“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).