“You cannot be a Christian and not go to church!” “You cannot be Christian and be attracted to the same sex!” “You cannot be a Christian if you do not rigorously uphold the select laws, we think God wanted to keep intact!” Easily the first thing to drive me out of the church is the legalistic nature of the Christian religion that pervades congregations around the globe (but especially in the United States).
As a teenager, I remember my youth pastor telling a group of girls they were not welcome to the Wednesday evening service because they wore spaghetti-string tank-tops and cut off jeans. They never came back. How does this resonate with the depiction of Jesus in the New Testament? You know, the one who ate with sinners and testified to prostitutes?
Where do these ideas come from? I have yet to come across a verse in the Bible that explicitly states, “God hates gays.” But many of us hear these things presented as if they are biblically grounded. This is the danger of allowing presuppositional thinking to guide religious and spiritual life. Evangelicals tout God’s hatred of certain people groups because it fits with their social and political ideas. Instead of starting with Scripture and building a worldview from there, they refuse to question their preconceived worldview and seek to cut the Bible down to fit their narrative.
Hindsight is 20/20
It was no different in antiquity. The focus of this blog entry is redaction: that is, additions to the original text of the Bible. The more we discover older copies of biblical works, the more we find that parts of this “inerrant, living Word” have been severely edited throughout its history. For example, John 7:53-8:11 is either no longer included in certain translations, or it is italicized, or it is preceded by a note that it is not authentic. But for centuries, this passage was accepted as part of the perfect “inspired” canon.
We find this in many areas throughout the Bible, but I want to focus here on one particular example from Amos. We have already seen that the Oracles Against the Nations in Amos 1-2 are a bit uneven, complicated, and at odds with what the Bible says in other places. I thought about dedicating a post to each Oracle, but my goal here at Living by the Logos is not to provide exhaustive research (although I certainly encourage it).
The Oracles Against the Nations hold a consistent theme until Judah is welcomed. The theme is that the leaders and militaries of these nations (Aram, Philistia, Phoenicia, Edom, Ammon, and Moab) have committed abhorrent crimes against humanity and are awaiting divine retribution. And then there’s Judah. After Judah comes the oracle against Israel, which is primarily concerned with social injustice (more on this later!). But what has Judah done?
As you may recall, Amos is identified as a native to Tekoa, located in the kingdom of Judah. Surely the rebuke of his own country must be scathing, right? Well, no, not exactly. The scholarly consensus is, and has been for decades, that the oracle against Judah is redactional.1,2 Sit down and (closely) read the oracles in chronological order; you will notice that this oracle sticks out like a sore thumb. Why is this so?
Let’s see what the text says…
“Thus saith the Lord; For three sins of the children of Juda, and for four, I will not turn away from him; because they have rejected the law of the Lord, and have not kept his ordinances, and their vain idols which they made, which their fathers followed, caused them to err. And I will send a fire on Juda, and it shall devour the foundations of Jerusalem.” (Amos 2:4-5) Septuagint, based on Vaticanus, trans. Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton)
I will not provide a deep survey of the redactional content in this oracle, but there are a few pieces I would like to highlight for this discussion. First, as I mentioned earlier, this oracle differs tremendously from the others. We have examined the crimes of the other nations but just to name a few: Philistia and Phoenicia have deported people from surrounding nations and/or sold them into slavery, Ammon has ripped apart pregnant women, and Moab has desecrated the dead. Israel, which we have yet to examine, is guilty of social injustice. But Judah? Failing to maintain a good enough theology.
From this, we have another issue of translation. In the reference I used above (Amos 2:4-5), the Hebrew word tôrâ is translated as “laws.” Like crimes/sins in the oracles, the way you interpret this verse depends on your translation. Some translations take tôrâ as the Torah proper (CJB), others translate it as a singular law or instruction (cf. NIV, ESV, NLT).
The word is tricky to translate because it could mean any of the above. It could refer to laws verbally passed down, written laws, general instructions for worship, or the Torah itself.3 It is important to keep in mind that the Torah, as we now know it, was not written until two-to-three centuries after Amos prophesied. We cannot assume the hearers of Amos’ message had the Pentateuch in written form as we do now.
Finally, on another textual/translational note, we learn that Judah followed idols. Most translations correctly interpret the word here as lies, which is the only place in Scripture that “lies” denotes “idols.”4 Another common suggestion is that “lies” refers to false prophets (i.e., the Judahites followed the teachings of false teachers). Obviously, this poses a problem for interpreting the text. Especially in the English language thousands of years after it was written.
Making Sense of It All
It is hard to dispute that the Oracle against Judah is a secondary addition to the book of Amos. Why is it included? To make Amos more theologically sound? To make it fit better with the religiosity/legalistic nature of the Old Testament? To make the point that God will destroy anyone who commits crimes against him? Does this sound familiar in the modern day?
I believe an argument can be made that the Bible is a “living” literary work. It is living because it constantly evolves. Social and cultural customs are used to interpret the Bible, which leads to their inevitable inclusion. Does God really hate the gays? Or was this added to the text in a time and place when such actions were socially unacceptable? Or, was it added at all and does the church interpret certain passages in such a way because it seems to fit their narrative? In other words, is it presented in a way for one group of pious people to judge those with whom they disagree?
If so, as I see it, the Bible is, indeed, “living.” The church views the Bible the way the church wants to view it. Evangelicals see the Bible the way they want to see it. Like the redactors, why not add our opinions to the Bible? Although we certainly do not see this much in the modern age, the Bible is used to uphold and defend presuppositions.
reachers pick-and-choose which verses they want to read and attempt to extract their preconceived notions from it. And the context is tossed out the window. When a pastor tells you you must do such-and-such, examine the source. What does the Bible really say? Further, what of these writings is authentic?
1. James Luther Mays, Amos: A Commentary, in The Old Testament Library. Edited by G. Ernest Wright, John Bright, James Barr, and Peter Ackroyd. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminister Press, 1969, 40.
2. John Barton The Theology of the Book of Amos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, 43.
3. Tchavdar S. Hadjiev, Joel and Amos: An Introduction and Commentary, InterVarsity Press, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, 107. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=6356600
4. Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, edited by Frank Moore Cross Fortress Press, 201, 22