. L. Barré, “The Meaning of lá ásŒybnw in Amos 1:3-2:6,” JBL 105 (1986): 622.

[1:3]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “they threshed [or “trampled down”] Gilead with sharp iron implements” (NASB similar).