Interpretation of
V 6b – Those scholars who regard this half
verse to be the highpoint of v 3-6 generally also hold that the expression
“evil in the city” refers to the impending national catastrophe. The expression
is understood as a rebuttal of the popular view which is also voiced in Amos 9,
10:
“All the sinners of my people shall
die by the sword, who say, ‘Evil shall not overtake or meet us’” (RSV; cf.
5,18; 6,1.3). Words of this sort express the cocksure belief that there was no
reason to believe that YHWH would condemn the people to national calamity
as the prophet predicted. This popular belief will probably have been founded
on the idea of election, a vulgar conception of which will have been taken to
guarantee positive action by the deity. Also, the economic flowering of the
Northern Kingdom in the first half of the eighth century BC was probably
understood as a sign of YHWH’s approbation.
Now, it is doubtful that the notion
underlying Amos 9,10 was that YHWH was unable to carry out the threat
voiced by his prophet, that is, the attitude comparable to the words in
Zephaniah, “YHWH will not go good, nor will he do ill!” (Zeph 1,12). At least,
this can not be shown with certainty. However, it is in any cast intelligible
that Amos was compelled to “prove” that the imminent national catastrophe
predicted by him indeed originated with YHWH. . . .
I personally regard it as unlikely
that the prophet is here employing the expression “evil in a city” in reference
to the impending destruction of the Northern Kingdom. Amos seems to have been
aware of this understanding of the approaching judgment; thus in 3,11 he was
able ot say explicitly that “An adversary shall surround the land”.
Accordingly, the usage of 3,6b is more probably to be taken to mean that the
prophet is referring to one or more lesser disasters in the present or rennet
past. Nor is it possible to dismiss this argument by saying that Amos had no
need to argue so forcefully for his conviction that YHWH was behind such
disasters. The reaction of Amos’ contemporaries to this sort of calamity is expressed
with all desirable clarity in Amos 4,6-11:
‘I gave you
. . . lack of bread in all your places,
yet you did not return to me,’ says the Lord.
‘And I also withheld the rain from you . . .
yet you did not return to me,’ says the Lord.
‘I smote you with blight and mildew;
I laid waste your gardens and your vineyards;
your fig trees and your olive trees the locust devoured;
yet you did not return to me,’ says the Lord.
‘I sent among you a pestilence . . .
I slew your young men with the sword . . .
yet you did not return to me,’ says the Lord.
‘I overthrew some of you . . .
yet you did not return to me,’ says the Lord. (RSV)
This “parody of the saving history”
(von Rad) confronts the audience with a dimension in YHWH’s dealings with his
people which they have not observed, namely the divine pedagogy of history.
Israel’s disasters have been sent as a warning to the people to return to their
God; the fact that the expected result does not take place does not suggest a
conception of the pancausality of YHWH, but rather that the people failed to
see the hand of YHWH behind their misfortunes. The emphatic use of the personal
pronoun in the section shows that the burden of the message is equally
distributed between YHWH’s authorship and the people’s unwillingness to repent.
The People of God have not drawn the correct conclusions from their
experiences; indeed, they have been unable to recognize the connexion between
these disasters and YHWH’s activity. They have failed to see the twin aspects
of these events.
It seems likely that Amos is referring
to such admonitory disasters in 3,6b; this supposition explains why v 3-6 are
located after the word of judgment in v 1-2. The judgment will no doubt have
provoked objections along the lines of “does not the well-being of the country
testify to the fact that YHWH is content with us?” However, this sort of
objection is only possible at the cost of ignoring what has indeed really
transpired, since YHWH has by no means failed to serve notice that he is
dissatisfied with the state of affairs. The audience simply must be prepared to
concede this point. Moreover, the expansion in v 7 to the effect that the
prophets are notified in advance of what YHWH has planned is intelligible as
the work of a redactor who understood v 6b to refer to admonitory disaster. The
redactor will have reasoned that just as YHWH had sent misfortune to warn his
people of coming events, the prophets are likewise informed as to the
deliberations of the Divine Council in advance.
If this interpretation (i.e.,
admonitory disaster) is correct, then Amos 3,6b can in no way serve as a
witness to the notion of the pancausaity of YHWH in the middle of the eighty
century BC, whether it be supposed that this idea was formulated by the prophet
himself or only held that he merely promulgated it. To the contrary, it appears
on the basis of Amos 3,6b improbable that a living “dogma” existed in the
Northern Kingdom which stated that HWH was responsible for all misfortunes
affecting the nation. Furthermore, the conclusion that we do not have to do
with a dogma of this sort accords well with the conclusions which other sources
allow us to draw. (Fredrik Lindström, God
and the Origin of Evil: A Contextual Analysis of Alleged Monistic Evidence in
the Old Testament [Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 21; Lund,
Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1983], 205-8)
