Does God “Change His Mind”?

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm Jr. is Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Most Christian theologians have affirmed that God is immutable. In support of this doctrine they often have cited several Old Testament passages, including Numbers 23:19 (“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent”), 1 Samuel 15:29 (“And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind”), and Psalm 110:4 (“The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind”). In all these cases “repent” or “change His mind” translates a Niphal or Hithpael form of the verbal root נחם. However, many other Old Testament passages, using a Niphal form of this same verb with the same semantic sense, assert that God typically does change His mind (Jer 18:5–10; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2), describe Him doing so (Exod 32:14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:10), or at least assume that He might (Jer 26:3; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9). How can one resolve this tension and apparent contradiction? Some dismiss these texts as “anthropomorphic,”[1] but this is an arbitrary and drastic solution that cuts rather than unties the theological knot. A more satisfying solution exists, if the biblical evidence is allowed to speak for itself.

The thesis of this article is that the question, “Does God change His mind?” must be answered, “It all depends.” This study begins with a lexical survey of the Niphal and Hithpael stems of נחם. The article then defines and illustrates the four kinds of forward-looking divine statements in the Old Testament: (a) marked or formal decrees, (b) unmarked or informal decrees, (c) marked or explicitly conditional statements of intention, (d) unmarked or implicitly conditional statements of intention. The article then argues that if God has issued a decree, He will not change His mind or deviate from it. However, the majority of God’s statements of intention are not decrees. And God can and often does deviate from such announcements. In these cases He “changes His mind” in the sense that He decides, at least for the time being, not to do what He had planned or announced as His intention.

A Semantic Analysis of נחם

[2]In the Niphal and Hithpael stems נחם carries one of four semantic senses.[3] (1) In at least nine passages the verb means “to experience emotional pain or weakness” (Gen 6:6–7; Exod 13:17; Judg 21:6, 15; 1 Sam 15:11, 35; Job 42:6; Jer 31:19).[4] In five of these nine instances, כִּי introduces the cause of the sorrow (cf. Gen 6:6–7; Judg 21:15; 1 Sam 15:11, 35). (2) In 13 verses the verb carries the sense “to be comforted” or “to comfort oneself” (sometimes by taking vengeance) (Gen 24:67; 27:42; 37:35; 38:12; 2 Sam 13:39; Pss. 77:3; 119:52; Isa 1:24; Jer 31:15; Ezek 5:13; 14:22; 31:16; 32:31).[5] (3) In perhaps as many as 10 passages the word refers to God’s “relenting” from or “repudiating” a course of action that is already underway (cf. Deut 32:36 = Ps 135:14; Judg 2:18; 2 Sam 24:16 = 1 Chron 21:15; Pss. 90:13; 106:45; Jer 8:6 [man as subject]; 20:16; 42:10).[6] (4) The remainder of the occurrences fall into a fourth semantic category meaning “to retract” a statement or “to relent or change one’s mind concerning, to deviate from” a stated course of action (Exod 32:12, 14; Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Isa 57:6; Jer 4:28; 15:6; 18:8, 10; 26:3, 13, 19; Ezek 24:14; Joel 2:13–14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9–10; 4:2; Zech 8:14).[7] In this semantic category God is the subject of the verb. Some texts (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Jer 4:28; Ezek 24:14; Zech 8:14; cf. also Isa 57:6) indicate that God did/does/will not retract a statement or deviate from a stated course of action, while others assert that He does/will/might change His mind. This fourth category is the focus of this study.

Under what conditions does God retract a statement or deviate from a course of action? Under what conditions does He refuse to do so?

Toward a Solution: Decrees and Announcements

In the Old Testament not all statements of intention are the same. Some are decrees or oaths that are unconditional and bind the speaker to a stated course of action. Others, which may be labeled announcements, retain a conditional element and do not necessarily bind the speaker to a stated course of action.

Two passages in Genesis illustrate this distinction at a secular (nontheological) level. In Genesis 25:32–33 conniving Jacob, desirous of Esau’s birthright and very much aware of his exhausted brother’s vulnerability, made Esau swear an oath, rather than relying on his brother’s rhetorical question. The rhetorical question is equivalent to an announcement. It indicates Esau’s intention to trade his birthright for some stew, but it might be retracted later if he or someone else argued that the deal was made under duress. Jacob wanted the transferal to be unconditional and binding, so he made Esau swear an oath. In Genesis 47:28–30 Jacob, on his deathbed in Egypt, expressed concern that his body be buried in Canaan. Though Joseph indicated his intention to carry out his father’s wishes (“I will do as you have said,” v. 30), Jacob forced him to swear an oath, formally ratifying and guaranteeing the fulfillment of the promise (v. 31; cf. 50:5–6).

One can discern this distinction between a decree and an announcement at the divine (theological) level. A divine decree (or oath) is an unconditional declaration. Because it is certain to come to pass, the response of the recipient cannot alter it, though, as will be seen, the exact timing of its fulfillment can be conditional. An announcement is a conditional statement of divine intention which may or may not be realized, depending on the response of the recipient or someone else whose interests it affects.

Divine decrees are usually clearly marked as such. Something in the statement itself or in the immediate context indicates its unconditional status. For example in Genesis 22:16–18 God swore by His own being that He would bless Abraham. Later references to this promise call it an “oath” and regard it as an unconditional gift (Gen 26:3; Ps 105:9–10). In Genesis 15:18–21 God guaranteed Abram and his descendants future possession of the land of Canaan. This declaration is formalized by an accompanying ritual (vv. 9–17), in which the use of the qatal form נָתַתִּי (v. 18) rather than the yiqtol אֶן (12:7; cf. 13:15, 17) further indicates that the deed to the land was actually being transferred to Abram.[8] God’s promise to David is also called an oath and is characterized as eternal and unalterable (Ps 89:3–4, 33–37).

Conditional statements of divine intention are often clearly marked as well. For example in Jeremiah 26:4–6 the Lord announced, “If [אִם] you will not listen to Me…then I will make this house like Shiloh, and this city I will make a curse to all nations of the earth.” Sometimes an announcement completes an indirect volitive sequence, implying that it will be fulfilled if the accompanying command is observed.[9] For example Genesis 12:1–2 should be translated as follows: “Go [imperative] from your land…in order that I might make you [waw + cohortative] a great nation, bless you [waw + cohortative], and make your name great [waw + cohortative], and so that you in turn might be [waw + imperative] a blessing.” The blessing is clearly contingent on Abram’s leaving his native land. Similarly Genesis 17:1–2 should be translated: “Walk [imperative] before Me and be [waw + imperative] blameless in order that I might ratify [waw + cohortative] My covenant between Me and you and greatly multiply [waw + cohortative] your numbers.” Again the blessing is contingent on Abram’s obedience to the divine imperatives.[10]

Most divine statements of intention are unmarked. In these cases one cannot be sure from the form of the statement whether it is conditional or unconditional. For this reason the recipient of such a message sometimes does what is appropriate, declaring, “Who knows? The Lord may be gracious/turn/relent” (cf. 2 Sam 12:22; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9).

These ambiguous statements of divine intention sometimes prove to be decrees. For example, when Nathan declared that the son conceived from David’s adulterous encounter with Bathsheba would die (2 Sam 12:14), David was unsure if the statement was unconditional. He prayed and fasted until the child died, hoping that God might take pity on him and spare the child’s life (v. 22 ). God’s refusal to respond to David’s acts of repentance shows that Nathan’s declaration was unconditional. Elijah’s judgment speech against Ahab’s dynasty is also ambiguous (1 Kings 21:20–24). In response to the proclamation, Ahab repented, prompting God to postpone the fall of the dynasty until after Ahab’s death (vv. 27–29). However, the prophecy still came to pass, for it was a divine decree that could not be altered (2 Kings 9–10). The prophecy was unconditional, but the exact timing of its fulfillment remained negotiable from God’s perspective.

Many other ambiguous statements of divine intention prove to be conditional.[11] Micah announced that Jerusalem would become a heap of rubble (Mic 3:12), but one discovers from Jeremiah 26:17–19 that this judgment was averted by repentant Hezekiah, thus proving the announcement’s conditionality. Jonah’s seemingly uncompromising declaration (“Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown,” Jonah 3:4) remained unfulfilled when the people of that pagan city repented. The divine promise delivered in Joel 2:26–27 (“My people will never be put to shame”) proved to be conditional. After Joel’s generation (to whom the prophecy was clearly directed, 2:19–25) passed off the scene, God’s people were put to shame on many occasions because of their failure to remain true to the covenant.

To summarize, divine statements of intention can be grouped into two categories: decrees and announcements. Decrees can be formal (marked as such) or informal (unmarked). Announcements can be explicitly or implicitly conditional. On the one hand those verses that declare that God does or will not change His mind pertain to decrees. In fact the declaration formally marks the divine statement of intention as a decree or oath. On the other hand those passages indicating that God does/will/might change His mind pertain to announcements.

Passages In Which Decrees Are In View

Numbers 23:19

Much to the Moabite king Balak’s chagrin, God would not allow Balaam to curse Israel, but instead prompted this hireling prophet to bless His covenant people. Balaam prefaced the second of his oracles with these words: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? Behold, I have received a command to bless; when He has blessed, then I cannot revoke it” (Num 23:19–20). The oracle as such speaks of God’s presence with His people (v. 21) and their invincibility through His power (vv. 22–24). Several factors point to the unconditional nature of this oracle. The oracle is designated a divine blessing and cannot be altered.[12] Balaam recognized the blessing’s unalterable character and acknowledged his inability to thwart it through sorcery or divination. This blessing, a prediction of Israel’s success, is an extension of the Lord’s unconditional promise to give Abraham’s descendants the land of Canaan (cf. Gen 15:16; 17:8; 22:17), and thus it shares the binding quality of that promise. (God’s oath to Abraham is called a “blessing” in Gen 28:4.) The introduction, in which Balaam affirmed that God would not change His mind or lie, formally marks the blessing as a decree. Both נחם and the parallel verb כִּזֵּב “to lie,” here mean “to retract” (an unconditional promise). The verb כִּזֵּב has this same sense in Psalm 89:35, where God decreed, “Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David.” While the verbs refer to how God typically acts when He has made a decree, the principle here applies to the specific blessing to follow.[13]

1 Samuel 15:29

When Saul failed to destroy the Amalekites, Samuel rebuked him for his rebellion and declared that the Lord had rejected him as king (1 Sam 15:23). Saul pled for forgiveness, but Samuel repeated the Lord’s decision (vv. 24–26). Samuel then added these words: “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to your neighbor who is better than you. And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind” (vv. 28–29).

This was not the first time Saul had heard a rebuke from the prophet Samuel at Gilgal. Earlier, impatient Saul had refused to wait for Samuel’s arrival and had offered up a sacrifice. When Samuel finally arrived on the scene, he accused Saul of foolish disobedience and told him he had forfeited a golden opportunity. Samuel declared, “You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you, for now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not endure. The Lord has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you” (1 Sam 13:13–14).

This rebuke sounds quite final and unconditional, but, as already suggested, the tone of a statement can sometimes be misleading. Perhaps Samuel’s rebuke was designed as a warning to bring Saul to his senses and motivate him to obedience. After all, God had not yet revealed who the new appointee was, let alone formally anointed him. As Samuel departed from Gilgal (v. 15), it is not certain if his words constituted a decree or an implicitly conditional announcement. Was the fate of Saul (or his dynasty) sealed, or was there still a chance God might relent?

No matter how one initially answers that question, Saul’s subsequent behavior, as recorded in 1 Samuel 14–15, makes it clear that he was on thin ice. He did nothing that would motivate Yahweh to change His mind about the earlier prophecy; in fact his folly and disobedience cause one to anticipate the worst. When Samuel went to confront him at Gilgal a second time, any earlier ambiguity was removed. Samuel’s rejection of Saul’s plea for forgiveness shows that this second rebuke is in fact a decree, as does the temporal markerהַיּוֹם , “today” (1 Sam 15:28). The concluding words, emphasizing that the Lord will not lie or change His mind (v. 29),[14] formally mark Samuel’s declaration as unconditional. Both נחם and the parallel verb שִׁר, “to lie,” here mean “to retract.”[15] The Lord had decreed Saul’s demise and nothing could alter His decision.[16]

What is the relationship between the pronouncement recorded in 1 Samuel 13:13–14 and the decree in 15:29 ? Two options seem possible. First, perhaps the prophecy in chapter 13 concerns only Saul’s dynasty (the twofold reference to Saul’s “kingdom” might mean his dynasty; cf. the use of the term in 2 Sam 7:16), while chapter 15 refers specifically to Saul’s personal reign over Israel (“He has rejected you as king” in vv. 23 and 26).[17] In this case the earlier prophecy does not necessarily become unconditional here. The “neighbor” mentioned in verse 28 could be one of Saul’s sons (cf. the use of the term רֵעַ in 2 Sam 12:11, where it refers to David’s son Absalom), but developments in 1 Samuel 16 quickly eliminate this prospect.

Second, it is possible that both 1 Samuel 13:13–14 and 15:29 pertain to Saul personally. In this case the first speech could be an informal decree with the second speech simply clarifying the earlier ambiguity. However, if both speeches refer to Saul, it is more likely that the first declaration was an implicitly conditional announcement and that Saul’s doom was not sealed until the second speech.[18] Several factors support this. (1) As noted earlier, David, Saul’s replacement, was not actually revealed and anointed until after the second speech (cf. 1 Sam 16). (2) Also the Lord’s declaration in 1 Samuel 15:11 (“I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not carried out My commands”) and Samuel’s response to it suggest that the earlier warning to Saul had not been final.[19] If Saul’s doom had already been decreed, why would the prophet experience such grief and spend the whole night crying out to God? (3) The presence of הַיּוֹם, “today,” in Samuel’s second speech indicates that God’s decision was finalized at that point, not earlier. (4) The switch from וֹּא שָׁמַרְתָּ (“you have not kept,” 13:13) to מָאַסְתָּ (“you have rejected,” 15:23, 26) suggests that Saul’s latest act of rebellion was the basis for the judgment pronounced in chapter 15, or at least the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

Psalm 110:4

In this passage Yahweh swore an oath that the Davidic king would occupy a special royal-priestly status, much like that of Melchizedek, the ancient king of Salem. The declaration that God will not change His mind, or retract His statement, clearly pertains to the specific pronouncement that follows and, together with the reference to an oath, marks the statement as a decree.

Jeremiah 4:28; Ezekiel 24:14; Zechariah 8:14

Jeremiah and Ezekiel attach to a judgment speech a statement about God’s refusal to change, thus marking the prophecy as an unalterable decree. In Jeremiah 4:28 the words וְוֹּא־אָשׁוּב מִמֶּנָּה, “nor will I turn from it,” accompany וְוֹּא נִחַמְתִּי, “and I will not change My mind” (regarding what I have spoken). The former statement is used of God’s oath to David in Psalm 132:11: “The Lord has sworn to David, a truth from which He will not turn back.”[20] In Ezekiel 24:14 the Lord declared that He was no longer open for negotiation; the announced judgment would then come to pass (בָּאָה וְעָשִׂיתִי). Zechariah 8:14, which recalls that God judged the preexilic generation just as He had planned without retracting His decision (וְוֹּא נִחָמְתִּי), alludes back to the divine decision recorded in Jeremiah 4:28 and Ezekiel 24:14.

Summary

In each case God’s refusal to retract a statement refers directly or applies indirectly to a specific decree identified in the context—His blessing of Israel in accord with the Abrahamic Covenant (Num 23:19), His rejection of disobedient Saul (1 Sam 15:29), His oath to make the Davidic king a royal-priest (Ps 110:4), and His decision to judge Judah (Jer 4:28; Ezek 24:14; cf. Zech 8:14). Each passage has clear contextual indicators that the declaration is unconditional. The statement that God will not change His mind, made in tandem with a synonymous expression, formally marks the divine proclamation as a decree.

Passages in Which announcements are in view

Exodus 32:12,14; Amos 7:3,6

When God saw the Israelites worshiping the golden calf, He angrily announced to Moses His intention to destroy the people and raise up a new nation through Moses. “Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them, and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation” (Exod 32:10). The form of the statement (imperative + jussive + cohortative + cohortative) indicates that it is not a decree, but an expression of God’s frustration with His people. The implication is that Moses, if he did not leave God alone, might be able to persuade Him to change His mind.[21] In fact this is exactly what happened (vv. 11–14). Moses appealed to God’s reputation (“What will the Egyptians think?”), asked Him to relent (הִנָּם) from His stated course of action (v. 12), and reminded Him of His unconditional decree to the patriarchs (v. 13). Verse 14 states that God did indeed change His mind. Moses was able to succeed because God had only threatened judgment, not decreed it.[22]

Amos 7 records a similar case of prophetic intercession. The Lord showed Amos two visions of judgment He was planning for Israel (vv. 1–6). After seeing the visions, Amos begged the Lord to be merciful. In both cases the Lord relented from the planned course of action and announced that judgment would not fall. He had simply shown Amos two visions, but had not yet decreed a course of action. However, God’s patience can run out. He showed Amos yet a third vision, which, instead of picturing the nation’s destruction and rousing Amos’ emotions, invited the prophet to reflect on Israel’s moral condition from God’s perspective. Having convinced His prophet of the necessity of judgment, God declared that He would “no longer” spare Israel (v. 8). Understanding God’s words as a decree, Amos offered no objection this time.

Jeremiah 15:6; 18:8,10; 26:3,13,19

As already noted, God came to the point where He decreed through Jeremiah that judgment would fall on Judah (Jer 4:28). However, He issued this decree only after many warnings.

Early in Jehoiakim’s reign God told Jeremiah to proclaim His word in the temple courtyard in hopes that the people would repent. He declared, “Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do” (Jer 26:3). When the people threatened to kill Jeremiah, the prophet again urged them to repent and once more promised them that God would retract His announcement of judgment (v. 13). Some of the elders stepped forward and reminded the people that God had retracted such an announcement in the days of Hezekiah, who had heard Micah’s words (cf. Mic 3:12) and repented (Jer 26:17–19).

The principle underlying Jeremiah’s message and the elders’ advice is that God will change His mind concerning a stated course of action depending on the response He receives. This principle is articulated clearly in Jeremiah 18:7–10. Here the Lord explained that a nation may avert His threatened judgment if it repents when confronted with its sin. In such cases He will “relent” and not inflict the announced disaster (v. 8). On the other hand, if a nation to whom God intended to show His favor sins, He may “reconsider” (נִחַמְתְִּי, v. 10) and withhold His blessing.

Since Judah did not respond to Jeremiah’s call for repentance (cf. 18:12),[23] the Lord decided to judge His people, declaring that prophetic intercession, even by such advocates as Moses and Samuel, would not alter His course (15:1–5). He was weary of relenting (נִלְיתִי הִנָּם, v. 6) and would no longer postpone judgment. The decree of judgment in 4:28, formalized by the statement “I will not relent,” must have postdated this decision.

Joel 2:13-14

The locust plague experienced by Joel’s generation was a harbinger of an even more devastating judgment. The Lord Himself was leading an awesome locustlike army toward Judah, but perhaps judgment could still be averted. After all, the Lord Himself was calling His people to repentance (Joel 2:12) and, as Joel reminded his audience, He characteristically relented from sending announced judgments on His covenant people throughout their history (v. 13). Though one could never be certain if the Lord had not been explicit, Joel urged the people to respond appropriately and encouraged them with these words: “Who knows? He may turn and have pity and leave behind a blessing.” The people apparently took heed to Joel’s advice, for subsequent verses state that the Lord did indeed take pity on His people (v. 18) and promised to restore what the locusts had devoured (vv. 19–26). This important passage again illustrates that God is able and willing to retract announcements of judgment.

Furthermore verse 13 indicates in creedal style that God characteristically relents from sending announced judgment.[24] This willingness to change His mind is linked with other divine attributes, such as His grace, compassion, patience, and love. The creed has its roots in Exodus 34:6–7, where, following God’s merciful treatment of Israel after the golden calf incident, the Lord described Himself as follows: “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin.” God’s willingness to change His mind concerning judgment is not mentioned in these verses, but the inclusion of this theme in later verses is certainly justifiable in light of Exodus 32:14, for God’s decision to relent stands in the background of the creedal statement recorded in Exodus 34.

Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2

Though Jonah’s announcement of judgment on Nineveh sounded unconditional, it was accompanied by no formal indication that it was a decree (3:4). For this reason the king of Nineveh responded appropriately in hopes that judgment might be averted (v. 9). Like Joel he said, “Who knows, God may turn and relent, and withdraw His burning anger so that we shall not perish?” When God saw the Ninevites’ sincerity, He did indeed change His mind concerning the announced calamity (v. 10), much to Jonah’s dismay. In fact Jonah had anticipated this development, and that is why he ran away in the first place. With words almost identical to those of Joel 2:13, he observed that God is “a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness; and one who relents concerning calamity” (4:2).[25]

Summary

The texts analyzed in this section clearly show that God can and often does retract announcements. Two of the passages even regard this willingness to change His mind as one of His most fundamental attributes. In every case where such a change is envisioned or reported, God had not yet decreed a course of action or an outcome. Instead He chose to wait patiently, hoping His warnings might bring people to their senses and make judgment unnecessary.

Conclusion

Does God change His mind? It all depends. If He has decreed a certain course of action or outcome, then He will not retract a statement or relent from a declared course of action. Verses stating or illustrating this truth must not be overextended, however. Statements about God not changing His mind serve to mark specific declarations as decrees. They should not be used as proof texts of God’s immutability, nor should they be applied generally to every divine forward-looking statement. If God has not decreed a course of action, then He may very well retract an announcement of blessing or judgment. In these cases the human response to His announcement determines what He will do. Passages declaring that God typically changes His mind as an expression of His love and mercy demonstrate that statements describing God as relenting should not be dismissed as anthropomorphic. At the same time such passages should not be overextended. God can and often does decree a course of action.[26]

Notes

1. See, for example, Stephen Charnock, Discourses upon the Existence and Attributes of God, 2 vols. (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 1:340–41. For a survey of the history of interpretation on this subject, see Lester J. Kuyper, “The Suffering and the Repentance of God,” Scottish Journal of Theology 22 (1969): 262-68.
2. The following survey is indebted to the work of H. Van Dyke Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of NḤM,” Biblica 56 (1975): 512-32; and idem, “The Repentance of God in the Old Testament” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1973). Parunak’s six categories proposed in Biblica have been condensed here to four.
3. The Hithpael is used only seven times in the Old Testament. There are no clear examples of a Hithpael use that falls into category one. Four examples fall into category two (Gen 27:42; 37:35; Ps 119:52; Ezek 5:13), two into category three (Deut 32:36 = Ps 135:14) and one into category four (Num 23:19).
4. See Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of NḤM,” 519, for semantic indicators of this sense in the respective passages.
5. Parunak points out semantic indicators of this sense in the respective passages (ibid., 520). He also observes that this use reflects a polarization of category one (ibid., 526).
6. Some of these verses might fit under category one.
7. Categories three and four derive metonymically from category one.
8. For a fuller discussion of Genesis 15, see Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Evidence from Genesis,” in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, ed. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 40–41.
9. Following an imperative the cohortative expresses purpose or result. See E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, eds., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), 320, para. 108d; and Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 577–78, para. 34.6.
10. For an attempt to harmonize the conditional and unconditional promises of Genesis 12–22, see Chisholm, “Evidence from Genesis,” 35–54.
11. William Lane Craig speaks of such prophecies as containing an implicit “all things remaining the same” (The Only Wise God [Grand Rapids, Baker, 1987], 41).
12. See Genesis 27:33, 37. Francis I. Andersen and David N. Freedman argue along similar lines, pointing out that דִּבֶּר in Numbers 23:19 refers to an oath. See their excursus “When God Repents,” in Amos, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 669–70.
13. For discussion of this point see John T. Willis, “The ‘Repentance’ of God in the Books of Samuel, Jeremiah, and Jonah,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 16 (1994): 168.
14. Perhaps the verse should be translated as follows: “He who is the Glory of Israel will not (in this particular situation) lie or change His mind; for He is not a man, that He should change His mind.” In this case the two yiqtol verb forms have a specific future, not habitual, nuance.
15. שִׁר is used in a similar way in Psalm 89:33, where God declared to David that He will not “betray” His faithfulness by violating His decree.
16. See Robert P. Gordon, I& II Samuel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 146. Terence E. Fretheim sees the concluding words in verse 29 as referring specifically to God’s election of David, not to His rejection of Saul (“Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constancy, and the Rejection of Saul’s Kingship,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 [1985]: 597-98). The election of David is certainly in view here, as Abner’s words in 2 Samuel 3:9–10 make clear: “May God do so to Abner, and more also, if as the Lord has sworn to David, I do not accomplish this for him, to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to establish the throne of David over Israel and over Judah.” However, Fretheim’s distinction is overly fine, for Saul’s rejection and David’s election are two sides of the same coin.
17. See Bruce C. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: The Growth and Development of 1 Samuel 7–15 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976), 82–83, 102–3.
18. See Diana V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 103–4.
19. The statement in verse 11 (also v. 35), does not contradict verse 29, for the verb נחם is used in different semantic senses with different referents in this chapter. In verses 11, 35 it means “to experience emotional pain” and refers to God’s response to Saul’s disobedience which in turn moved Him to decree Saul’s fate. In verse 29 the word is negated and used in the sense of “to retract.” Here it refers to God’s decree that Saul will be replaced by another. In the one case it pertains to a past action (God’s making Saul king); in the other it concerns a future course of action (the rejection of Saul as king). For a similar line of argument see V. Philips Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 163. Recognizing this semantic variation makes redactional critical suggestions like that of Kyle McCarter unnecessary (1 Samuel, Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980], 268). Yairah Amit’s creative literary proposal, which argues that verse 29 reflects Samuel’s erroneous perspective (in contrast to the narrator’s/God’s viewpoint expressed in vv. 11 and 35), also fails to take adequate account of the polysemantic character of the word in this chapter (“‘The Glory of Israel Does Not Deceive or Change His Mind’: On the Reliability of Narrator and Speakers in Biblical Narrative,” Prooftexts 12 [1992]: 201-12).
20. Also see Judges 11:35, where Jephthah lamented that he was not able to turn back (וֹּא אוּכַל לָשׁוּב) from the vow he had made.
21. See the helpful discussion in Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 648-49.
22. For a similar treatment of Exodus 32:9–14, see Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 50–51.
23. On the relationship of Jeremiah 18:12 to the preceding verses, see Terence E. Fretheim, “The Repentance of God: A Study of Jeremiah 18:7–10, ” Hebrew Annual Review 11 (1987): 87.
24. On the implications of the creedal form of this text (and Jonah 4:2) see Kuyper, “The Suffering and the Repentance of God,” 277; Terence E. Fretheim, “The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament God-Talk,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 10 (1988): 58-59; and Richard Rice’s remarks in Clark Pinnock et al., The Openness of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 31.
25. As Rice argues, this passage makes it clear that many warnings of judgment, rather than being unalterable decrees, are actually designed to motivate repentance and in turn, enable God to retract the announced punishment (Richard Rice, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985], 79–80).
26. Some scholars have recently suggested a solution to this problem much like the one proposed in this paper. In following their lead, this writer has tried to bring to the debate greater exegetical clarity and place this proposed solution on a firmer exegetical foundation. See, for example, Rice’s discussion in The Openness of God, 32-33, especially the statement: “In general, then, God’s repentance is a genuine possibility, but one that is foreclosed when God pledges himself unconditionally to a particular course of action.” Andersen and Freedman recognize the importance of an oath in some passages (such as Ps 110:4 and Num 23:19) but fail to extend the implications of this observation to all the passages in question (Amos, 638-79).

The Polemic against Baalism in Israel’s Early History and Literature

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., is Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Over the past 25 years several scholars have pointed to the polemical character of 1 Kings 17—18, which tells of Elijah’s encounter with the prophets of Baal and the incidents leading up to that event.[1] Following King Ahab’s decision to promote Baal worship in the Northern Kingdom (1 Kings 16:31–33), Yahweh sent a drought on Israel and Phoenicia (the homeland of Ahab’s queen, Jezebel). This form of judgment was appropriate because the fertility god Baal promised his worshipers agricultural prosperity. Through the Prophet Elijah, Yahweh supernaturally provided the staples of life for a Phoenician widow (17:14) and raised her son from the dead (v. 17), thereby demonstrating His superiority to Baal, who was thought to be subject to Mot, the god of death, during times of prolonged drought. The story culminates with Elijah’s challenge to the prophets of Baal at Carmel. Before the eyes of all Israel, Yahweh proved that He, not Baal, controls the elements of the storm. After Baal’s prophets unsuccessfully went through their frantic mourning rites in an effort to rouse their god to action (18:26–29), Yahweh, in response to Elijah’s prayer, sent fire to consume the sacrifice and then caused it to rain (vv. 36–38, 45). By exhibiting His sovereignty over Baal’s traditional spheres of authority, Yahweh established His right to Israel’s undivided loyalty. Israel must look to Yahweh, the one true God (18:24, 37, 39), for the necessities of life. Baalism was not an option.

This dramatic confrontation, precipitated by Ahab’s blatant Baalism, was inevitable. In fact the conflict had been brewing for centuries, during which Yahweh had utilized the same polemical strategy as in Elijah’s day. Throughout Israel’s early history the nation was vulnerable to the allurements of Baalism, a fertility cult offering its devotees agricultural prosperity (cf. Judg 2:11, 13; 3:7; 6:25–32; 8:33; 10:6, 10; 1 Sam 7:4; 12:10). In response to this threat Yahweh, through His mighty acts and the inspired poetic words they prompted, affirmed His superiority to Baal in an effort to win the allegiance of His fickle covenantal people. Several passages in the Old Testament describe Yahweh and His exploits in Baal-like terms. Many of Yahweh’s deeds, especially His victories over kings who challenged His sovereignty, parallel Baal’s alleged accomplishments and demonstrate that Yahweh, not Baal, controls the elements of the storm and possesses authority over the forces of chaos and death. Several of Israel’s early poems, many of which were inspired by Yahweh’s salvific intervention in the nation’s experience, assert that Yahweh is the incomparable King who, like Baal, reveals Himself in the storm and subdues all challenges to His rule.

Though many acknowledge the close parallels between the biblical account of Yahweh’s mighty deeds and the mythological description of Baal’s exploits, these same scholars disagree over the significance of these parallels. Some regard the parallels as evidence of a demythologizing phase in Israel’s religious evolution, while others attribute them to mere literary borrowing or to a common Semitic literary milieu in which warrior-kings are described in somewhat stereotypical terms.[2] In light of the clear polemical pattern revealed in 1 Kings 17—18 (whereby Yahweh makes Baal’s deeds His own and thereby usurps Baal’s authority), it is far more likely that the Old Testament utilized the mythological motifs for polemical purposes.[3]

The appearance of incomparability formulae in several pertinent contexts (Exod 9:14; 15:11; 18:11; Deut 33:26; 1 Sam 2:2; Ps 18:31) corroborates this thesis. In ancient Assyro-Babylonian hymns, expressions of incomparability were used of various deities but without any notion of exclusivism being attached to the concept.[4] As such, they appear to be, in the words of Labuschagne, “nothing more than exclamations of praise without any comparative notion.”[5] However, within the framework of the Old Testament’s militantly exclusivistic Yahwism (Exod 20:2–5a), such expressions, rather than being idiomatic hyperbole, are inherently comparative/polemical and, in their respective contexts, affirm Yahweh’s uniqueness and right to rule over His people (Exod 9:14; Deut 33:26; 1 Sam 2:2; 2 Sam 7:22; 1 Kings 8:23; Ps 86:8; Jer 10:6–7).[6]

This article seeks to show how the polemic against Baalism originated and developed by deed and word in Israel’s early history and literature. However, it is necessary first to review briefly how second millennium B.C. Ugaritic mythological texts portray Baal and his struggle for kingship among the gods.[7]

Baal in the Ugaritic Myths

The Ugaritic myths depict Baal as a mighty warrior-king who controls the elements of the storm. Many of his names and epithets reflect his position and roles, including, among others, aliyn b'l, “mightiest Baal,” aliy qrdm, “mightiest of warriors,” hd d'nn, “Haddu, lord of the stormcloud,” and rkb 'rpt, “rider of the clouds.” The myths speak of Baal appointing a time “for the sounding of his voice in the clouds, for him to release (his) lightnings on the earth” (CTA 4 v 70–71; CML, 60-61).8 Another text describes Baal in the following manner: “Seven lightning bolts he casts, eight magazines of thunder, he brandishes a spear of lightning.”[9]

As the controller of the storm, Baal was responsible for agricultural blessing. According to the Legend of Kirtu, Baal provided rain and, consequently, food for all:

A source (of blessing) to the earth was the rain of Baal and to the field(s) the rain of the Most High; a delight to the earth was the rain of Baal and to the field(s) the rain of the Most High, a delight to the wheat in the furrow, (to) the spelt in the tilth…. The ploughmen did lift up (their) head(s), they that prepared the corn (did lift up their heads) on high; for the bread had failed (in) their bins, the wine had failed in their skins, the oil had failed in their (cruses) (CTA 16 iii 4–16; CML, 98).

Baal “fattens gods and men” and “satisfies the multitudes of the earth” (CTA 4 vii 50–52; CML, 66). When he is dead, the “furrows in the fields are cracked” (CTA 6 iv 25–29; CML, 78), but when he lives the heavens rain down oil and the ravines flow with honey (CTA 6 iii 6–8; CML, 77).

Baal’s quest for kingship is the main theme of the mythological texts. Baal defeats his rival Yam, the god of the sea, with the aid of Kothar-wa-Khasis, the god of craftsmanship, who forges special weapons for the storm god. Following Baal’s victory, the goddess Anat calls him “our king, mightiest Baal, our judge, over whom there is none” (CTA 3 E 40–41; CML, 54).[10] Baal himself boasts, “I alone am he that is king over the gods” (CTA 4 vii 49–50; CML, 66). With the assistance of the goddess Anat, Baal persuades El, the high god, to allow a royal palace to be built. Baal celebrates his kingship with a feast, a victorious military campaign, and an awesome theophanic display. Seemingly unimpressed, Mot, the god of death and the underworld, challenges Baal’s authority and initially defeats him. El and Anat mourn Baal’s subjugation to Mot, and then the warlike Anat seeks to avenge his death. She seizes Mot, kills him with a sword, grinds him to dust, and scatters him to the wind. Baal eventually returns from his imprisonment and reestablishes his rule. Seven years later Mot reappears and engages in a violent struggle with Baal. This time Baal emerges victorious and Mot is forced to acknowledge his kingship.[11]

The Baal Polemic in the Days of Moses

The Deliverance from Egypt

As early as the time of Moses, Yahweh revealed Himself as an incomparable Warrior-King who, like Baal, controls the elements of the storm and suppresses all challenges to His rule. Yahweh demonstrated His sovereignty over the storm while Israel was still enslaved in the land of Egypt. In conjunction with the seventh plague, He sent thunder, hail, and lightning against Egypt’s crops (Exod 9:23–24), proving His incomparability to Pharaoh, who claimed to be Israel’s master and refused to acknowledge Yahweh’s authority. Before unleashing this destructive storm Yahweh warned Pharaoh: “Let My people go, that they may serve Me. For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth” (Exod 9:13–14; cf. 8:10).The revelation of Yahweh’s power reached its climax at the Red Sea, where He used the waters to annihilate Pharaoh’s army. Moses’ song of celebration (Exod 15) praised the victorious warrior Yahweh (v. 3), who shattered and threw down the enemy, angrily consuming them like chaff before fire (v. 7). His self-manifestation as warrior was so impressive that the Canaanites trembled at the report of His deeds (vv. 14–15). Yahweh’s acts as a warrior are the basis for the song’s assertions of His incomparable greatness and royal authority. Yahweh is highly exalted (v. 2) and great in majesty (v. 7). His greatness prompted Moses to ask, “Who is like Thee among the gods, O Lord? Who is like Thee, majestic in holiness, awesome in praises, working wonders?” (v. 11).[12] The song concludes with the affirmation that Yahweh will “reign forever and ever” (v. 18).

In defeating Pharaoh at the Red Sea, Yahweh exhibited His authority over the sea and the underworld, the opponents of Baal in the myths. Yahweh used the sea (vv. 8, 10) and death (v. 12) as His instruments. As Cross observes, “the sea is not personified or hostile, but a passive instrument in Yahweh’s control.” He adds, “There is no question here of a mythological combat between two gods. Yahweh defeats historical, human enemies.”[13] According to verse 12, the earth (אֶרֶחּ), in response to Yahweh’s stretching out His mighty hand, swallowed up the Egyptians. In this context, where the sea, not the literal ground, engulfs the enemy, it is likely that אֶרֶחּ refers to the realm of death.[14]

In celebrating Yahweh’s victory Moses described Yahweh’s kingship in terms reminiscent of the Baal myth. Yahweh would lead His people across the Jordan River and establish them in the land, called here His mountain of inheritance, dwelling place, and sanctuary (vv. 16b–18).[15] From there He would rule as eternal king over His people (v. 18, יְהוָה יִמְוֹּךְ לְעֹלָם וָעֶד, “Yahweh will reign for ever and ever”). The precise phrase הַר נָחֲלָה, “mountain of inheritance” (v. 17), occurs only here in the Old Testament, but the Ugaritic myths use a semantically equivalent expression (ǵr nḥlt, “mountain of inheritance”) of Baal’s throne or place of rule (cf. CTA 3 C 27 and 3 D 64; CML, 49, 51).[16] This mountain, which is associated with Baal’s victory over Yam and is also called his “hill of victory” (CTA 3 C 28; CML, 49), is “the territory won by the deity through battle.”[17]

Before Baal’s battle with Yam, Kothar-wa-Khasis tells the storm god; “Truly I tell you, O prince Baal, I repeat to you, O rider on the clouds. Now (you must smite) your foes, Baal, now you must still your enemies. You shall take your everlasting kingdom, your dominion forever and ever” (CTA 2 iv 7–10; CML, 43).[18] Following Baal’s victory, onlookers declare, “Yam is indeed dead! Baal shall be king!” (CTA 2 iv 32; CML, 45). Shortly thereafter both Anat and Athirat refer to Baal as an incomparable king (CTA 3 E 40–41, 4 iv 43–44; CML, 54, 60). In the same way, Yahweh had defeated His enemies (Exod 15:6) and would rule forever as incomparable King (vv. 11, 18) from the mountain of His inheritance (v. 17).[19]

Yahweh’s Self-Revelation at Sinai

At Sinai Yahweh revealed Himself as the victorious Warrior-King who claimed the allegiance of the people He had delivered. Elements of the storm, including thunder, lightning, and a thick cloud, accompanied His descent on the mountain, causing it to smolder and shake (Exod 19:16, 18; Deut 4:11–12). The effects of Yahweh’s self-revelation at Sinai resemble closely those of Baal’s storm theophany following his victory over Yam, the sea god:

Baal uttered his holy voice, Baal repeated the (issue) of his lips; (he uttered) his (holy) voice (and) the earth did quake, (he repeated) the issue of his lips (and) the rocks (did quake); peoples afar off were dismayed (…) the peoples of the east; the high places of the earth shook. The foes of Baal clung to the forests, the enemies of Hadad to the hollows of the rock. And mightiest Baal spoke: “Foes of Hadad, why are you dismayed, why are you dismayed at the weapons of Dmrn? (Is it because) the eye of Baal outstrips his hand when the ‘cedar’ is brandished in his right hand?” Forthwith Baal did sit down in his mansion (and spoke): “Will anyone else, whether king or commoner, occupy for himself the land of (my) dominion?” (CTA 4 vii 29–44; CML, 65).

Baal’s theophany from his new palace manifests his power as a victorious warrior and is an assertion of his kingship.

It is apparent that the theophany of Baal is designed to terrify his opponents and to express his complete kingship and lordship over all. The storm god is king de facto; he has finally given full expression to his individuality as the victorious storm god. At that moment Baal’s theophany is a demonstration of his divine supremacy and a disclosure of his essential nature…. Baal is enthroned as king and by virtue of his theophany must now be acknowledged as such.[20]

Through His self-revelation at Sinai, Yahweh was again making the exploits of Baal His own. Yahweh, like Baal, reigned as victorious king, a fact demonstrated by the manifestation of His power in the theophany.

Moses’ Blessing of the Tribes

Additional parallels to the Baal myth appear in Moses’ blessing of the Israelite tribes (Deut 33), which combines the themes of Yahweh’s kingship (v. 5), incomparability (v. 26), control over the storm (v. 26), and prowess as warrior (vv. 27–29). Moses depicted the Lord as coming from Sinai (v. 2), the scene of His enthronement over Israel, to bless His people with military victory (vv. 7, 11, 17, 22–23, 26–27, 29) and agricultural prosperity (vv. 13–16, 28). The concluding stanza, which begins with an affirmation of Yahweh’s incomparability (v. 26), calls Him “the God” and the “rider of the heavens,” an epithet which is similar to Baal’s title “rider of the clouds.”[21] As “rider of the clouds” Baal appears as both warrior and bestower of the rains,[22] precisely the roles Yahweh assumes, according to verses 26–29. The warrior Yahweh would drive out the Canaanites, enabling Israel to dwell securely in a land blessed with the grain, wine, and dew which He provides (cf. CTA 16 iii 4–16; CML, 98).

Summary

From the very beginning of Israel’s history, Yahweh revealed Himself as the incomparable Warrior-King. Like Baal He controls the elements of the storm (Exod 9:22–25; 19:16–19) as the Rider of the heavens (Deut 33:26) and suppresses all challenges to His rule (Exod 19:4; Deut 33:29). He is sovereign over the sea and death, which He even uses as weapons (Exod 15:8, 10, 12). Following Yahweh’s victory at the Red Sea, Moses envisioned a time when Yahweh would lead His people to the mountain of His inheritance where He would defeat the Canaanites, abundantly bless His people, and rule over them forever (Exod 15:16–18; Deut 33:26–29). These Baal-like exploits, accomplished in the historical arena for all to see, are proof of Yahweh’s incomparability and kingship (Exod 9:14; 15:11; Deut 33:26) and validated His right to demand Israel’s exclusive loyalty and worship (Exod 20:2–5).[23]

The Baal Polemic in the Judges and Early Monarchical Periods

As Israel moved into the Promised Land and encountered Baalism, Yahweh again proved His superiority to Baal through His mighty deeds and self-revelation in the storm, while Israel’s poets continued to affirm His kingship and incomparability in terms reminiscent of the Baal myths.

Yahweh’s Self-Revelation in the Storm

On several occasions Yahweh revealed His power in the storm in order to defeat challengers to His authority and/or affirm His right to Israel’s allegiance. At Gibeon He hurled hailstones down on the fleeing armies of the five Amorite kings (Josh 10:11).[24] According to the song of Deborah (Judg 5), a poetic account of Yahweh’s victory over “the kings of Canaan” (v. 19), the stars fought for Israel and the Kishon River swept Sisera’s army away (vv. 20–21). The language suggests that Yahweh caused a storm and flashflood, an interpretation consistent with the song’s introduction, which pictures Yahweh coming in the storm to do battle (vv. 4–5).[25]

Yahweh also revealed Himself in the storm in the days of Samuel. Following Israel’s repudiation of false gods, including the Baals (1 Sam 7:4), Yahweh won a great victory over the Philistines as He thundered from the heavens (v. 10). Just as He would do later at Carmel, Yahweh demonstrated that He, not Baal, controls the storm. In this way He affirmed the wisdom of the Israelites’ decision to serve Him only and to turn from Baalism (v. 3). In his farewell address Samuel urged the people to renew their covenantal loyalty to Yahweh and reminded them that Yahweh, not their newly appointed human king, was their true sovereign (1 Sam 12:14–15). As proof that He possessed the right and power to bless and curse, Yahweh “sent thunder and rain” on the ready-to-harvest fields of wheat (vv. 16–18a). Having witnessed this covenantal curse,[26] the people repented and begged Samuel to intercede for them (vv. 18b–19). Samuel then exhorted the people to serve Yahweh wholeheartedly and warned them not to turn to idols (vv. 20–25). Yahweh’s self-revelation in the storm was a demonstration of His power as a warrior and an affirmation of His kingship and exclusive right to rule over Israel.

Poetic References to Yahweh’s Baal-like Abilities

Many early Israelite poems emphasize Yahweh’s control of the storm and affirm His kingship and incomparability. As already noted, the introduction to Deborah’s victory song pictures Yahweh marching from Sinai and coming in the storm to fight for His people (Judg 5:4–5).[27] The song, addressed to “kings” (v. 3), emphasizes Yahweh’s superiority to the “kings of Canaan” who opposed His rule (v. 19). Psalm 68:7–8 borrows and adapts the language of Judges 5:4–5 to describe Yahweh’s conquest of Canaan and His bestowal of agricultural blessing (cf. vv. 9–10). Like Deuteronomy 33:26, Psalm 68 pictures Yahweh as the “rider of the heavens” (v. 33) who thunders in the skies as an affirmation of His sovereignty over the earth’s kingdoms (cf. vv. 32, 34–35). Psalm 68:4 even applies Baal’s title “rider of the clouds” to Yahweh.[28]

In her song of praise following the birth of her son, Hannah portrayed Yahweh as a mighty Warrior who “thunders against” His enemies and shatters their power (1 Sam 2:4, 9–10). Yahweh is the incomparable, transcendent Ruler of the world who protects His people (vv. 2, 8b) and dispenses justice by elevating the oppressed and humiliating the proud (vv. 3, 5–10). Yahweh grants fertility (v. 5) and exercises control over the realm of death (v. 6). In short, this poem describes Yahweh in typically Baal-like terms as a Warrior-King who controls the storm and is sovereign over death. By declaring Yahweh the incomparable Judge of the world (vv. 3, 10), Hannah also directly attributed to Yahweh another of Baal’s royal epithets. In the Baal myth Anat declared, “Mightiest Baal is our king, our judge (tp̱ṭn), over whom there is none” (CTA 3 E 40–41; CML, 54).

Psalm 18 (cf. the parallel version in 2 Sam 22), attributed to David in Israelite tradition (cf. the heading), also depicts Yahweh in Baal-like terms as the incomparable Warrior-King who is sovereign over the chaos waters/death and utilizes the elements of the storm to deliver His servant. Helpless and vulnerable before his many enemies, the psalmist pictured himself as engulfed by “mighty waters” and ready to succumb to death’s power (vv. 4–5, 15–18). In response to the psalmist’s cry for help, Yahweh came to his rescue. The psalmist hyperbolically described his deliverance in cosmic, theophanic terms, thereby emphasizing Yahweh’s active intervention and linking his own redemptive experience with Yahweh’s earlier theophanic self-revelation in Israel’s salvation-history. Enveloped in rain clouds through which His divine radiance is nevertheless visible, the fire-breathing Yahweh approaches swiftly, borne along by the “wings of the wind” (vv. 8–11).[29] His thunderous battle cry[30] causes the earth to shake and His enemies to scatter in fear before His lightning bolts and hailstones (vv. 7, 12–15).[31] He reaches down with His mighty hand, pulls the psalmist from death’s raging waters, and places him on safe ground (vv. 16–19). Having experienced such power, the psalmist affirmed Yahweh’s incomparability: “For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God?” (v. 31, NIV). The declaration “The Lord lives!” (v. 46) may even echo El’s confident words, “mightiest Baal is alive” (CTA 6 iii 20; CML, 78), a statement made after the high god had seen in a dream the evidence for Baal’s resuscitation.

Psalm 29, another ancient (perhaps Davidic) poem celebrating Yahweh’s power, also describes Israel’s God in Baal-like terms. This psalm pictures Yahweh as an incomparable King (vv. 1–2, 9b–10) who, like Baal, possesses authority over the chaotic waters of the sea and controls the elements of the storm (vv. 3–9a). As Israel’s mighty Warrior-King He energizes His people for battle, giving them victory and ensuring their ongoing prosperity (v. 11). The cluster of parallels between Psalm 29 and the mythological texts is so striking that Day remarks, “Ps 29 stands remarkably close to the circle of mythological ideas surrounding Baal as they are attested in the Ugaritic texts.”[32] Similarly Kloos affirms, “The correspondence with the Baal epic is almost total,” and then concludes, “Ps xxix depicts Yhwh as Baal from beginning to end.”[33]

The focal point of the psalm is Yahweh’s powerful voice, mentioned seven times. Yahweh’s thunderous voice devastates the forest-covered mountains of the north (vv. 5, 9) and causes the earth to shake (vv. 6, 8).[34] According to Day, the sevenfold reference to Yahweh’s voice echoes the mythological theme of Baal’s “seven lightning bolts” and “eight magazines of thunder” (on this text, see note 9 above).[35] Day explains that the x/x + 1 (7/8 in this case) pattern is not meant to indicate an actual numerical distinction, but is simply a poetic way of referring to one of the numbers (in this case the first).[36] The 7/8 pattern indicates completeness in the Ugaritic text, suggesting that Baal has at his disposal a full arsenal of lightning and thunder. In Psalm 29 the sevenfold reference to Yahweh’s voice emphasizes its intensity.

Another prominent motif in Psalm 29 is Yahweh’s sovereignty over the chaotic waters of the sea, a theme that echoes Baal’s victory over Yam (also see Ps 93:3–4). Psalm 29:3 pictures Yahweh thundering above (or perhaps “against”[37] the “mighty waters” (מַיִם רַבִּים). The “mighty waters” often symbolize those chaotic forces that contest Yahweh’s authority by threatening His people (Pss. 18:16; 32:6; 77:19; 144:7; Isa 17:12–13; Hab 3:15).[38]

The precise meaning of the statement לַמַּבּוּל יָשָׁב (Ps 29:10) is uncertain. Some argue that the Noahic flood is in view here and so they translate the Hebrew words “before the Flood.”[39] In support of this interpretation one may point to usage elsewhere (מַּבּוּל occurs only here and in Gen 6–11, where it refers to the Noahic flood), the parallel line (cf. לְעוֹלָם), the switch to the perfect tense in verse 10a (participles and yiqtol forms appear in vv. 5–9), and the similar Akkadian phrase lām abūbi, “before the Flood” (or “from time immemorial”). However, on the basis of the immediate context, where the “mighty waters” are viewed as subject to Yahweh’s authority (v. 3), it is possible that מַּבּוּל here refers to the chaotic waters that symbolize the foes of Yahweh. If so, verse 10, like verse 3, must be viewed against the background of Baal’s victory over Yam.[40] Another possibility is that מַּבּוּל refers to the heavenly ocean or reservoir of waters on which Yahweh sits enthroned.[41] In this case, verse 10 depicts Yahweh’s sovereignty over the fructifying rains (one of Baal’s spheres of authority) rather than His authority over the chaotic waters.[42]

Summary

The polemic against Baalism inaugurated in Moses’ time gained momentum during the period of the Judges and the early monarchy. Yahweh continued to reveal Himself as an incomparable Warrior-King who, like Baal, controls the elements of the storm (Josh 10:11; Judg 5:4–5; 1 Sam 2:10; 7:10; 12:16–18; Pss. 18:7–15; 29:3–9), defeats those who challenge His rule (Josh 10; Judg 5), and exercises sovereignty over the sea and death (Pss. 18:4–6, 15–19; 29:3, 10[?]). As the incomparable King (1 Sam 2:2; Ps 18:31) Yahweh alone possesses the right to Israel’s allegiance (cf. 1 Sam 7 and 12).

Conclusion

In several texts from the Mosaic and Judges-early monarchical periods, Yahweh’s self-revelation, as well as the poetic descriptions of His deeds, have a decidedly Baal-like quality. Yahweh is the incomparable King who controls the storm, suppresses challenges to His rule, and exercises sovereignty over sea/death. Though these parallels have been interpreted in different ways, it seems preferable to see them as part of a polemical strategy whereby Yahweh established His exclusive right to His people’s worship and loyalty. The appearance of incomparability formulae in many of these contexts, especially when viewed within the framework of Yahwistic exclusivism, favors this interpretation, as does the polemical pattern of 1 Kings 17–18, which tells how Yahweh demonstrated, once and for all, His sovereignty over the storm and the spheres of life/death and fertility/drought, usurped Baal’s position, and proved that He, not Baal, deserved Israel’s worship.

Notes

1. See Leah Bronner, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as Polemics against Baal Worship, Pretoria Oriental Series 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1968); F. Charles Fensham, “A Few Observations on the Polarisation between Yahweh and Baal in 1 Kings 17—19 ,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlicheWissenschaft 92 (1980): 227-36; George E. Saint-Laurent, “Light from Ras Shamra on Elijah’s Ordeal upon Mount Carmel,” in Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method, ed. C. D. Evans, W. W. Hallo, and J. B. White (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980), 123–39; and James R. Battenfield, “YHWH’s Refutation of the Baal Myth through the Actions of Elijah and Elisha,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. A. Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 19–37.
2. For a helpful discussion of the various ways in which scholars have explained biblical and mythological parallels, see Carola Kloos’ survey of recent interpretations of Psalm 29 in Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel (Amsterdam: van Oorschot, 1986), 94–124.
3. Several scholars have recognized the polemical character of various Old Testament passages. See, for example, the works cited in ibid., 94–98, most of which pertain to Psalm 29. (In particular see A. H. W. Curtis’s insightful study, “The ‘Subjugation of the Waters’ Motif in the Psalms: Imagery or Polemic?” Journal of Semitic Studies 23 [1978]: 245-56.) After a meticulous study of Psalm 29, Kloos rejects a polemical approach and contends that Yahweh’s “Baal qualities” are not the result of “a hostile attitude toward Baalism” (p. 124). Instead, Kloos suggests, “the Israelites, seeing that Baal could satisfy a fundamental need by sending the rain, wanted to possess ‘a Baal of their own’“ (ibid.; also see 213–14). Given the distinctive character and militant exclusivism of early Yahwism, this conclusion is not adequate.
4. C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament, Pretoria Oriental Series 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 53–54.
5. Ibid., 66. However, he does point out that a comparative notion adhered to the formula at an earlier stage of its use (ibid., 53).
6. For a detailed defense of this view, see ibid., 64–123.
7. Because of the paucity of Palestinian religious literature dating to the second millennium B.C., one must rely heavily on the Ugaritic texts. These texts, which predate the destruction of Ugarit in 1200 B.C., are roughly contemporary with the Mosaic and Judges/early monarchical periods (the focal point of this study). However, Ugarit was located north of Palestine. (For the importance of recognizing this fact when using the Ugaritic texts for comparative purposes, see A. F. Rainey, “The Kingdom of Ugarit,” Biblical Archeology 28 [1965]: 121.) While it is apparent from the biblical text that Baalism flourished in Canaan, it is not so easy to demonstrate that the Canaanite view of Baal was identical to that of Ugarit in the north. Using the Ugaritic materials to illuminate later (first millennium B.C.) biblical texts is especially problematic, for one now faces a chronological as well as a geographical gap. While caution is necessary and conclusions must be tentative, the parallels between the Ugaritic myths and certain biblical passages indicate that the Canaanite Baal did, to a great degree, correspond to his Ugaritic counterpart and that many biblical writers were aware of the beliefs of Baalism and the mythological motifs associated with Baal. For discussion of the problems inherent in attempting to identify the biblical/Canaanite Baal, see Fensham, “A Few Observations on the Polarisation between Yahweh and Baal in 1 Kings 17—19 ,” 231–32; Alan Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” in Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, vol. 3, ed. S. Rummel (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1981), 348–50; and Battenfield, “YHWH’s Refutation of the Baal Myth through the Actions of Elijah and Elisha,” 29–33.
8. Unless indicated otherwise, this article identifies the mythological texts according to the sigla employed by Andrée Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963), abbreviated CTA. Unless indicated otherwise, translations of the texts are from J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1978), abbreviated CML.
9. On this text (RS 24.245:3) see Marvin H. Pope and Jeffrey H. Tigay, “A Description of Baal,” Ugarit-Forschungen 3 (1971): 118; and Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard, 1973), 147–48.
10. The declaration of Baal’s incomparability pertains primarily to his rivalry with Yam. The high god El still reigns supreme over the divine realm, as the context indicates. Line 44 refers to “El the king who installed [or created] him [i.e., Baal]” (see CML, 54).
11. For a survey of the major interpretations of the Baal cycle, an up-to-date reading of the myth, and extensive bibliography, see Mark S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” Ugarit-Forschungen 18 (1986): 313-39.
12. The plural לִים occurs four times in the Old Testament, only here without a preceding construct form (י in Ezek 32:21 and לִים in Job 41:17 are from אַיִל, “ram, leader”; cf. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, s.v. “ל,” by Frank M. Cross, 1:254). The phrase ל לִים, “God of gods,” appears in Daniel 11:36 as a divine superlative. In Psalms 29:1 and 89:6 (possibly also Deut 32:8) בְּנֵי לִים, “sons of the gods” (or perhaps, “sons of El/God,” if the final mem is an enclitic, rather than a plural ending; cf. ibid., 1:255), refers to God’s heavenly council, as the context of Psalm 89:6 indicates (cf. vv. 5–8). In Exodus 15:11לִים appears to be an “ordinary generic appellative” (cf. ibid.), referring to pagan deities in general. The statement is similar to that of Psalm 86:8, ין־כָּמוֹךָ בָּאֱוֹּהִים, “there is none like you among the gods.” In Exodus 15:11b some have proposed reading קְדֹשִׁים, “holy ones,” for the Masoretic text’s קֹדֶשׁ, “holiness.” This would provide a tighter parallel with לִים and has the support of the Septuagint, which reads ἐν ἁγίοις. If this reading is correct, it is possible that these לִים/קְדֹשִׁים are members of the heavenly council, as in Psalm 89:5–7, where the בְּנֵי לִים are associated with the קְדֹשִׁים, “holy ones,” in conjunction with an incomparability formula. In this case the statement of Yahweh’s incomparability in Exodus 15:11 would not be a polemic against the pagan gods, but rather a declaration of His exalted position in His own heavenly council. However, even if one accepts the textual variant as original, the reference may still be to pagan gods. As Labuschagne notes, “the heavenly beings are nowhere in the Old Testament referred to as אלים; when this word is used, they are always called בני אלים” (The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament, 80). There may indeed be a distinction between לִים and בְּנֵי לִים, the former referring to pagan deities, the latter to the angelic assembly (cf. the distinction between אֱוֹּהִים, which sometimes is a numerical plural referring to pagan gods [Pss. 95:3; 96:4–5; 97:7 ], and the phrase אֱוֹּהִים(הָ)בְּנֵי , which refers to angelic beings [Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 ]). Though קְדֹשִׁים does not clearly refer to pagan gods anywhere in the Old Testament (cf. however, Ps 16:3), Ugaritic bn qds̆, “sons of the Holy One” or “holy ones,” appears in parallelism with ilm, “gods” in CTA 2 i 20–21, 37–38 (CML, 41-42) and 17 i 3–4 (CML, 103). If original, it is possible that קְדֹשִׁים, in parallelism with לִים, has this nuance in the archaic Exodus 15.
13. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 131-32.
14. Ibid., 129. See also Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 88; and Nicholas Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 25–26.
15. The terms used in verse 17 of Yahweh’s dwelling place often refer in later texts to Jerusalem and the temple mount (see, e.g., 1 Kings 8:13; Ps 79:1; Jer 12:7–9). However, in Exodus 15 they refer more generally to the land of Canaan. The word נָחֲלָה even retains this meaning in some later texts (Jer 2:7; 16:18), as does הַר (Ps 78:54). See David N. Freedman, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15, ” and Hans Eberhard von Waldow, “Israel and Her Land: Some Theological Considerations,” in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, and C. A. Moore (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), 190–92, 493–96, respectively; and Frank M. Cross and David N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 21 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975), 64–65, n. 56.
16. In CTA 3 C 27 (CML, 49) the expression is parallel to qds̆, “holy place.” Note the presence of מִקְּדָשׁ, “sanctuary,” in Exodus 15:17b (on the peculiar form, see Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 20h).
17. CML, 9. See also E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980), 59, n. 97.
18. Compare the reference to Baal’s “everlasting kingdom” (mlk 'lmk in CTA 2 iv 10; CML, 43) with Exodus 15:18.
19. See Norman C. Habel, Yahweh versus Baal (New York: Bookman, 1964), 61–62; Frank M. Cross, “The Divine Warrior in Israel’s Early Cult,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), 22–23; Patrick D. Miller, Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 116–17; John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 98; and Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 150-51.
20. Ibid., 77-78.
21. The title הָל indicates that Yahweh is “the God, par excellence” (Umberto Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973—75], 1:66).
22. See ibid., 247, and Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 147-51. For passages where this title is associated with Baal’s role as warrior, see CTA 2 iv 8, 29 (CML, 43-44), and CTA 3 D 35, 48–50 (CML, 50); for texts associating this epithet with Baal’s bestowing agricultural prosperity see CTA 3 B 39–41 (CML, 48), 16 iii 4–16 (CML, 98), 19 i 42–46 (CML, 115).
23. Some might ask if such a Baal polemic would have been meaningful to Israel before its entry into the land. However, one must allow for the proleptic nature of preconquest polemical material. Yahweh knew that His people would soon encounter Baalism and He prepared them for the temptation they would face. It is also possible that the Israelites were already aware of the main elements of Canaanite religion because of their contact with Palestine in the patriarchal era and Canaanite-Egyptian cultural interchange. For a discussion of the latter, see S. I. L. Norin, Er spaltete das Meer. Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel (Lund: Gleerup, 1977), 46–58; and Frank E. Eakin, “The Relationship of Yahwism and Baalism during the Pre-Exilic Period” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1964), 53–54.
24. Hailstones, an element of the thunderstorm, are attested as a divine weapon in ancient Near Eastern texts. See Moshe Weinfeld, “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (reprint, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), 141. However, hail is rarely if ever associated with Baal in the Ugaritic texts. F. C. Fensham translates abn brq in CTA 3 C 23 (cf. CML, 49) as “thunderstones” (see “Thunderstones in Ugaritic,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 18 [1959] 273–74), which he identifies as fire-producing stones that accompany lightning and thunder. He understands rgm in the parallel line as “thunder.” If Fensham is correct, this may be a reference to hail. However, it is more likely that abn is a verb, “I understand” (from byn), as wltbn, “nor do (the multitudes of the earth) understand,” in line 24 suggests. In this case rgm means “word, speech, tale” (cf. Gibson’s translation in CML, 49).
25. In CTA 3 B 40–41 (CML, 48) the stars are sources of rain. Thus Judges 5:20 may picture the stars fighting by pouring forth rain and causing the Kishon River to flood. For other interpretive options see Peter C. Craigie, “The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 262-63, and idem, “Three Ugaritic Notes on the Song of Deborah,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2 (1977): 33-38. The reference to the stars may simply be a way of emphasizing the cosmic scope of the battle, with the stars being depicted as Yahweh’s heavenly army. For suggested ancient Near Eastern parallels to Judges 5:20–22, see Weinfeld, “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” 124–31.
26. Tremper Longman rightly argues that Yahweh’s theophany was more than a demonstration of His omnipotence and control of the storm. A thunderstorm at harvest time jeopardized the crop and amounted to a covenantal curse. See his “1 Sam 12:16–19: Divine Omnipotence or Covenant Curse?” Westminister Theological Journal 45 (1983): 168-71.
27. The translation “This Sinai” (v. 5, NASB) makes little sense in a context in which Yahweh marches to Canaan from Edom (v. 4). The context and poetic parallelism are better satisfied if the phrase זֶה סִינַי is understood as a divine epithet, “the One of Sinai” (NIV). This is an archaic northwest Semitic use of the demonstrative pronoun attested in Amorite, Ugaritic, and the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, as well as later in Old South Arabic and Arabic (cf. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 253). For full discussion see William F. Albright, “The Song of Deborah in the Light of Archaeology,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 62 (1936): 30; Frank M. Cross, “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs,” Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 238-39, 255; and E. Lipinski, “Juges 5, 4–5 et Psaume 68, 8–11, ” Biblica 48 (1967): 198, n. 3. This interpretation makes the phrase parallel to אֱוֹּי יִשְׂרָל in the following line, rather than to הָרִים in the preceding line (contra the accentuation in the Masoretic text).
28. The older interpretation of the epithet רֹב בֲָּעֲרָבוֹת was “rider of the steppes” (Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1907], 787; cf. NASB). For recent defenses of this view see Newton Lee Bush, “A Critical and Exegetical Study of Psalm 68” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 60; and Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 31-32. The phrase is better understood as equivalent to Ugaritic rkb 'rpt, “rider of the clouds” (NIV). The immediate context focuses on Yahweh’s aid to His people, especially in the form of rain (vv. 8–9). The presence of the epithet “rider of the heavens” later in the poem (v. 33) also favors this interpretation. In this case עֲרָבָה, “cloud,” is a homonym of עֲרָבָה, “steppe,” and is cognate to Akkadian urpatu/erpetu and Ugaritic 'rpt. This is an example of the nonphonemic interchange of the bilabials b and p attested elsewhere in Ugaritic/Hebrew. See the examples offered by Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1–50 , Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 141. While Bush’s statistical study shows the rarity of such interchanges in roots common to Ugaritic and Hebrew, it nevertheless demonstrates the existence of the phenomenon (“A Critical and Exegetical Study of Psalm 68, ” 69).
29. The reference to the “wings of the wind” in verse 10b suggests that the cherub (v. 10a), a winged creature depicted in the Old Testament as possessing both human and animal characteristics, is a personification of the storm wind. The wind/ cherub is Yahweh’s war vehicle, the equivalent of a horse-drawn chariot. Parallels to this portrayal of Yahweh abound in ancient Near Eastern literature. See Moshe Weinfeld, “‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds,’“ Journal of the Ancient Near East Society 5 (1973): 421-26. As for Ugaritic parallels, according to Weinfeld, CTA 5 v 6–8 (cf. qḥ `rptk rṭk mdlk mṭrk, cf. CML, 72) associates Baal’s clouds, winds, and rains with his “yoked team” or chariot. Gibson takes the key word mdl as “thunder-bolts,” relating the term to Akkadian mudulu, “rod” (CML, 150; see The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 10B, 168). Cyrus Gordon sees in the term some type of weather phenomenon, pointing out that it may refer to lightning (Ugaritic Textbook 431, no. 1430). However, Weinfeld argues that mdl refers to a yoked team, relating the word to the verb mdl, “to saddle, prepare a mount for the rider” (for this verb see CML, 150, and Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 431, no. 1429), which is parallel to ṣmd, “bind, yoke,” in CTA 4 iv 9 (CML, 59) and 19:52–53, 57–58 (CML, 115). Joseph Aistleitner supports this position, suggesting the meaning “Gespann” (“team, yoke”) here (Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967], 77, no. 744a). Also see Ulf Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Ba’al in Canaanite Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 76, who translates “your cloud chariot,” following Moshé Held, “Studies in Ugaritic Lexicography and Poetic Style” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1957), 147.
30. The noun גְּעָרָה (v. 15), like its verbal counterpart גָּעַר, is often translated “rebuke,” a sense that it carries in several passages (e.g., Prov 13:1, 8; 17:10; Eccl 7:5). However, in Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam 22) and other contexts where the term is associated with God’s anger this translation fails to convey the full force of the word. For example in Psalm 104:7 the noun is parallel to קוֹל רַעַמְךָ, “your thunderous voice.” Job 26:11 states that heaven’s pillars “quake” and are “aghast” at Yahweh’s גְּעָרָה. According to Psalm 76:6, Yahweh’s גְּעָרָה casts His enemies into a stupor. The physical reactions described in these verses suggest a cause more powerful than a mere verbal rebuke (cf. Pss. 9:5; 106:9; Isa 50:2; 51:20; 66:15; Nahum 1:4). Likewise in Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam 22), where the term is associated with Yahweh’s anger and thunder (vv. 7, 13) and stands parallel to “the blast of breath from your nostrils” (v. 15b, NIV), something more than a mere rebuke must be in view. Caquot observes that Yahweh’s גְּעָרָה cannot be distinguished from storm phenomena and is the equivalent of His battle cry (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, s.v. “גָּעַר,” by A. Caquot, 3:51, 53).
31. The NIV rightly understands the third masculine plural suffixes on וַיְפִים and וַיְהֻם (v. 14, Heb v. 15) as referring to the psalmist’s (and God’s) enemies. Some argue that the suffixes refer to the arrows/lightning bolts mentioned in the verse, in which case the verbs describe the flight or sound of Yahweh’s arrows (Charles A. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. [New York: Scribner’s, 1906], 1:144, 155; Georg Schmuttermayr, Psalm 18 und 2 Samuel 22: Studien zu einem Doppeltext [Munich: Kosel-Verlag, 1971], 80; and P. Kyle McCarter, 2 Samuel, Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984], 467). However, it is more likely that the enemies are the antecedent. Though the psalmist’s real physical enemies have not been specifically mentioned since verse 3 and were not clearly referred to again until verse 17, they are certainly in his mind throughout the account. The verbs פּוּחּ and הָמַם appear frequently in early poetical and Holy War accounts to describe the effects of Yahweh’s military strength on His enemies (for פּוּחּ, see Num 10:35; 1 Sam 11:11; and Ps 68:1; for הָמַם, see Exod 14:24; 23:27; Josh 10:10; Judg 4:15; and 1 Sam 7:10).
32. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 59.
33. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 93.
34. In verse 9a the reading קוֹל יְהוָה יְחוֹל ילוֹת is preferable and rendered, “Yahweh’s voice twists (or perhaps, ‘shakes’) the oaks” (cf. NIV and see ibid., 38, 41, as well as Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:253–54, 256). This reading provides tighter parallelism with the following line. Though some (e.g., Dahood, Psalms 1–50 , 178-79) defend the Masoretic text (אַיָּלוֹת, “deer”) on the basis of an alleged parallel in Job 39:1 (cf. חֹל אַיָּלוֹת תִּשְׁמֹר, “Do you observe the calving of the deer?”), one should note that the polel of חוּל there means “give birth,” while the traditional interpretation of Psalm 29:9a (“The voice of the Lord makes the deer to calve,” NASB) would require an additional causative nuance for the verb form.
35. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 58-59.
36. See ibid., 59, and idem, “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm xxix and Habakkuk iii 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah vi ,” Vetus Testamentum 29 (1979): 144.
37. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 52-53.)
38. See Herbert G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbim, ‘Many Waters,’“ Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 9-21.
39. See D. T. Tsumura, “‘The Deluge’ (mabbûl) in Psalm 29:10, ” Ugarit-Forschungen 20 (1988): 351-55, and Chaim Cohen, “הי למבול ישׁב (PS 29:10)—A New Interpretation,” Les̆ 53 (1988–89): 193-201 (with English summary, I-III).
40. Cf. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 58.
41. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 88-93. Also see Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH—The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon, and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 119.
42. If one takes מַבּוּל as a reference to the chaos waters or the heavenly reservoir of waters, then the phrase -יָשַׁב לְ must be translated “sit over/on” (cf. Ps 9:4 [Heb., v. 5 ], יָשַׁבְתָּ לְכִא, “you have sat on your throne,” and Ugaritic yṯb l, used of sitting on a throne in CTA 6 i 58 [CML, 76] and CTA 16 vi 22 [CML, 101]).

“For Three Sins…Even for Four”: The Numerical Sayings in Amos

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Associate Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas]

The Old Testament prophets were adept at luring hostile audiences into listening to their judgment speeches. First Kings 20:35–43 records how a prophet resorted to bizarre tactics just to trick Ahab into unwittingly decreeing his own guilt and punishment. Recalling Nathan’s artful use of a parable in his accusation against David (2 Sam 12:1–14), Robert Alter observes that “prophetic poetry is thus very often constructed as a rhetoric of entrapment.”[1]

Amos 1–2 contains one of the clearest examples of this “entrapment” technique in the writing prophets. In a series of seven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, Amos moved from foreigners (Aram, Philistia, Tyre) to blood relatives (Edom, Ammon, Moab) to Judah, Israel’s sister kingdom to the south (1:3–2:5).[2] The prophet’s Israelite audience, anticipating a day of divine deliverance from their enemies (5:18), must have listened with delight to this series of messages, especially when their longtime rival Judah appeared, like a capstone, as the seventh nation in the list. As Shalom Paul notes, Amos’ “captive northern audience, who must have been enjoying every minute of it, would psychologically be in a state of mind which would lead them to believe that he had reached his climax with his fulmination against Judah.”[3] The sevenfold list would have suggested completeness and finality. However, to the shock of his listeners, Amos was far from finished. Expanding his list from seven members to eight, he delivered a scathing accusation and announcement of judgment against Israel (2:6–16).[4]

At this point the preceding seven oracles come into focus. Rather than being self-contained pronouncements of judgment, the earlier messages set up the climactic denunciation of the prophet’s primary target group, the sinful Northern Kingdom. Paul explains, “The minute he continued his eighth and unexpected oracle, for him the sole purpose of his extended prolegomenon, they would have been taken completely unawares, and Amos, who delighted over and over again in making use of surprise endings, would have forcefully and compellingly made his final indictment.”[5]

When compared to the preceding seven oracles, the structure and content of this final oracle draw attention, in at least three ways, to Israel’s surpassing guilt vis-à-vis its neighbors. First, the prophet expanded the accusation proper (2:6–8) by adding a lengthy recital of the Lord’s benefits to His people (2:9–11), with which he then contrasted their ingratitude (2:12). Second, the specific punishment (“I will crush you,” 2:13)[6] differs from that of the preceding oracles, in which the Lord invariably threatened to judge the nation in question with fire. Third, the description of the effects of judgment, with its sevenfold statement of the Israelite army’s demise (2:14–16), is far more extensive than the corresponding descriptions in the other oracles. The point of this variation from the earlier pattern seems clear: Israel’s unique degree of guilt (heightened by its ingratitude) demanded a unique punishment.

A clear rhetorical pattern thus emerges in Amos 1–2. In the preliminary oracles the prophet gained his audience’s attention and approval, leading them to believe that the Lord would soon intervene on their behalf and destroy the surrounding nations. When the prophet finally sprang his trap, he made it clear that Israel would be the primary object of the Lord’s judgment because its guilt surpassed that of its neighbors.

The thesis of this article is that Amos’ use of the saying, “for three sins…even for four,” which appears in the introduction to each of the eight oracles, contributes to this rhetorical pattern. Amos creatively altered the x/x + 1 (in this case 3/4) numerical pattern so as to arouse his audience’s curiosity and highlight their guilt. Before developing this proposal more fully, the functions of the x/x + 1 numerical pattern in general will be discussed and the structure of Amos’ oracles will be examined especially with respect to the number of crimes specified in each case.

The Functions of the x/x + 1 Numerical Pattern

The x/x + 1 pattern has two basic functions.[7] Sometimes this device indicates an indefinite number, in which case no itemized list follows. When so used the numerical saying can point to a relatively small number (Deut 32:30; Job 40:5; Isa 17:6; Hos 6:2) or communicate the idea of abundance or completeness, the pattern 7/8 being a logical choice in the latter case because of the symbolic significance of the number seven (Eccl 11:2; Mic 5:5).[8] At other times the x/x + 1 pattern indicates a definite number of items, in which case a list corresponding to one of the numbers, almost always the second, is attached. Examples include 1/2 (Ps 62:11–12), 3/4 (Prov 30:15–16, 18–19, 21–23, 29–31), and 6/7 (Job 5:19–22; Prov 6:16–19).[9]

The Structure of Amos’ Oracles

Each of the eight oracles in Amos 1–2 begins with the same formula, the parallelism of which may be outlined as follows:

For three	sins of PN [proper name]
Even for four	(sins of PN)	I will not take him back.[10]

 For the sake of balancing the lines, the element “sins of PN” is omitted by ellipsis in the second line. “I will not take him back” completes the thought left suspended in the first line.

In each oracle the construction עַל (in a causal sense; “because”) + infinitive construct + pronominal suffix (used as subject) follows the formula, stating a specific accusation or introducing a list of charges against the nation. The accusations vary considerably in both form and length. In most cases (the Aram and Moab oracles are exceptions) it is difficult to know how many crimes are enumerated. Does one proceed in a strictly formal fashion and count each verbal statement (with the possible exception of those in subordinate clauses) as a distinct crime? Or does one take into account poetic parallelism and determine the number of crimes on a conceptual basis? Since it might appear arbitrary to choose one method over the other, both are employed in the following analysis of the oracles’ structure.

As noted above, the oracles against Aram and Moab present no problem. Both specify only one crime. Aram was guilty “because she [lit. “they”] threshed Gilead with sledges having iron teeth” (1:3b), while judgment would fall on Moab “because he burned, as if to lime, the bones of Edom’s king” (2:1b).

Unfortunately the other oracles are not so easily analyzed. The accusations against Philistia and Ammon contain a statement of a crime followed by a purpose clause:

Philistia (1:6b)	Because she [lit. “they”] took captive whole communities and sold [lit. “in order to sell,” Heb לְהַסְגִּיר] them to Edom.
Ammon (1:13b)	Because he [lit. “they”] ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead in order to extend his [lit. “their”] borders.

One could count each verbal statement as a separate crime, in which case two sins are enumerated. However, viewed conceptually only one basic crime is denounced in each case. Philistia was guilty of large scale slave trade and Ammon of cruel imperialistic expansion.

The accusation against Tyre includes two statements: “Because she [lit. “they”] sold whole communities of captives to Edom, disregarding a treaty of brotherhood” (1:9b). Proceeding along strictly formal lines, one may delineate two separate crimes (slave trade and breach of treaty), but the point seems to be that slave trade was the act whereby the covenant was broken. The second line does not actually present a distinct sin, but rather emphasizes the shocking ramifications of the crime described in the first line. Viewed conceptually then, the oracle denounces only one crime (slave trade of allies).

The accusation against Edom (1:11) is the longest of those directed against foreign nations. Four separate statements appear:

Because he pursued his brother with a sword,
and destroyed his allies,[11]
because his anger raged continually
and his fury flamed unchecked.

When allowance is made for parallelism (note the two basic units, each of which contains two synonymously parallel lines), two crimes are discernible. Since the second unit appears to emphasize the attitude with which Edom perpetrated the violence referred to in the first unit, one might argue that the oracle denounces only one crime (intense hostility against allies). Even so, the repetition produced through parallelism highlights Edom’s sin in a unique way.

The accusation against Judah (2:4b) contains three separate statements:

Because they have rejected the law of the LORD
and have not kept his decrees,
because they have been led astray by false gods,
the gods their ancestors followed.

If one takes into account the synonymous parallelism of the first two lines, then no more than two crimes are enumerated. If the second unit is then viewed as giving a specific example of how the people rejected the Lord’s Law (viz., by following in the idolatrous footsteps of their ancestors; cf. 2 Kings 17:15), only one crime (breach of covenant through idolatry) is in view.

The oracle against Israel is the most difficult to analyze. The accusation (2:6b–8, 12) is arranged in five units, each of which contains two corresponding lines:

2:6b	They sell the righteous for silver, and [they sell] the needy for a pair of sandals.
2:7a	They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed.
2:7b	Father and son use [lit. “go to”] the same girl and so profane my holy name.
2:8	They lie down beside every altar on garments taken in pledge. In the house of their god they drink wine taken as fines.
-----	-----
2:12	But you made the Nazirites drink wine and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.

In a strictly formal sense 10 crimes are enumerated. If one understands verse 7b (note the infinitival construction [“and so profane,” Heb לְמַעַן חַל] which subordinates the statement to the preceding line) as denouncing just one crime, the number can be reduced to nine (seven in vv. 6–8 and two more in v. 12).[12] However, if allowance is made for the virtually synonymous parallelism throughout and the sins are viewed conceptually, only four crimes appear: (1) oppressing the innocent/poor (2:6b–7a),[13] (2) engaging in pagan religious practices (2:7b; cf. v. 8),[14] (3) abusing the system of pledges and fines (2:8), and (4) showing lack of respect for God’s special servants (2:12).[15] The following chart lists the number of crimes according to both the formal and the conceptual methods of enumeration:

	Number of Crimes
Oracle	Formal	Conceptual
Aram (1:3–5)	1	1
Philistia (1:6–8)	2 (1?)	1
Tyre (1:9–10)	2	1 (2?)
Edom (1:11–12)	4	1 (2?)
Ammon (1:13–15)	2 (1?)	1
Moab (2:1–3)	1	1
Judah (2:4–5)	3	1 (2?)
Israel (2:6–16)	10 (9?)

When compared with the normal patterns of the x/x + 1 saying observed above, the structure of Amos’ oracles is puzzling. If Amos were using the 3/4 pattern to indicate an indefinite number of sins, then one would not expect to find specific crimes listed after the formula. At the same time, Amos’ oracles do not correspond to the enumerative pattern of the x/x + 1 saying, for in only one case (whether the formal or conceptual method is employed) does the expected fourfold list of specific crimes appear. If one follows the formal method, only the Edom oracle lists four crimes, while the Israel oracle contains more than twice that many. Viewed conceptually, only the accusation against Israel has the expected number of crimes.

Interpretations of Amos’ Numerical Saying

What is one to make of Amos’ use of the introductory statement, “For three sins…even for four”? Scholars have various suggestions, the most attractive of which are now considered.

Hans Wolff proposes that the lists are purposely shortened with only the fourth crime, “the one which tips, indeed overloads, the scales,” being specifically mentioned.[16] He points out that the final item of a numerical saying is often highlighted and suggests that Amos chose to include only this emphatic concluding element, bypassing the preliminary items in the list.

This interpretation fails to explain adequately the prophet’s inconsistent application of the technique, especially if one uses the formal method to count the crimes. Even if one uses a conceptual method in enumerating the crimes, the Israel oracle differs from the others. Wolff’s proposal fails to explain why the first seven oracles mention only the “last straw,” while the Israel oracle follows the normal pattern by enumerating four crimes. To see in this some sort of emphasis on Israel’s sin puts one on the right track, but a more precise explanation for the variation is desirable and possible.

Others prefer to dissociate Amos’ introductory formula from the numerical saying pattern. For example B. K. Soper states that “the clause cannot be understood as a ‘numerical saying…because of structural differences between the two.[17] He then appeals to the Babylonian Talmud, which observes that three sins may be forgiven, but not a fourth. He suggests that this fourth crime, the one that exhausts God’s patience and necessitates divine judgment, is the one included in the oracles. Recently Michael Barre has followed this line of argument as well. He translates Amos’ statement as follows: “Because of three rebellious acts of GN—and now a fourth!”[18] This line of approach is subject to the same criticism as Wolff’s. Barre suggests that the variation in the final oracle may signal “the conclusion of the series.” This may indeed be true, but the variation has a much more significant rhetorical purpose as well.

Meir Weiss, like Soper, contends that Amos’ introductory formula is not really a numerical saying at all. He points to structural differences between Amos’ sentence and numerical sayings used elsewhere, namely, Amos’ placement of the predicate in the second line only and the absence of genuine parallelism.19 According to Weiss, the numbers are to be added with the resulting sum (seven) symbolizing completeness. In support of this proposal Weiss delineates seven sins in the final oracle (in the case of the other nations, only their “complete and greatest” sin is included). To arrive at this number he follows a formal method of enumeration, though he says the subordinate clause of verse 7b (“and so profane my holy name”) is not referring to a separate sin.[20]

There are at least two problems with Weiss’ solution. First, it does not count the crimes denounced in verse 12. Following Weiss’ formal method of enumeration, one would arrive at a total of nine sins if verse 12 were included.[21] Second, Weiss acknowledges, “There are no other examples, either in the Bible or outside of it, of a usage of two numbers such as we have assumed for this case.”[22]

Amos’ Rhetorical Adaptation of the x/x + 1 Numerical Pattern

Rather than understanding Amos’ accusations as an elliptical form of the x/x + 1 pattern (Wolff) or rejecting any connection with the numerical saying (Soper, Weiss), it is proposed that Amos purposely altered the normal enumerative form of the x/x + 1 pattern for rhetorical purposes. His adaptation of the pattern contributed to the overall theme of chapters 1–2, namely, that Israel would be the focal point of divine judgment because its sins surpassed those of its neighbors. This is the case no matter which of the enumerative systems (formal or conceptual) is employed. Though the details of Amos’ rhetorical scheme differ according to each system, the basic point is the same.

As noted above, if one follows the formal method of enumeration, then only the Edom oracle exhibits the expected fourfold list of crimes, while the Israel oracle contains more than twice that many. However, if one proceeds through the series oracle by oracle, a rhetorical purpose for this lack of uniformity is apparent. As Amos delivered his first three sayings (against Aram, Philistia, and Tyre), the audience must have puzzled over their structural oddities (the truncated lists and the syntactical peculiarities noted by Weiss). When he finally provided a list of four crimes in the fourth oracle, they would have thought (correctly) that the prophet was emphasizing the degree of hated Edom’s sin. When one fills out lists of crimes for the surrounding nations, Edom’s list fills up faster than the others. Some may have expected the speech to conclude here, perhaps reasoning that the 3/4 pattern of the introductory saying would be mirrored in the structure of the speech as a whole (the oracles against three nations concluding with a special denunciation of a fourth). However, the series continues. Two more truncated sayings (against Ammon and Moab) follow, and then Judah appears as the seventh nation. As discussed earlier, Amos’ Israelite audience would have delighted in this and expected the speech to conclude here, probably with another fourfold list of crimes like that of Edom. Their expectations were almost realized, but instead of capping off the list of Judah’s sins with a fourth charge (the list includes only three formal accusatory statements), Amos delivered a brief announcement of judgment (2:5) and then surprisingly turned to Israel. Israel was the worst rebel of all, for she fills up two lists of crimes and part of a third before other nations complete one such list or despised Edom can start on a second! If divine judgment was coming, then it meant certain doom, not deliverance, for Israel, the chief of sinners.

If the conceptual method of enumeration is followed, the main point is the same. In this case only one or two crimes are listed in the first seven oracles, with the sins of Edom and Judah being seemingly highlighted through repetitive parallelism (perhaps, as indicated, to make the audience think that the speech was about to end, first with Edom and then with Judah). As Amos’ audience rejoiced over the news of their enemies’ demise, they should have, at the same time, puzzled over the structural oddity of the oracles. Suddenly Amos confronted them with a full list of crimes—their own! When filling out lists of four sins, one could complete Israel’s before the second or third sin of its neighbors could be identified. In this case, the structure of the Israel oracle mirrors the 3/4 pattern of the introductory saying in that the recital of the Lord’s benefits (2:9–11) separates the first three crimes (2:6–8) from the fourth (2:12).[23]

Conclusion

In his oracles against the nations Amos purposely altered the normal x/x + 1 enumerative pattern to emphasize that Israel’s guilt surpassed that of its neighbors. Contrary to its expectations, Israel, not the surrounding nations, would be the focal point of the approaching divine judgment because its crimes far outnumbered those of others.[24]

Notes

1. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), p. 144 (italics his).
2. Many deny the authenticity of the oracles against Tyre (1:9–10), Edom (1:11–12), and Judah (2:4–5). Though it is beyond the scope of this article to present a lengthy, detailed defense of the text’s unity, several observations are in order. Some scholars have questioned the originality of the Tyre and Edom oracles on historical and form critical/literary grounds. For example Hans Wolff points to structural differences between these oracles and others in chapters 1–2 (Joel and Amos, Hermeneia, trans. W. Janzen, S. D. McBride, and C. Muenchow [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], pp. 139-40). Wolff also contends that both oracles reflect the exilic period (pp. 158-60). However, Shalom Paul demonstrates the literary unity and artistry of Amos 1–2 in its canonical form, in the process exposing the methodological weaknesses of the form critical approach that denies this unity (“A Literary Reinvestigation of the Authenticity of the Oracles against the Nations of Amos,” in De La Tôrah au Messie, eds. J. Dore, P. Grelot, and M. Carrez [Paris: Desclee, 1981], pp. 189-204). The historical illusions in the oracles are too vague to use for dating purposes. Keith Schoville has proposed that the events in question are best explained against the background of Jehu’s reign in the ninth century B.C. (“A Note on the Oracles of Amos against Gaza, Tyre, and Edom,” in Studies on Prophecy, Supplements to Vetus Testimentum, 26 [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974], pp. 55-63), while John H. Hayes has attempted to show that they fit into the period of the prophet (Amos, the Eighth Century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988], pp. 55, 86-89, 90–93). The oracle against Judah has been denied on literary grounds. Wolff draws attention to its formal variations from the other oracles and to its so-called Deuteronomic style, which he associates with a supposed “Deuteronomic school” that worked much later than the time of Amos (Joel and Amos, pp. 139-40, 163–64). However, Paul shows that such arguments have been pressed too far, even if one were to assume the existence of a distinct Deuteronomic style characteristic of a Deuteronomic school (“A Literary Reinvestigation of the Authenticity of the Oracles against the Nations of Amos,” pp. 194-96). The structure and language of the oracle are not determinative for dating.
3. Paul, “A Literary Reinvestigation of the Authenticity of the Oracles against the Nations of Amos,” p. 197.
4. Paul points to several biblical and Semitic examples of a numerical pattern involving the numbers seven and eight in sequence. As he observes, the pattern is often employed to “express the concept of culmination or climactic finish” (ibid., p. 196).
5. Ibid., p. 197.
6. The New International Version is the translation used throughout this article.
7. Cf. Meir Weiss, “The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1–2 ,” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 416, and the literature he cites in note 1 of his article.
8. In Psalm 90:10 multiples of 7/8 (i.e., 70/80) express the idea of completeness.
9. In Job 5:19–22 the accompanying list corresponds to the first number (6), unless one counts “destruction” (Heb שֹׁד in both vv. 21–22) twice.
10. For this translation of אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ see Michael Barre, “The Meaning of l''s̆ybnw in Amos 1:3–2:6 ,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 622.
11. The translation of the second line follows the NIV margin, rather than text. For a defense of this reading, see Michael Fishbane, “The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and Related Matters,” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1979): 313-18, and Michael L. Barré, “Amos 1:11 Reconsidered,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 420-27.
12. In this case the list of seven sins in verses 6–8 suggests completeness. The addition of two more formal accusatory statements in verse 12 dismisses all doubt that Israel is overripe for punishment (Hayes, Amos the Eighth Century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching, pp. 107-8).
13. Because of its very general tone, verse 7a supplements verse 6b by elaborating on the character of the crime described there. James Mays states that “7a is a parallel restatement of 6b ” (Amos: A Commentary, Old Testament Library Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969], p. 46). The syntax of verse 7a supports this interpretation. The form translated “they trample” is a participle (הַשֹּׁאֲפִים), not a finite verb, and stands in apposition to the subject of the preceding line (cf. the third masculine plural suffix on מִכְרָם in v. 6b). To show the close syntactical relationship between verses 6b–7a one might paraphrase, “They (those who trample…and deny justice…) sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals.”
14. The precise meaning of the accusation in verse 7b is unclear. Traditionally the crime has been understood as sexual in nature, with the “girl” being identified as the son’s lover or wife, a peasant servant girl, or a cult prostitute. However, the phrase translated “use” (lit. “go to,” הָלַךְ אֶל) is not a technical expression for sexual intercourse (like the verb בּוֹא can be). Also if the crime is that of a man having relations with his daughter-in-law (cf. Lev 18:15; 20:12), the son would be innocent. However, the tone of Amos 2:7 seems to implicate both father and son. The sexual exploitation of a girl from the lower servant class would fit well in the context of the social oppression described in verses 6–8. However, the term translated “girl” need not refer to a low-ranking servant or slave. Also the reference to profaning the Lord’s name favors a religious violation such as idolatry (see Hans M. Barstad, The Religious Polemics of Amos, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 34 [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984], pp. 17-21). Though perhaps fitting nicely with verse 8 (especially if the altar and temple referred to there belong to a pagan god), the view that the girl is a cult prostitute is unlikely since the word translated “girl” never refers elsewhere to a prostitute. More recently some scholars have identified the “girl” as a hostess at a pagan religious banquet known as a marzeaḥ. (For this view see Barstad, pp. 33-36. On the evidence for the marzeaḥ institution, see Barstad, pp. 127-42, and Philip J. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah—An Archaeological Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988], pp. 137-61.) This view finds support from verse 8, where some type of religious ritual is described, and from 6:4–7, where a marzeaḥ banquet is specifically mentioned (cf. מִרְזַח in 6:7) and described. (On the background of 6:4–7 see Gary V. Smith, Amos: A Commentary, Library of Biblical Interpretation [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989], pp. 193-94).
15. This analysis of the crimes essentially follows that of Duane L. Christensen (though he sees v. 7b as referring to “promiscuous intercourse”). See his “The Prosodic Structure of Amos 1–2 ,” Harvard Theological Review, 67 (1974): 436, and Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy, Harvard Dissertations in Religion, 3 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 66, 71. Contrary to the analyses of many, verse 12 should not be omitted when counting Israel’s crimes. Though verse 12 is separated from the main list of crimes (vv. 6–8) by the recital of God’s benefits (vv. 9–11), it is literarily linked with (cf. the references to drinking wine in vv. 8b and 12a) and provides a fitting conclusion to the earlier accusation. Its use of the second person (starting in v. 10) makes its denunciation more direct and highlights its culminating function.
16. Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 138.
17. B. Kingston Soper, “For Three Transgressions and for Four. A New Interpretation of Amos 1:3, etc.,” Expository Times 71 (1959–60): 86-87.
18. Barré, “The Meaning of l''s̆ybnw in Amos 1:3–2:6 ,” pp. 621-22.
19. Weiss, “The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1–2 ,” pp. 418-19.
20. Ibid., pp. 419-20.
21. Hayes, who essentially follows Weiss’ approach, suggests that the 7/8 pattern is operative here (Amos the Eighth—Century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching, pp. 107-8). Verses 6–8 list seven crimes, while verse 12 adds an eighth. However, if a formal method is used to enumerate the crimes in verses 6–8, then the same method should be employed in verse 12, in which case the crimes would total nine, not eight.
22. Weiss, “The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1–2 ,” p. 421.
23. Christensen makes this point (“The Prosodic Structure of Amos 1–2 ,” p. 436, and Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy, p. 71).
24. Israel might, of course, object that its sins were not nearly so bad as the military atrocities of the surrounding nations. That is probably why Amos pointed out in the next pericope that Israel’s elect and privileged position (3:2) made its crimes of oppression, paganism, and ingratitude—which on the surface might not seem as terrible as kidnapping whole communities, selling slaves, and ripping open pregnant women—far more heinous in God’s sight than the cruel deeds of other nations. “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded” (Luke 12:48).