I am reminded at the outset of Hans Georg Gadamer’s provocative notion of the fusion of two horizons: that concerning the biblical text and our own. In this regard, he insists that a horizon does not require that we focus on what is nearest at hand, but assist in seeing beyond it. Accordingly, this allows us to give deference to the biblical text as normative for matters of faith and practice.

It should come as no surprise that I am indebted to the Enlightenment Tradition, and its unrelenting emphasis on reason. It concerns “the age which brought together the humanistic spirit of the Renaissance and the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century and thereby ushered in what we call ‘the modern world.’ It was this period of roughly a century and a half that witnessed a general change in man’s world-view of the most wide range and deepest significance”1

Needless to say, I discovered early on a disparity between this tradition and that of the biblical text. Although we were not a church-going family, mother orchestrated my prayers early on, before encouraging me to continue on my own. I was familiar with some of the biblical narratives, but lacking any coherent understanding.

Reason appealed to me as a valid way to negotiate life, although with limitations. I soon came to the conclusion that the more I knew, the more I realized I did not know. If there were a God, I assuredly did not qualify.

Years later, a friend acknowledged that if God had given us a mind, he must have intended that we were to use it. So it would seem. Along this line, Augustine reasoned that “all truth is God’s truth.” Conversely, not all that appears to be true is in fact true.

Two short term teaching assignments in Nigeria had a disproportionate influence on my perspective. For instance, persons “will usually remark that the Holy Spirit is much more evident in the daily lives of most Africans, and certainly more evident in the churches, that in the ordinary lives of Americans or in American mainline churches. No one prompts them to notice such a phenomenon.”2 Then, too, the High God is commonly accepted, although called by different names.

My African students observed striking similarities between their culture and that of the ancient Hebrew people. Consequently, they had valuable insights lacking in my own background. On the other hand, I was able to contribute from an alternative perspective, in keeping with the imagery of the fusion of two horizons.

Having taken study tours to the Holy Land on several occasion, I was also privileged to live in Jerusalem for four years. If not convinced earlier of the importance of studying the Bible in the context of its geographic surrounding, I soon came to this conclusion. Moreover, the value was derived not simply from the land per se, but living among those who preserved aspects of the biblical culture.

The time came when Clement was taken seriously ill. As one would expect, his parents turned to religious ritual and traditional medicine for a cure. It was not no avail, since he became increasingly worse.

It was then brought to his parents’ attention that a man of God was in the vicinity. This designation was applied to a priest of the High God, since whenever the term God was used in the singular, it pertained to God Most High. As previously noted, although called by different names, he was thought to be one and the same.

At the request of Clement’s parents, this priest of the High God interceded on behalf of their stricken son. Whereupon, he took a striking turn for the better. Now Clement reasoned that God Most High must have some service for him to perform. However, he did not know what this might be, because the High God was by common consent withdrawn and unfathomable. He could only hope that the matter would be clarified in due time.

Sometime later, Clement encountered an orange skin, so-called because his skin resembled the inside of an orange. The latter declared that God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes on him would not perish but have everlasting life (cf. John 3:16). “Good,” Clement mused, “for now I shall know what the God Most High wants of me”—since it was common knowledge that a parent is revealed in his or her offspring.

When I first met Clement, he was teaching at the mission compound. My living quarters was next to his, and his youngest son delighted in visiting me. Although we were unable to converse, he would curl up in my lap and fall fast asleep—eventually to be awakened by his elder brother calling for him to return home.

One day I noticed Clement standing on his porch. He was visibly excited. It seemed that he had just received word that his father, the aged village priest, indicated that he too wanted to follow Jesus. Over the intervening years, he a waited Clement’s return to worship at the sacred tree, but now concluded that he had encountered an even greater power.

It was thought that God Most High once dwelt among humans, before withdrawing into heaven. The rationale differed from one account to another. Sometimes it was thought because of human misbehavior, and otherwise as a matter of preference. Whatever the circumstances, he was sorely missed.

So it was that humans decided to build a tower reaching into the heavens, to reestablish contact with the Almighty—not alike the biblical account of the Tower of

Babel (cf. Gen. 11:1-9). However, they soon ran out of tiles. Consequently, the mother of men suggested that they take tiles off the bottom and add them to the top. Whereupon, the edifice came crashing down.

It was then decided that humans could not rectify the situation, but would have to await a divine initiative. Clement reached the conclusion that this was what had transpired, and wanted to share the good news with others.

Now the High God was acknowledged as the creator, the prime analogy being that of a potter. This, in turn, recalls an occasion when I was observing the work of a Hebron artisan, appreciatively referred to as the old man. This was in a culture where elderly people are highly regarded for their accumulated wisdom.

The potter cast his amorphous lump of clay, thought to resemble the situation before God brought order out of chaos. In particular, “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” (Gen. 1:2). That is, in anticipation of creating a vessel that would be both functional and aesthetically pleasing.

“These days most cosmologists and astronomers back the theory that there was indeed a creation, about eighteen billion years ago, when the physical universe burst into existence in an awesome explosion popularly known as the ‘big bang’. There are many strands of evidence to support this astonishing theory.”3 Even though the evidence seems to be compelling, it remains a thesis—subject to further reflection.

“Many people have in their minds a picture of how science proceeds which is altogether too simple,” the physicist John Polkinghorne protests. “This misleading caricature portrays scientific discovery as resulting from the confrontation of clear and inescapable theoretical predictions by the results of unambiguous and decisive experiments. In actual fact, the reality is more complex and more interesting than that.”4 As observed earlier, the more we know the more we realize that we realize that we do not know.

The original couple were depicted in the biblical account as if in child-like innocence. They enjoyed a garden paradise, and could partake of its produce—with the exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If a comprehensive idiom, it would imply asserting their autonomy, or if not, the end result was much the same..

Flash back to my childhood. I was not allowed to walk out into the road. Not even if my ball were to escape me, and I had to retrieve it. Did I fully realize the implications? No, but I was obligated to observe my instructions.

The time would come when I was permitted to walk out into the road, providing that I first looked both ways. This also pertained to crossing the railroad track, while on my way to school. One day my elder brother was deep in thought, and crossed the track without looking to see if there were an oncoming train. Upon realizing his failure, the crossed back over, looked both ways, and crossed over again. He perhaps thought that should he be asked if he had obeyed instructions, he could reply in the affirmative. Otherwise, it simply appealed to his sense of humor.

This excursion into my childhood serves to remind us of the parent-offspring imagery that permeates traditional thinking: where God is depicted as the heavenly father, and humans as birthed in his image (cf. Gen. 1:27). Male and female alike.

Qualifications aside, we are to understand that life is good. “Wherefore a man should treasure it, not despise it, affirm and not deny it; have faith in it and never despair of its possibilities. For behind it is God.”5 Since if we depreciate the gift of life, we dishonor its Giver.

The situation took a decided turn for the worse. Enter the serpent, described as more crafty than any of the wild animals God had made. When used in a negative sense, crafty implies the ability to manipulate others—coupled with tragic results.

“You will not surely die,” the serpent assures Eve. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:4-5). Now when she saw that the fruit was good to eat, and pleasing in appearance, she ate and gave some to her spouse. “The immediate consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge are vividly disclosed. Their act of self-assertion shattered the harmony humans had enjoyed with God, each other, the animals, and the environment.”6

Their eyes were opened not to a sense of happiness, wisdom, or power, but to shame and fear. When they heard God walking in the garden during the cool of the day, as was the custom, they hid from him. When required to give an account of what had happened, Adam blamed Eve and by implication God for having sponsored her. Eve, in turn, insisted that she was misled by the serpent. The serpent offered no excuse.

“And I will put enmity between you and woman, and between your offspring and hers,” God informed the seducer, “he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gen. 3:15). While an ongoing struggle, mankind would by the grace of God triumph in the end.

Turning to Eve, God declared: “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” The pain associated with childbearing will seem more grievous. Then, subsequently, to love and cherish will be prone to conflict and oppression.

Turning to Adam, God added: “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you, through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.” Adverse circumstances would plague his endeavor, along with frustration concerning his labors.

So it came to pass that the Lord banished the couple from paradise, lest they eat of the tree of life and thereby perpetuate their perverse way of life. He then set cherubim, with flaming swords, to prohibit their return. So matters would continue until salvation history has run its course.

Flash back again to my childhood. Folk would reminisce from time to time concerning the good old days. These seemed associated with appreciative memories, before inhibited by the harsh realities of life. Even so, the only way to recover something of the cherished past was to press forward.

The situation would continue to deteriorate. Eve gave birth to two sons: Cain and Abel. The former worked the soil, while the latter kept flocks. Each was expected to be diligent and generous.

“In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of his soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock” (Gen. 4:3-4). The former constituted a perfunctory exercise, while the latter resembled the deference given to an honored guest. Accordingly God was pleased with Abel’s offering, but not that of Cain.

“Why are you angry?” God inquired of Cain. “Why are you downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door.” Like a wild animal, waiting to devour its victim. “It desires to have you, but you must master it.” In this regard, “To be forewarned is to be forearmed.”

Cain’s anger, however, was relentless. “Let’s go out in the field,” he suggested to his younger sibling. Then, while in the field, he killed him. Undeterred anger thus resulted in murder.

“In contrast to Adam and Eve, who did not speak out against their punishments, Cain exclaimed that his punishment was more than he could bear. He complained bitterly about being driven from the land, being hidden from God’s presence, and becoming a restless wanderer.”7 He also feared lest someone would come upon him, and avenge Abel’s death.

Whereupon, God put a mark on him to signify that he was under divine protection. We are thus alerted to the fact that the Almighty is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish (cf. 2 Peter 3:9). Cain went out from the Lord’s presence, and took up residence in the land of Nod—east of Eden. Lamech descended from his line.

In contrast to Cain, who sought protection from the Almighty, Lamech shamelessly boasted to his wives: “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times” (Gen. 4:23-24). He thus repudiated the notion that punishment should fit the crime, if with mitigating circumstances less but assuredly not more (cf. Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:19-20).

There follows an extended genealogy: from Adam to the offspring of Noah (cf. Gen. 5). Genealogical records in antiquity served a number of useful purposes. For instance, it established the claim to family property, the hereditary priesthood, the royal lineage, and the imposition of military duty. In this instance, it makes a literary transition from an earlier to subsequent time.

Humans, however, continued in their evil ways. As evidence, the sons of God inter-married with the sons of men—likely a reference to the union between righteous line of Seth and that of Cain. This would help explain why the fault was so pervasive. In any case, “The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time” (Gen. 6:5). The terms every, only, and all establish beyond a shadow of a doubt the corporate depth of depravity.

The Lord was deeply grieved with the turn of events. “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them,” he declared. In terms of the potter imagery, this resembled his discovering a defect in his work, leading him to recast the clay.

“But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” So it was that the world had become inhabited by persons who for the most part were self-seeking and abusive, while a few pleased the Almighty. Accordingly, the Lord instructed Noah to build an ark for the survival of his family, and animals for the perpetuation of life. As a matter of record, “Noah did everything just as God commanded him”—repeated for emphasis (cf. Gen. 6:22; 7:3).

It then came to pass “that all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth for forty days and forty nights ” (Gen. 7:11-12). The waters rose steadily and covered the earth, while the ark floated on the surface.

When the waters had subsided, the patriarch build an altar to the Lord, and sacrificed on it. A new day had dawned, with the prospect of better things. “Never again will I curse the ground because of man,” the Almighty pledged, “eleven though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.” He then singled out the rainbow as a continuing reminder of his faithfulness. It resembled a bow held high overhead, as a sign of coming in peace.

Qualifications aside, God’s covenant with Noah might be construed as an extension of that with Adam. As such, it is universal in character—leading the rabbis to apply it to the righteous Gentile. In this connection, he was thought as worthy of commendation as an observant Jew.

The rabbis derived seven laws from God’s covenant with Noah: which pertain to idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual relations, eating the limb of a living animal, and establishing courts of law. In this regard, “The essence of the Seven Universal Laws is the prohibition against idolatry. One who worship another deity besides the Creator denies the essence of religion and rejects the entirety of the Seven Universal Laws. But one who guards himself against idolatry demonstrates belief in God and affirms (its) entirety.”8

One was to refrain from even giving the impression of idolatrous practice. For instance, if inadvertently dropping a coin before an idol, the rabbis counseled turning away before retrieving it. Not only would this keep from giving the wrong impression, but resist the temptation of participation.

As for blasphemy, it was not limited to cursing. It, for instance, precluded using God’s name in a trivial manner, or in jest. The invoking of God’s name was instead meant to invite his righteous attention.

As for sexual relations, it was recalled: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cling to his wife and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Anything that deviated from this code was thought unacceptable. Although much less detailed that the Mosaic Covenant, the rabbis reasoned that it was roughly comparable. This, then, will suffice to illustrate the exacting character of God’s covenant with Noah.

The so-called Table of the Nations (cf. Gen. 10) provides a theological and literary bridge between the previous text and what follows: concerning the Tower of Babel (touched on earlier) and another genealogy—from Shem to Abram. “As an extended unit, three conclusions can be derived. First, the human race is united by virtue of being one family. Such was already implied by the monotheistic orientation of Scripture. The genealogical table thus makes explicit the human solidarity already implicit to Biblical monotheism.”9

Second, the human race is separated and dispersed as a result of its defiant effort to erect the Tower of Babel. Accordingly, it had failed to usurp God’s rightful place at life’s center. As a result, it is disposed to pursue sectarian issues at the expense of the common good.

“Third, the nations one and all stand within the divine structure of blessings and curses set forth in the covenant with Noah. As a consequence, it can be said that ‘righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people’ (Prov. 14:34).”10 This allows for no exceptions.

In conclusion, we are alerted to the oral tradition that underscores the written text. These accounts were assuredly repeated on numerous occasions, as an attempt to recall what had transpired from the dim dawn of history. This was by way of caution and encouragement. Which, in turn, brings to mind the sage saying: “The more some things change, the more other things appear constant.”

FAST FORWARD

Salvation history begins to take shape with the call of Abram/Abraham. His original name suggests the father is exalted, thought to be a reference to the patron moon god of Ur. In like manner, his wife’s name Sarai means queen—an apparent allusion to the deity’s consort. The selection of such names constituted an act of religious devotion.

This recalls an occasion when I was teaching in Nigeria, and one of my elder students mentioned that there was a time when things were not going well for him. Consequently, he petitioned his village elders to have his name changed. Once he had done so, matters took a decided turn for the better. I initially supposed he was joking, but noted that his fellows students were nodding their heads in solemn approval. Whereupon, I concluded that the giving of names was akin to a means of grace.

I am also reminded of one of my students named Godswill. It was his parent’s hope that he would live a righteous life. He, moreover, seemed to embrace this as a given—even though his resolve was likely challenged from time to time.

The patriarch was variously commended as God’s friend, and as the exemplar of faith (2 Chron. 20:7; James 2:23). In this dual capacity, he remains an inspiration to all (cf. Heb. 11:7-12, 17-19).

“Leave your country, your people and your father’s household,” God urged Abram, “and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse, and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen. 12:1-3). The three-fold exhortation ranges from the more general to specific, with increasing cost, and culminating in complete separation.

Details are lacking. In what manner did the patriarch hear God speaking: in ominous thunder or a quiet prompting? How was he able to identify the speaker: through some means associated with God Most High or in some alternative way? Did he suppose that his summons would preclude the recognition of other deities (theoretical monotheism), or simply take precedence (practical monotheism)? All we are told is that the Almighty enjoined him to take leave of his former way of life, in anticipation that which would eventuate.

It is difficult for us today to weigh the cost of so radical a departure. Since one’s identity was forged in society, it signaled a new beginning. Since security was guaranteed by society, this move entertained a high degree of risk. In a society bound by religious protocol, one’s destiny was thrown in doubt.

There were, however, compensating factors. These took the form of a series of blessings, calculated to appeal to his social conditioning. For instance, this was a so-called shame culture, where one’s reputation was a major consideration. Furthermore, the promise to bless or curse those in keeping with their disposition toward Abram’s lineage recalls the perceived conflict among patron deities. Likewise, the calling appears a summons to service.

“And Abram left, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him.” This, in turn, recalls the challenge: “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do” (James 2:18). The biblical ideal involves enabling faith, whether with Abram or some other.

The patriarch subsequently traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. My African students would readily recognize this as a sacred tree, where sacrifices were performed. This is perhaps confirmed by term Moreh, which means teacher/diviner.

So it was that one day a friend and I took leave of the missionary compound, to pay a visit to the sacred tree. This would require negotiating a jungle trail for about a mile.

Upon arriving at our destination, we were appropriately impressed by its incredible size, towering over its rivals. No one was in evidence, although we experienced an eerie feeling. Having been raised in a wooded area, I could make out signs of persons having frequented the location. All things considered, we decided not to extend our stay.

Hardly had we begun our return when a native, stripped to his waist, leaped from the bush—menacingly waving a machete overhead. I calculated for a moment whether I might be able to out-run him, but perceived that my companion would not be able to do so. As it turned out, he hoped we would take his picture and leave it with a friend at the compound. Considering our foreboding, we were happy to comply.

Blood sacrifice was common in the sacred tree ritual, recalling the observation: “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:11). It often involved a rooster. Then when stray dogs began to disappear, we were alerted to the fact that some special sacrifice was in the offing. The rationale is seemingly complex, or perhaps differs from one tribal entity to another. There is a dual emphasis on death and life, the former as a means of achieving the latter.

“At that time the Canaanite were in the land.” This serves to alert the reader that the patriarch will have to contend with its inhabitants. “For your offspring, I will give this land,” the Lord reassured him. So Abram built and dedicated an altar in commemoration of the event.

From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel toward the west and Ai toward the east. Pitching his tent implies that it was for an extended period of time. Jacob would subsequently have an encounter with the Lord at this location, signifying the continuing importance of altars once dedicated.

Afterward, the patriarch continued on through the land, southward toward the Negev. It is an expansive semiarid area. When rainfall is normal or better, it provides an opportunity for grazing. This, however, had not been the case, since there was famine in the region. Consequently, Abram pressed on to Egypt—where the Nile provided a more constant resource.

This was not without misgivings. His wife was quite attractive, so he feared that some might covet her and take his life. Accordingly, he passed her off as his sister. When Pharaoh was informed of her beauty, she was taken to his palace, and Abram given favorable treatment.

The ruler was informed of his deceit when a plague inflicted his household. “What have you done to me?” he rhetorically inquired. “Take her and go!” (Gen. 12:18-19). He, nonetheless, profited from the relatively brief stay.

Whereupon, he returned to the Negev—along with Lot and their extensive holdings. “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers (relatives),” he enjoined his nephew. “Let us part company. If you go the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left” (Gen. 13:8-9).

Lot chose the Jordan plane—for it was well watered and said to resemble the garden of the Lord. “Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south east and west,” the Lord then prompted Abram, “all the land you see I will give to you and your offspring.” The patriarch then encamped in Hebron, and erected an altar there.

It came to pass that there was armed conflict, resulting in Lot being taken prisoner and his possessions confiscated. When Abram heard of this, he and his trained men set out in pursuit. Under the cover of darkness, he was able to rescue those taken captive, and recover their belongings.

As the patriarch was returning, he was met by Melchizekek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High. As noted in passing, this distinguished him as a priest of the High God. Consequently, we are alerted to a common feature in traditional religion—associated with the era of the patriarchs.

This, in turn, recalls the classic exposition of Wilhelm Schmidt—who associated six attributes with the High God: eternity, omniscience, beneficence, morality, omnipotence, and creative power. “A sort of eternity is ascribed to all these Supreme Beings more or less clearly, whenever we have anything like detailed information,” he assures us. “The form of the statements is that they existed before all other beings, have always been and always will be, or that they never die.”11

As such, God Most High either outranks all other deities or precludes them. In this capacity, he initiates life and sustains it. Consequently, any offense is calculated to put life in jeopardy. Otherwise expressed, order gives way to chaos.

The High God is also thought to be omniscient. In this regard, the Batwa of Rwanda assert: “There is nothing which Omani does not know about; he knows everything.” The Batek of Nugu likewise insist: “Keto’s eyes are the sun and moon,” to which the Samayeds add: “the stars are God’s ears.”

Such affirmations are meant to indicate that God is aware of human behavior, as well with the intent to hold persons accountable. Along this line, the Psalmist allows: “You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence” (90:8). Accordingly, justice is assured.

God Most High is no less beneficent. For instance, the Iroquois Constitution alludes to “the Great Spirit who dwells in the skies above, who gives all things useful to me, who is the source and the ruler of health and life.” Accordingly, the Igbo insist that we have no cause for complaint.

In greater detail, “The High God is good, and the ultimate source of all that we experience as good. Because he is good, he deserves our trust. Because he does good, he solicits our appreciation and praise.”12

As regards morality, “the primitive Supreme Being is without exception unalterably righteous, his only connection with anything morally bad is to abhor and punishes it. The true source of this deeply moral character is that he is the giver of the moral law, and consequently its origin.”13 Conversely, the moral law cannot be dismissed simply as a social imperative.

In some instances, the traditions posit an evil adversary to account for the seeming disparity between God’s benevolent intent and our misfortune. Schmidt, however, reminds us that this is not a genuine dualism. Since, in metaphorical terms, God keeps his adversary on a short leash.

Divine omnipotence also emerges from the traditions concerning the High God. In this regard, he is sometimes addressed as one who reigns over all things. Then, too, he reigns over all people, and not simply some select group.

Moreover, God Most High is said to be absolute in his decisions, and not given to equivocation. He is incredibly rich, as the ultimate owner of all things. Persons are thus intended to serve as stewards of their possessions. This implies the dual virtues of industry and generosity.

Creative power rounds out the list of divine attributes. This extends beyond the original creation to involve its preservation. While the potter analogy is most prominent, as previously allowed, the Adamba employ the notion of whittling metaphor to suggest a creation subsequently takes shape.

While transcendent over creation, “In various ways God provides for the things He has made, so that their existence can be maintained and continued. He provides life, fertility rain, health and other necessities needed for sustaining creation. His providence functions entirely independently of man, though man may and does at times solicit God’s help.”14

As the sun was sitting, Abram fell into a deep sleep (cf. Gen. 15:12). When it had set, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed through the sacrifices which Abram had provided. This Lord is thus depicted as sealing the covenant. In greater detail, “the ancient ritual of making a covenant the parties passed together between the pieces of the sacrifice to formalize the covenant. God’s passing between the pieces alone means that he was making a unilateral, unconditional covenant.”15

Worthy of note, the theophany was a standard means of God revealing himself in the patriarchal era. This might occur in a vision or dream, or some uncommon natural phenomenon. They might also involve communication. The angel of the Lord and Shekinah Glory serve as provocative examples.

Since Sarai was without children, she encouraged her husband to sleep with her maidservant Hagar, with the intent of building a family through her (cf. Gen. 16:2).. Abram agreed. When Hagar became pregnant, her prestige in the family increased measurably, causing her to despise her mistress.

When Sarai complained to her husband, he allowed her to take any action she thought advisable. She then mistreated her maidservant, inciting her to flee into the wilderness. There the angel of the Lord discovered her, and encouraged her to return to her mistress. She called the one who had appeared to her: “You are the God who sees me”—since he had taken notice of her dilemma. So it was that Hagar bore a son, and he was called Ishmael.

The Lord again appeared to Abram near the great trees of Mamre, while he was sitting at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day (cf. Gen. 18:1). When he looked up, he saw three men standing nearby. Whereupon, he offered them hospitality, and they acquiesced.

“Where is your wife Sarah?” they subsequently inquired.

“There in the tent,” he responded. Following custom, the wife was nearby but not present with male guests.

“I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son,” the Lord replied—with what appears to be a reference to the Angel of the Lord. When Sarah heard this, she laughed aloud—since she was well advanced in age. This, in turn, invited the memorable exclamation: “Is anything too hard for the Lord!”

Now the Lord revealed to Abraham his intent to destroy the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. When the patriarch interceded on their behalf, God replied: “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” Not content, Abraham attempts to improve the odds—reminiscent of the bargaining that goes on in the market place. As a result, the sum is reduced to forty-five, then forty, then thirty, then twenty, and finally ten. “So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out to the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.”

Now Sarah gave birth to a son, and he was called Isaac. But when Ishmael mocked the child, Sarah insisted that he and his mother be sent away. Once again The Angel of the Lord comforted her, and mother and son survived.

Some time later, God tested Abraham. “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah,” he was commanded. “Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about” (Gen. 22:2). “In the ancient Near East, the god who provided fertility is also entitle to demand a portion of what has been produced. This is expressed in the sacrifice of animals, grain and children. (Conversely, the) biblical prophets and the laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus expressly forbid this practice.”16 Which would imply that it continued to exist.

Early the next morning, the patriarch set out on his journey. On the third day, he looked up and saw in the distance the place where he was to sacrifice. “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there,” he instructed his servants. “We will worship and then will come back to you.” The author of Hebrews observes: “Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death” (11:19).

Abraham placed the wood for the burnt offering on his son’s shoulders, while he carried the fire and knife. As the two went on together, Isaac asked concerning the lack of a sacrifice. Whereupon, he was told that the Lord would provide. And the two of them went on together, repeated by way of emphasis concerning their shared resolve..

When they had reached the appointed place, the patriarch erected an altar, deliberately arranged the wood, bound his son, and laid him on the altar. He then took the knife in anticipation of slaying his beloved offspring. “Do not do anything to him,” The angel of the Lord protested. “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

Whereupon, the patriarch looked and saw a ram caught by its horns in a thicket. He took the ram, and offered it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide, from which was derived the saying: “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.” Thus concludes the most popular incident in Jewish inspirational literature.

Sarah had passed away, and Abraham was well advanced in years. Accordingly, he summoned his chief servant, and instructed him to seek out a wife for Isaac from among his extended family. So it was that the servant made his way to Nahor. Then he prayed: “May it be that when I say to a girl, ‘Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,’ and she says, ‘Drink, and I’ll water your camels too—let her be the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac” (Gen. 24:14). So it came to pass.

When the servant had told Isaac all that he had done, the latter “brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her, and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”

Then, with the death of Abraham, the patriarchal narratives shift their focus to Isaac. He prayed on behalf of his wife, and she became pregnant. She gave birth to twin boys: Esau and Jacob. The former became a skillful hunter, while the latter was more domestic. Once when Jacob was preparing stew, his brother returned from the open country. “Quick,” he urgently entreated, “let me have some of that red stew! I’m famished!” (Gen. 25:30). Jacob agreed only on condition that he surrender his birthright. In doing so, Esau showed a disregard for his inheritance.

There was again famine in the land. Whereupon, the Lord appeared to Isaac. Enjoining him not to go down to Egypt, he was encouraged to stay in the land of promise. Then when the men of the place inquired about his wife, he identified her as his sister. As with his father, he was afraid that they might kill him so as to secure her. When his deceit was uncovered, Abimelech—the Philistine ruler— threatened anyone who would molest her.

Isaac planted crops in the land, and harvested a bountiful crop. He also reopened the wells that had been dug in the time of Abraham. He then dug a series of wells, resulting in conflict with the inhabitants of the land. Moving from one place to another, he arrived at Beersheba. That night the Lord appeared to him, saying: “I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you” (Gen. 26:24). Isaac built an altar there, and invoked the name of the Lord. He pitched his tent, and his servants dug a well—signifying an extended stay. Subsequently, Abimelech signed a treaty with him, observing: “We saw clearly that the Lord was with you.”

When Isaac was advanced in years, and with failing eyesight, he summoned his elder son Esau. “Now then, get your weapons—your quiver and bow—and go out to the open country to hunt some will game for me” (Gen. 27:2). Rebekah overhead what was said, and conspired with Jacob to pretend that he was Esau—thereby to receive his father’s blessing. So it came to pass. Esau complained that his brother had offended in two regards: seizing his birthright and blessing. Consequently, Jacob left Beersheba and fled toward Haran— to escape Esau’s wrath.

He stopped for the night, and had a dream in which he saw a stairway reaching from the earth to heaven, and angels ascending and descending on it. “There above it stood the Lord, (who said:) “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying” (Gen. 28:13). His descendants would be like the dust of the earth, and all people would be blessed through his offspring.

Upon awakening from his sleep, the patriarch concluded: “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I was not aware of it.” Then he erected a pillar, poured oil on it, and pledged that if he returned safely to his father’s house, “then the Lord will be my God and this stone that I have set us as a pillar will be God’s house, and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth.” “In the view of the ancients, places where God was though to have appeared provided direct access to the heavenly realm. People came and lingered at these place in the hope of receiving a special communication from the gods, often through a dream.”17

Jacob continued on to Haran, and the house of his uncle Laban. Subsequently, he agreed to work for Laban seven years for the privilege to marrying his younger daughter Rachel—who was exceedingly beautiful. When the time had come for them to marry, her father substituted Leah—the older daughter. “When the morning came,” with a touch of Hebrew humor, “there was Leah!” (Gen. 29:25). When Jacob protested, Laban replied: “It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the old one. Finish the daughter’s bridal week, then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work.”

The patriarch eventually fled, in anticipation of returning to his father’s house, along with his family and possessions. When Laban learned of this, he pursued his son-in-law. A heated discussion followed, after which they agreed to go their separate ways. Subsequently, Jacob was reconciled with his elder brother.

Jacob/Israel had twelve sons, birthed by his wives and their maidservants. “Now Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, because he had been born to him in his old age, and he make a richly ornamented rob for him. When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him” (Gen. 37:3-4).

It came to pass that his brothers were grazing their father’s flocks in the vicinity of Shechem, so Israel instructed him to see how they were managing. When they saw him coming in the distance, they determined to kill him. Instead, they sold him to merchants on their way to Egypt. Accordingly, they reported to this father that he had been killed by a wild beast.

“The Lord was with Joseph and he prospered, and he lived in the house of his Egyptian master” (Gen. 39:2). Falling into disfavor, through no fault of his own, he was imprisoned. “But while Joseph was there in the prison, the Lord was with him.”

Pharaoh had troubling dreams, and sent for his magicians and wise men to interpret them. When they were unable to do so, his chief cupbearer recalled how Joseph had interpreted dreams while he was in prison. Consequently, the ruler sent for the prisoner. When asked to interpret the dream, Joseph protested: “I cannot do it, but God will give Pharaoh the answer he desires.”

As it turned out, the dreams had to due with a time of famine which would ravage the land. Accordingly, Joseph counseled Pharaoh to search out a discerning and wise man to make preparations for what would transpire. “Can we find anyone like this man, one in whom is the spirit of God?” the ruler reflected. So it was that Joseph was given this exalted position.

It was in this capacity that he again encountered his brothers, who had traveled to Egypt to get grain to manage the lean years. They understandably did not recognize him. But when he revealed his identity, they were afraid he might take revenge. Instead, Pharaoh made provision for the family to resettle in Egypt. Here they remained for the time being.

“Joseph stayed in Egypt, along with all his father’s family” (Gen. 50:22). “I am about to die,” he allowed. “But God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land to the land he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Then he made them promise to carry his remains with them when they departed. Thus the patriarchal age comes to a conclusion, in anticipation that God’s promises would be realized—as salvation history continued to run its providential course.

THE STAKES RISE

“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded” (Luke 12:48). Then, too, the stakes rise considerably with the arrival of the prophets, entrusted with God’s word. This would both to serve the occasion, and as a cherished legacy for succeeding generations.

What manner of person was the prophet? Abraham Heschel’s classic exposition solicits our attention by way of response. We will consider only select features of his extended discussion, along with relevant asides, by way of exploring this striking new phase in salvation history—one that lends itself readily to biblical interpretation.

Initially, Heschel is struck by the prophet’s pronounced sensitivity to evil. “To us a single act of injustice—cheating in business, exploitation of the poor—is slight; to the prophets, a disaster. To us injustice is injurious to the welfare of the people; to the prophets it is a deathblow to existence; to us, an episode; to them, a catastrophe, a threat to the world.”18

As an example, “‘Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror,’ declares the Lord. ‘My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water’” (Jer. 2:12-13). “At such sacrilegious behavior the heavens, invoked as witnesses, became aghast with horror since they obeyed the Creator’s laws implicitly. Whereas the heathen are guilty only of idolatry, the covenant nation has offended on two grave counts, that of abandoning the living God and choosing to serve idols.”19

What manner of person was the prophet? He focused in large measure on the human aspect of creation.. “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you re mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him,” the psalmist rhetorically inquires. “You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands, you put everything under his feet, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas” (8:3-8).

Accordingly, man’s defection was thought to have dire consequences not only on himself, but creation at large. In this regard, “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we with eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:22-23). This, moreover, gave rise to the so-called Messianic Travail.

What manner of person was the prophet? One who focused his attention on the highest good. Consequently, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth for in these I delight’” (Jer. 9:23-24). Thus two triads are set over against one another: wisdom, strength, and riches versus kindness, justice, and righteousness.

This, in turn, recalls Jesus’ admonition: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things (which tend to consume our attention) will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt. 6:33-34). He thereby perpetuates the prophetic legacy.

What manner of person was the prophet? “The prophet was human, yet he employs notes one octave too high for our ears. He experiences moments that defy our understanding. Often his words being to burn where conscience ends.”20 On the one hand, he is manifestly human—more strikingly human than common folk.

On the other, he employs notes an octave too high for our ears. As if a citizen of two realms. In this regard, “Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust. Before him all the nations are nothing,; they are regarded by him as worthless and less than nothing” (Isa. 40: 15, 17).

What manner of person was the prophet? He was an iconoclast, in that he challenged beliefs thought to be sacrosanct, and institutions held in high esteem. “I hate, I despise your religious feasts, I cannot stand your assembles. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream” (Amos 5:21, 23-24). Thus guilt is compounded by hypocrisy.

Instead, persons were to vigorously promote justice and resolutely maintain righteousness. The imagery graphically pertains to dry river beds, except during the raining season. One is to be constant in his or her devotion, not simply when enjoying the blessings of life, but during times of adversity. “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away,” the patriarch Job allowed, “may the name of the Lord be praised” (1:21). Whereupon, the chronicler observes: “In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.”

What manner of person was the prophet? He advocated hard love. As C. S. Lewis aptly observed, since God loves us, he sets about to make us lovable. In this regard, he is not unlike conscientious parents in guiding their offspring.

“Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?” the Lord rhetorically inquires. “Rather am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezek. 18:23). In answer to the first question, the implied answer is in the negative. In answer to the second, it is an enthusiastic approval. Human intent, moreover, suffers by way of comparison.

One last time, what manner of person was the prophet? Implicit in Herschel’s reasoning is that the prophet was charged with fine-tuning the monarchy to its covenant obligations. The monarchy consisted of a system of checks and balances. There was the ruler, who in large measure set the course for the populace to follow. If righteous, the people were the beneficiary, if wicked, they could expect matters to deteriorate.

As noted above, there were the prophets. These were the most distinctive feature of the social mix. They cautioned the people concerning their perverse ways, sometime bringing on themselves the charge of being unpatriotic. Conversely, they held out hope when the people were afflicted. Circumstances could change from one moment to another, whether for the worse or better.

There were the priestly cast. These served not only concerning religious ritual, but as a means of instructing the people. In this capacity, they were able to temper the affairs of state. While given to protecting the status quo, they could be an affective instrument for good.

Finally, there were the people. They had to cooperate with the public officials if anything constructive were to ensue. If not, anarchy prevailed. Even apathy could undermine the best of intentions. All things considered, the prophet had to interact with diverse constituencies in a bold and yet creative manner.

What did the prophets hope to achieve? Initially, they meant to admonish the Israelites as God’s chosen people. In this regard, “Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy” (Lev. 20:7). Holiness implies being set apart for God’s righteous purposes. As such, it should be cultivated both as individuals and through corporate endeavor.

Each person must decide for himself or herself whether to walk in the way of the Lord. Subsequently, one must resolutely persist. Failure at any point can be disastrous. Having failed, there may be an opportunity to recover. Only God knows when additional time will serve no constructive purpose.

It is no less true that one experiences life together. The human is exceedingly vulnerable, and would not survive but for the help of others. One continues the earthly sojourn in the context of family and friends. Then, too, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Prov. 14:34). The term exalts is employed in a moral rather than material sense.

Likewise, in their role as a holy people, the Israelites would serve to instruct the Gentiles. In this connection, “I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison, and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Isa. 42:6-7). “Yahweh must be revealed to the world rather than people mistakenly glorifying no-gods. (His) acts in fulfilling past declarations of intent provide grounds for believing that (he) can and will also fulfill this declaration.”21

The Israelites were intended to actively engage in the world, while not taking on its ways. The difficulty is perhaps best illustrated by the prophet Jonah, who when called upon to preach to those residing in Nineveh, chose to flee from his responsibility. Once God had forgiven them, he complained: “I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (4:2).

Now the prophets came on stage at a critical juncture in salvation history. The Almighty had singled out a chosen people to achieve his redemptive purposes. It remained to instruct them more deliberately in the ways of the Lord. Consequently, they were enrolled in the school of the prophets.

Some cultural mores would be readily amenable to prophetic instruction. For instance, the family was considered a prime priority. In this regard, I recall the impressions of some of my African students concerning the institutionalizing of our elderly and ailing parents. Regardless of its advantages, they felt the parents’ interests were best served in the family circle.

Conversely, some cultural standards would fall tragically short of the prophetic ideal. As an example, there was the common practice of harsh retribution. In this regard, if persons are fighting and no serious injury results, a proper settlement was in order. “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exod. 21:23-25). This was meant to prohibit harsh and inappropriate retribution.

Moses was thought to initiate the era of the prophets. In greater detail, the Israelites were subject to grievous bondage in Egypt, depicted by the rabbis as humanity’s seventh falling away. As such, it implies that human degradation had sunk to its lowest level—taking the form of genocide.

It came to pass that Moses was tending the flo0ck of his father-in-law, on the far side of the desert in the vicinity of Horeb—the mountain of God. There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flaming bush that was not consumed. “Natural explanations for the burning bush have been plentiful, from bushes that exude flammable gas to those covered with brightly colored leaves or berries.”22 Otherwise, it perhaps qualified as a vision. In any case, it was something that prompted him to look more closely at this strange phenomenon.

He was cautioned not to come any closer, and remove his sandals—since the place he was standing constituted holy ground. Subsequently, God allowed that the plight of the Israelites had come to his intention. So it was that he meant to deliver them, opting to employ Moses for that purpose.

While reluctant, Moses signed on. There followed a series of plagues, demonstrating the inability of the Egyptian pantheon to cope with the Living God. This resulted in the Israelites covenanting with the Almighty in the wilderness, and subsequently taking their leave for the promised land. We are thus alerted to the fact that liberty does not consist simply in being free from oppressive restraints, but free to serve God’s righteous agenda.

Genuine prophecy had to pass two uncompromising tests. First, it must be consistent with the Mosaic tradition. This implied continuity in the context of change. This is in accord the sage observation, “The more some things change, the more other things remain constant.”

Second, the prophetic word must be validated in the course of events. It requires an accurate appraisal of the circumstances, along the line of a reality check. False prophecy fails in both connections.

Amos serves as a representative prophet. It is perhaps for this reason that Heschel initially focuses on this prophet, before turning his attention to Hosea, Isaiah, and others. It also contributed to my decision to explore the topic Amos Still Speaks! In the latter regard, it is striking that Amos’ mission, “which lasted such a short time, had in the end such reverberations that his ancient words have remained vividly alive throughout twenty-eight centuries right till our time. He fulfilled his function—and then he disappeared; and yet, ‘he is still speaking’ (Heb. 11:4).”23

“Amos was working as a shepherd and dresser of sycamore trees when he was suddenly overwhelmed by God and called to be a prophet. Although his home was in Takoa, a village southeast of Bethlehem in the Kingdom of Judah, his utterances were all directed against the Kingdom in the North.”25 Along with messages directed to the ethnic groups surrounding its domain.

Under the reign of Jeroboam II, the Northern Kingdom had prospered. Assyria was weak and Syria in decline, allowing for expansion and prosperity. On the down side, this fostered pride and presumption. “They planted pleasant vineyards, anointed themselves with precious gifts; their women, compared by Amos to fat cows of Bashan, were addicted to wine. At the same time there was no justice in the land, the poor were afflicted, exploited, even sold into slavery, and the judges were corrupt.”25

“The lion roars from Zion and thunders from Jerusalem; the pastures of the shepherds dry up, and the top of Carmel withers” (1:2). The lion was a fearful creature, whose roar would strike fear among its intended victims. As should the intimidating voice of the prophet. Zion and Jerusalem are invoked by way of rebuking the apostate shrines of the Northern Kingdom.

“The text falls into three major segments: the first consisting of several brief oracles concerning regional nations (1:1-2:16), the second a collection of short addressees expanding on the judgment of Israel (3:1-6:14), and the third comprising a series of visions interspersed with biographical references to the prophet.”26 As noted above, the prophet’s ministry appears to have been of short duration.

Several conclusions can readily be drawn from the initial segment. First, the messenger formula serves to substantiate the prophet’s credentials. His words are not his alone, but that which he was commissioned to deliver to a wayward people.

Second, evil practices ultimately constitute a transgression against the Almighty. Whether in the form of commission or omission, if with regard to some less consequential matter or more so, and regardless of short or long duration. Even though they have pronounced social and personal implications.

Third, they are portrayed as being inhumane. “It seems that the nations are condemned here not for idolatry nor false religions but for offense commonly judged as evil by the prevalent standards of the day: cruelty to civilians in war (1:3, 13), selling of war prisoners into slavery (1:6, 9), violation of treaties (1:9, 11), and the mistreatment of a fallen king (2:1).”27

Fourth, as a result of these transgressions, the nation becomes exceedingly vulnerable. While threatened by an onslaught from without, it was no less immune from inner erosion. Unable or unwilling to restrain their evil inclinations, it was not capable of coping with adverse circumstances.

Fifth, the numerical pattern from three sins, even for four resembles wisdom literature (cf. Prov. 30:18-19, 21-23, 29-31). This pertains to what should be evident to those who pay careful attention. It also recalls the sage complaint, “The problem with common sense is that it is so uncommon.”

Finally, accountability seems proportionate to the awareness of God’s righteous ways. Consequently, Judah does not escape unscathed. In particular, it has failed to live up to its covenant obligations and entertained idolatry. As for the latter, “The principal crime of the human race, the highest fault charged upon the world, the whole procuring cause of judgment, is idolatry. For although each single fault is destined to judgment under its own proper name also, yet it marked off under the general account of idolatry.”28

Philistia serves as a prime example (cf. 1:6-8). Four Philistine cites are mentioned: Gaza—southernmost and mightiest of the locations cited, Ashdod—due west of Hebron, Ashdod—located on the coast, and Akron—northernmost and nearest to the boarder of Judah. While the origin of the Philistines remains uncertain, it is usually thought that they came from Crete. Constricted to an area along the coastline, they expanded their influence into the Shephelah—characterized by its unpretentious hills, as if bowed in prayer. There they confronted the Israelites, migrating from the central hill country This set the stage for the classic encounter between David and Goliath..

Slave-trade is singled out in the indictment. It appears to have been a calculated and an expensive practice, rather than an incidental involvement. This was singled out as a manifest instance of its general depravity.

The three-fold assertions: “I will send fire,” “I will destroy the king,” and “I will turn my hand against” are calculated to affirm God’s sovereign rule. He is not intimidated by such obnoxious behavior, nor is he unable to deal with it. Accordingly, those implicated had best mend their ways.

The Northern Kingdom next draws the prophet’s critical appraisal (3:1-6:14). “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so,” he inquires. Certainly not. “Does a lion roar in the thicket when he has no prey?” Obviously not. Should the prophetic word be ignored, one can expect to reap the dire consequences.

Ashdod and Egypt are summoned as witnesses against Israel (cf. 3:9). This would be especially aggravating, since they were ancient enemies. Moreover, Israel prided itself on being morally superior.

Amos describes in graphic imagery the impending devastation: “As a shepherd saves from the lion’s mouth only two leg bones or a piece of an ear, so will the Israelites be saved, those who sit in Samaria on the edge of their beds and in Damascus on their couches” (3:2). This is an allusion to “the proof of attack that an animal herder brought to the wiener of the beasts in the event that a wild animal had destroyed one of the flock. Amos’ comparison, then, makes the sarcastic point that when invasion strikes Israel’s devastation will be so complete that all that will be rescued is proof of death in the form of scraps of furniture.”29

The sanctuary at Bethel is singled out for mention, it being the most important of the Israelite shrines. After that, mention is made of the luxurious homes enjoyed by the affluent. All will be demolished.

A second judgment follows (4:1-13). Initially, the prophet protests against the women who oppress the poor, while indulging themselves. As noted in passing, he likens them to the cows of Bashan—who are well fed and seemingly oblivious to all else and most notably those in need..

It might be said that their punishment will fit their crime. “They will be led, like obstreperous beasts goaded by blows. They will be dragged away like long files of prisoners, bound to each other by chains bored through the nose, such as one can see in Assyrian relief.”30

The prophet next taunts the shrines at Bethel and Gilgal (4:4-5). It is as if to say, “It will profit you nothing”—since God is not impressed with ritual void of piety. To the contrary, hypocrisy compounds their guilt.

“Religious ostentation appears as a related factor. The people pride themselves on their lavish gifts, as an indication of their devotion. Whereas they compete for the acclaim of the populace. Meanwhile, the needs of the poverty stricken are not addressed.”31

Whether in this regard or some other, they disregard God’s warnings (6:4-11), as expressed in the manner of drought, blight, swarms of locusts, and military reverses. Qualifications aside, these serve as judgment parables.

Amos subsequently takes up a lament (5:1-17): For instance, “Fallen is Virgin Israel, never to rise again, deserted in her own land, with no one to lift her up.” It was as if the prophet was joined by other mourners at the funeral of the Northern Kingdom.

An appeal is coupled with the lament. “Seek me and live,” the Lord urges. You will not find sanctuary elsewhere. Do not delay. After which, there follows a series of more specific charges.

Two oracles of woe conclude this second segment of the text. Initially, “Woe to you who long for the day of the Lord! Why do you long for the day of the Lord? That day will be darkness, not light” (5:18). Darkness implies a lack of direction, unfavorable conditions, and insecurity. Anticipating something more amenable, they will be greatly disappointed.

A second woe expands on the previous one. “Woe to you who are complacent in Zion, and to you who feel secure on Mount Samaria” (6:1). Such are content to accumulate riches, while neglecting their social obligations. Who favorably compare themselves with others, while adorning their behavior with religious pretense.

As noted earlier, the final segment contains a series of visions (7:1-9:10), expressly as concerns the impending destruction of Israel. As an example, the tragedy of a locust plague is cited. It arrives after the spring rain, so without the prospect of being able to sow another crop. The fields are stripped bare.

As another example, fire ravages the land, and all is consumed in its wake. Amos again intercedes, at which God relents. This appears in context little more than a stay of sentence. Exile is pending.

It came to pass that Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, sent a message to Jeroboam accusing Amos of conspiracy. Whereupon, the prophet was summoned to appear before the irate king. “Get out, you seer!” the potentate demanded. “Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king’s sanctuary, and the temple of the kingdom” (7:12-13). He hoped thereby to rid himself of the troublesome prophet.

“I was neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore fig trees,” Amos protested. “But the Lord took me from tending the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel.’” If divinely appointed, it was neither his nor the king’s prerogative to terminate his ministry. After that, Amos again warned of impending doom. Given his perspective, the Lord had the final word.

Two oracles comprise the conclusion to the text. In a dramatic turn of focus, both anticipate a time of restoration. For instance, “In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations that bear my name” (9:11-12). As if to say that the promise pertains to all who call on the name of the Lord.

God remains faithful, even when man proves to be faithless. Beyond despair, there remains hope. As elsewhere expressed: “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people . . . will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:13-14).

One need not fear what the future holds, so long as he or she embraces the one who holds the future. Or so it would seem in the light of the prophet’s impassioned plea.

HIGH GROUND

Josephus assures us that John was a good man, who “commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, not as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism . . . supposing the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”33 People responded in considerable numbers, drawing both caution and encouragement from their mentor.

When they had crucified him, they placed the written charge above his head: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. This crime appears related to the alleged incitement that he constituted a political threat to Roman rule. Those who passed by hurled insults at him. From the sixth to the ninth hour, there was darkness over the entire the land. It must have seemed as if evil had triumphed.

DAY’S END

Fall of Babylon (17:1-19:5). “Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters,” one of the angels allows. “With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.” Whereupon, John was whisked away to the wilderness, where he beheld a woman lavishly attired. On her forehead was written: MYSTERY/ BABYLON THE GREAT/THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH.

MEMORABLE MOMENTS

ENDNOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: Macmillan, 1963.

Brooks, Oscar. The Drama of Decision. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987,

Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Clorefene, Chaim and Yakov Rogalsky. The Path of the Righteous Gentile. Southfield: Targum, 1987.

Davies, Paul. God & The New Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983.

Eckstein, Yechiel. How Firm a Foundation. Brewster: Paraclete, 1997.

Goldingay, John. Isaiah. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001.

Harrison, R. K. Jeremiah & Lamentations. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1973.

Hartley, John. Genesis. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003.

Heschel, Abraham. The Prophets. Peabody: Prince, 2001.

Hoerth, Alfred. Archaeology & the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Hubbard, David Allan. Joel & Amos. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1989.

Inch, Morris. The Enigma of Justice. Eugene: Wift & Stock, 2010.

———. The High God. Kearney: Morris, 1997.

——— and Ronald Youngblood (eds.). The Living and Active Word of God. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

———. Making the Good News Relevant. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986.

———. “Manifestation of the Spirit,” The Living and Active Word of God (Inch and Youngblood, eds.), 149-155.

———. Potpourri. New York: iUniverse, 2008.

———. Scripture As Story. Lanham: University Press of America, 2000.

———. The Wonder of It All. Lanham: University Press of America, 2009.

Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews.

Keener, Craig. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993.

Livingston, James. Modern Christian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Vatican II. New York: Macmillan, 1971.

Martin-Achard, Robert and S. Paul Re’Emi. Amos and Lamentations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Mbiti, John. African Religions and Philosophy. Garden City: Doubleday, 1970.

Moo, Doubled. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Mounce, Robert. The Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Polkinghorne, John. Science & Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.

Schmidt, Wilhelm. The Origin and Growth of Religion. London: Mathuen, 1935.

Snook Lee. What in the World Is God Doing? Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1999.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. Jesus and His Story. New York: Knopf, 1960.

Steinberg, Milton. Basic Judaism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1947.

Tertullian. The Apology.

———. On Idolatry.

Wall, Robert. Revelation. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

Walton, John & Victor Matthews. The IVP Bible Commentary: Genesis- Deuteronomy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

Watkins, William. The New Absolutes. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1996.