I believe I have mentioned before that I took a class on church history in college. For one assignment, I was asked to summarize the history of the church in a rather brief essay. For my submission, I received a remarkably low grade compared to what I normally earned in my papers. Why? My professor, a stout evangelical, did not like that I included some of the church’s embarrassing acts, such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. I had attacked the church… by merely including details that were omitted in the course textbook.

The church is far from perfect. It has never been perfect. Like every individual being, it has fallen short of God’s grace. Being set apart does not negate this fact. David sinned. Jeremiah sinned. I have certainly sinned. And so has the church. History requires honesty—whether we like the truth or not. The church has done many great things in the past two millennia. But it has also committed horrendous acts. Israel, likewise, is a great nation. However, it is far from perfect. And in Amos, we find that, like the church, Israel has committed horrible deeds.

My last post differs from everything I have posted on Living by the Logos. I did not address the problem of suffering. I addressed the “problem,” if you will, of being set apart. I (briefly) addressed the prophet Jeremiah’s calling and mentioned not one word about suffering. This was intentional. I composed the previous post the way I did to set the stage for this post. Without a doubt, God calls people and sets certain people apart. But it is not always honorable, as we will see with Amos and the nation of Israel.

Do two walk together
    unless they have agreed to do so?
Does a lion roar in the thicket
    when it has no prey?
Does it growl in its den
    when it has caught nothing?
Does a bird swoop down to a trap on the ground
    when no bait is there?
Does a trap spring up from the ground
    if it has not caught anything?
When a trumpet sounds in a city,
    do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
    has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:3-6

The simple answer to each of these questions is “no.” Shalom M. Paul believes the questions are incorporated to display “the irresistible nature of cause and effect.”¹ I personally believe the last question is designed in such a way to demonstrate that even disasters are the result of God’s will. To paraphrase, if a city suffers, has not God set it apart to do so? Has not God set Israel apart to suffer because of its misdeeds?

As I discussed in earlier entries to the project, particularly concerning the oracles against the nations, Amos upholds the prophetic view of suffering. This prophetic view simply holds that God inflicts suffering upon those who are disobedient to him. If God punishes, then the punishment due to a particular people is inevitably God’s will. I doubt any believer wants to agree with me on this. We do not want to believe that harm, whether deserved or not, is something that God causes to fulfill his purpose. But, in the book of Amos and other prophets, it is indubitably God’s will to make people suffer.

“Can two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” (3:3). A few years ago, when I was in rehab for alcoholism, I did a quick reading of Amos. This is one of the verses that I highlighted. A simple question, yet something of the wording really struck a chord with me. In that moment, I was being punished. I had sinned. Waking up one morning after a night of heavy drinking to find myself naked on the floor, covered in cuts and bruises, and having to admit that I, indeed, had a problem. In that moment, I experienced a degree of suffering I had never known. I had no choice but to continue my rampage of drinking or humbly admit that I needed help. Lots of it.

Can I walk with God unless he and I have agreed to do so? Laid up in that clinic, I knew that I was trying to walk with God, and yet I had not agreed to. There was no mutual consensus. I wanted to walk with God my way, not his. And what was the result? I suffered. It was a tremendous struggle to overcome my addiction to alcohol. But I could not have recovered without that suffering. It was, I believe, God’s will to make me suffer so that I would correct my mistakes.

And for Amos, the nation of Israel had sinned. They took advantage of the poor, they desecrated the temple, and neglected the faithfulness God had shown them. And when judgment day came, they did not receive a happy Pureflix resolve. God did not simply bless them, leading them to realize what they had done. He, through Amos, announces that he will smite the nation and, as a result, humble them. And thus, God’s will is to crush them, “as a cart crushes when loaded with grain” (2:13 NIV). The nation’s pain and misery is God’s will. As a result of their sins, this is what they are set apart for.

Jeremiah was called. He was set apart to do great things for Yahweh. And so was Israel. But Israel was also set apart to suffer because they violated their divine laws. The church may be set apart. Indeed, when it was instituted in the New Testament, it was certainly set apart. It faltered in the Crusades. It faltered in the Inquisition. And it most certainly has faltered in the modern world, for a list of reasons I cannot even begin. It is not a holy place. It has no protection from God’s wrath. It is a very human institution, much like Israel in Amos’ day.

As I have discussed in this project, Israel received a greater punishment than its neighboring nations. Why? Because God set it apart. God selected Israel to accomplish his will. God gave Israel the Law, and stomped on it in Amos. He set the church apart, too. God is not going to rapture the church. If and when the end comes, the church will not escape his wrath. It will face the brunt of such fury.

1. Shalom M. Paul, “Amos 3:3-8: The Irresistible Sequence of Cause and Effect,” H AR 1 (1983) 203-20.

Yet, the church will not face this judgment. You are definitely familiar with the extrabiblical concept of the rapture. Before this day of judgment comes, God is going to rescue the church and place it in heaven. The sins of church-going Christians? Forgotten. Erased. As long as you attend church, proclaim the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and deny your former unbelieving self, you will not face the wrath due to, say, Hollywood.

In Amos, God does not save his chosen from justice. He does not move these people and then destroy the land in which they lived. Because they are his people, they are even more deserving of his wrath. We’ve covered the Oracles Against the Nations. The foreign nations are doomed, no doubt. But Israel, the nation God selected to fulfill his will, faces a lengthier and more painful fate than its neighbors.

Let me clarify that I am not arguing Amos is an apocalyptic book. Its focus does not lie in the end of the world. But it reveals an interesting aspect of God’s character that you will not hear about in the church. God does not overlook the sins of those who recite a statement of faith. Because they are committed to him, and yet continue to stray from his commands, they stand in greater judgment than those who do not know him or reject him.

Open your eyes to the evil of the modern evangelical church. The sex abuse scandals rocking the Southern Baptist Convention (which it tried to hide), the abuses of power and bigotry from Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church, the corruption in the Catholic Church that has defined it for centuries. And the list goes on and on. The church is supposed to be a safe haven, a reflection of what heaven is like. But every church I have attended is marred with scandals. And it isn’t just my luck.

A Timeless Warning from Amos

In the prophetic literature of the Old Testament, we find a time in history where God’s chosen were defined by their sin. And God does not rapture them. Consider what Amos prophesies for Israel:

“Now then, I will crush you
    as a cart crushes when loaded with grain.
The swift will not escape,
    the strong will not muster their strength,
    and the warrior will not save his life.
The archer will not stand his ground,
    the fleet-footed soldier will not get away,
    and the horseman will not save his life.
Even the bravest warriors
    will flee naked on that day,”
declares the Lord.

Israel will be crushed. The swift cannot escape. The archer will falter. And the bravest of the brave, the strongest of the strong will flee naked. They do not escape the wrath of God; they are at the very center of it all.

In the preceding verses (2:9-12), God reminds the nation of how he has cared for them. He destroyed their enemies. He orchestrated the exodus. He gave them prophets. He saved the nation from the punishment they deserved. But they continue to neglect him; and this time, he will not revoke the punishment due to them. Shalom M. Paul words this concept with great precision in his commentary: “The acts of kindness of God stand as a stark antithesis to their persistent deeds of disobedience.”¹

Like the previous oracles, we must interpret the oracle against Israel within a military context. The crimes for which the first six nations will suffer are war crimes; the crime for which Judah is indicted is theological. We find a sense of synergy in the oracle against Israel; because they are God’s chosen, the oppression and injustice the nation has caused will result in military defeat. God is not going to simply wipe Israel off the map with natural disasters; he is going to use its enemies to destroy it, and he will weaken the nation to ensure their defeat.²

What does this mean? Imagine you are an Israelite in the sixth century BCE hearing Amos’ proclamation. Surely, you would want to deny this impending doom. A nation is going to overtake us? Well, we have a great army, so good luck! But Amos does not simply say a nation will rise up against them. God, their God, will weaken their strongest warriors. As Tchavdar Hadjiev argues, “Under divine pressure human skill loses its usefulness.”³ And thus, Amos’ message challenges the idea that somehow, some way, Israel will avoid God’s wrath.

Let us return to the present. We hear that the church will avoid God’s wrath at the tribulation. Where do you find this in the Bible? Can you? Not without taking select passages out of context, as the church does with great ease. The church is hardly innocent. They bear the special status of God’s chosen, as Israel did in Amos’ day.

Does this mean the church will avoid God’s wrath? I believe Amos would agree that, no they would not. In fact, they should expect to face the brunt of it all.

Personal Reflection

Not all churches are bad. Not all pastors are scandalous liars. But can we say the global church is innocent? Look at its history. Look at the controversies going on in the present day. I do not think anyone can argue that the church is without sin. If and when the end comes, will the church avoid God’s wrath? A biblical answer would not support the idea of the rapture. A biblical answer would say that the church is due for an even greater punishment than those who do not know God.

I have spent the better part of my life attending church. For a few years, I even worked for a Southern Baptist megachurch. Regardless of denomination, the church concerns itself with lesser things. It’s all about attendance. It’s all about a show. It’s all about convincing the audience to overlook the crimes of the church and support its cause (especially financially!). The church is a business. It is not what the early Christians created, a haven of hope and justice.

It is characterized by rampant injustice. And maybe I’m just crazy, but I believe God will not save the church from what it deserves. I believe the God of the Bible, the God of Amos, the God of the church, will ensure that even the most prominent pastors flee naked on that day of judgment.

1. Paul, Shalom M. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, edited by Frank Moore Cross Fortress Press, 2016, 87

2. Hadjiev, Tchavdar S.. Joel and Amos : An Introduction and Commentary, InterVarsity Press, 2020, 114.

3. Ibid

See the following quote from Scott David Allen in his comical book Why Social Justice is not Biblical Justice:

“Justice is one of the most important words in the Bible. It is one of the most important concepts in any culture. If the Bible-believing church abandons genuine justice in favor of a destructive cultural counterfeit, who will be left to uphold and defend the truth? The stakes are very high.”¹

Genuine justice? Are you serious? Biblical justice is genuine, so a non-Christian’s concept of justice is fake? Can Allen not understand that just because someone does not attend a church does not mean they have no sense of right from wrong (imago dei, anyone?)? What he is saying is that secular cultures have no concept of “genuine” justice. So racism is only wrong if my belief that it is comes directly from the Bible?

Evangelicals clearly see the social justice movement as a threat to the church. People of different faiths, walks of life, experiences, etc., are uniting to battle the oppression so blatantly obvious in the modern world. And that is a problem? Instead of trying to find common ground, the church has to be different. ‘Instead of uniting, let’s shove dogma down everyone’s throats!’ ‘Our view is better because it comes from the God of our understanding’ (by the way, the same God who proactively kills and destroys entire nations)!

Are there radicals who advocate for social justice? Of course. Just like there are radical Christian terrorists. Radicalism exists on both ends of the spectrum. But the church chooses to view any concept of justice that is not grounded in the Bible as destructive. They have decided that social justice and “biblical justice” share no common ground: they are like night and day. This ties in closely with the point I raised in my previous post. The church is set apart and chosen; thus, they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

What do we find in this “biblical justice” Christians embrace (because it is so much different from social justice)? Let’s see what Amos has to say.

In his condemnation of Israel, Yahweh indicts the nation of the following crime:

“grinding the heads of the poor in the dust
And pushing the lowly out of the way” (Amos 2:7a-b)

The concern here is oppression of the marginalized. Consider what Shalom M. Paul says of this verse in his commentary, “They step upon the heads of the poor as though they were stepping upon the ground beneath them, that is, they treat the underprivileged with contempt and abuse.”² If you are living in the United States, does this sound familiar? The underprivileged of society, Christian or not Christian, are trampled upon. And instead of joining the voices calling for change, evangelicals advocate for their form of “justice,” as if it is the only true form.

The “liberals” and “progressives” see that Black people are marginalized in American society, and declare Black lives matter. What is the “biblical” alternative? All lives matter! Why support a cause aimed at helping the oppressed, when we can pervert the cause and make it inclusive of those who are not victims of deadly racism? All lives matter… well, DUH. Saying Black lives matter does not mean only Black lives matter.

Who did Jesus center his ministry around? The religious zealots? The Jerry Falwells, Joel O’Steens, or Scott David Allens of his day? Did he show the same compassion to the Pharisees and Sadducees that he did to the woman at well? Of course, he still loved the crooked religious nuts he interacted with. But he didn’t spend his time performing miracles for them. His mission was not to heal those who have everything figured out. He cared for the weak, the oppressed, those who suffer unjustly in their society. Jesus literally led a “destructive cultural counterfeit.”

Somehow, the modern church overlooks this. They see social justice in a purely political sense. Amos decried the wealthy leaders and government officials of his society who took advantage of the lower class and used them to turn a profit. In contemporary America, we see the wealthy and the powerful trampling on minorities. But what does evangelicalism proclaim? That instead of focusing our attention on the needs of the lowly (because that is progressive and thus dangerous), we need to equally focus on compassion towards the powerful figures inflicting all the suffering. Because God is the only one who should judge them.

So, in that sense, we should just sit by while the chaos ensues. We shouldn’t focus on fighting racism; we need to focus on growing church attendance. It’s no wonder the American church is in such a radical state of decline! Again, reiterating a theme from my last post, the church should be leading the fight against social injustice. But what are they doing? Politicizing it. “Social justice” is a thing of the secular left, so we should push “biblical” justice on everyone (I think “church justice” fits better; what they advocate is not biblical). Why love others like Jesus did, when we can be (politically) selective about how we resolve the madness in this world? Why be like Jesus when we can force dogma down everyone’s throats (like the Pharisees!!)?

Disclaimer

As with my previous post, I feel the need to put a disclaimer here. I hate politics. I do not see social justice as something purely political (it shouldn’t be, at all), but in this day and time it is. I do not align with or endorse either major political parties in the United States. The church wants so desperately for church and state to be united. There is a separation of powers for a reason, as I have alluded to in this post. My primary criticism is of how the church makes everything about politics in the United States.

1. Scott David Allen, Why Social Justice is not Biblical Justice: An Urgent Appeal to Fellow Christians in a Time of Social Crisis, 9. Credo House Publishers, 2020.

2. Paul, Shalom M. “Oracles against the Nations.” In Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, edited by Frank Moore Cross, 81. 1517 Media, 1991. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvb936pp.9.

While there is no problem with patriotism, American evangelicals take it to a much different extreme. Look at their fearless leader, lord, and savior, Donald Trump, for example. Evangelicals want to ‘make America great again.’ But was it ever “great,” to begin with? The rest of the world is familiar with American history, while America tries block out its most embarrassing acts. Evangelicals are at the forefront of this drive to rewrite history. But as Amos makes clear, there is nothing that can make his God look away from such destruction.

Amos’ Oracles Against the Nations make it clear that the enemies of God’s “chosen” will not go unpunished for their atrocious crimes. Imagine this setting in the modern world. Imagine a prophet, called by God, appearing to MAGAland to tell them of the forthcoming destruction of its enemies. Russia? China? Iran? God is going to set fire to them. Surely, these evangelicals would follow along with dreamy eyes.

But what about when the prophet suddenly changes course, and begins to lash out against America? What if the prophet speaks of American slave history, or the inhumane experiments conducted by the U.S. government in the twentieth century (ex. Project CHATTER, MKUltra)? The current social injustice, prevalent racism, sexism, and oppression? What, when the prophet declares that America faces a more sure destruction than its enemies? I don’t know about you, but I hear chants of denial in the distance.

Amos, from the southern kingdom of Judah, focuses his prophetic activity in the northern kingdom of Israel. The book starts out with the oracles against foreign nations. Then, suddenly in 2:6-16, the prophet condemns the nation of Israel itself in an oracle lengthier and more descriptive that the previous ones. And that will become the bulk of his message to this kingdom.

“Your hands are covered in blood, maybe even more so because I have set you apart, and you have rejected me and your own people,” is essentially Amos’ message from God.  Or, as James Luther Mays explains in his commentary on the book, “The certainty that Yahweh has already initiated the punishment of his foes and cannot be restrained is the foundation of Amos’ entire message.”¹

The first six nations have committed war crimes well deserving of divine intervention. Judah, the questionable oracle, is guilty of not keeping God’s instructions. But what is Israel to be charged with? Social injustice and the rejection of God’s commands. Their crimes are socio-economic and religious.²

And because they have the special chosen status that American evangelicals now proclaim, they are even more deserving of punishment than any of the aforementioned nations. They see this special status as something to be taken advantage of, something to boast about; not something to make them hold themselves more accountable. It was so for the Israelites in Amos’ days, and it is still true and relevant for the world we live in today.

Amos begins with Yahweh’s condemnation:

“For three sins of Israel,
    even for four, I will not relent.
They sell the innocent for silver,
    and the needy for a pair of sandals.” (Amos 2:6, NIV)

Once again, slavery is presented as an abomination to God. But, differing from the crimes of Philistia and Phoenicia, Israel is not selling prisoners of war into slavery, as was custom in the war culture of the ancient Near East. The key word here is “the innocent,” translated from the term saddiq. According to Mays, this term “designates the innocent party in a legal process, the man in the right whom the court should vindicate.”³ The “needy” in the last line of the verse represents those who have no money, power, or even aid from the courts.⁴

Now, think of the political landscape in the United States. Think of George Floyd. Think of the victims of school shootings. Simply open the news and look at the injustice dealt to the innocent, the victims of wrongdoings, those affected by natural disasters. Instead of the nation pulling together to address the problems, every act is politicized. A school shooting happens and one party advocates for gun reform, the other insists that guns are not the problem. The media is full of commentary, but no actions. Very infrequently even a call to action. And where is the church?

As former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, J.D. Greear, misunderstands:

“We love our country, but God has not called us to save America — he’s called us to build the church and spread the gospel and that is our primary mission.”⁵

From “Woke War: How Social Justice and CRT Became Heresy for Evangelicals”- see footnote for further reading on the topic!

We focus so heavily on the acts that occur, but give very little consideration to those dealt the injustice. Why do we listen to politicians and news outlets, and not the ones who have experienced the trauma firsthand? Why do we advocate for change, and then sit by and expect change to magically occur, as Greear does? We do not listen to the innocent. Instead, we publicize them and use them as political weapons. Where is the true change?

The point is that social injustice is a very real, very frightening thing. And it is prevalent. I cannot say that I know how it is dealt with around the globe, but I see how it is handled in the United States. Every day, it seems. Evangelicals, more often than not, are the ones advocating for the right to own guns. They downplay the social injustice in the country. As such, the blood is on their hands, too.

Christians should be at the forefront of the fight against social injustice. After all, they have the better moral compass! But no. You do not see evangelicals advocating for gun reform. You do not see evangelicals fighting racism and oppression. You see them urging us to “return to God.” That will surely stop the violence, right? All the oppression we see is just the result of a moral failure! The church will surely make it right. If everyone sits in the sanctuary listening to a pastor spew lies and presuppositions concerning the Bible, that will fix everything!

Meanwhile, the church sits by as all the madness ensues. Instead of striving to make a difference, they want to grow congregations. They want church attendance to go up. Pastors preach on how we can live with the madness, instead of how we can advocate for change. What do we learn from Amos’ Israel? That they, too, sat by idly while oppression raged. They fed into the mayhem, as modern evangelicals do. And they faced God’s judgment. So, too, will the evangelical church of America.

A Note on the Political Nature of this Post

I hate politics. I absolutely despise American politics. My thinking does not align with either of the major political parties in the United States (since, you know, they are the only options). I trash Trump because he is a trashy human. I attack the Christian right because it does nothing when it should. As I mentioned in the post, everything in the States is politicized. I am not attempting to politicize the Bible. Social injustice should not be a political dilemma, but it is here and that is a problem. That is why this post is heavily critical of American politics and the church’s role in such a matter.

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, 24

2. Ferry Y. Mamahit and Pieter M. Venter. “Oracle Against Israel’s Social Injustices: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 2:6−8.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 66, no. 1 (2010): 3, DOI: 10.4102/hts/v66i1.729.

3. James Luther Mays, 46

4. Ferry Y. Mamahit and Pieter M. Venter, 6

5. Bob Smietana, “Woke War: How Social Justice and CRT Became Heresy for Evangelicals,” Religion News, February 7, 2022, https://religionnews.com/2022/02/07/woke-war-why-social-justice-became-heresy-for-evangelicals-owen-strachan-crt-southern-baptists-trump/

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

While there are no ways to remove the pain and suffering caused by evil humans, there are steps we can take to minimize it. They are countless. Can you fight suffering by advocating for social reform? Donating to charities? Tithing? Of course you can, and I certainly hope that you engage in such activities (maybe not the latter…). But these outward expressions must develop from inward intentions, in order for such actions to make any difference in the world we live in. Minimizing suffering does not come from mere donations or advocacy alone; it starts within you.

Looking to Amos

How have we seen Amos address the problem of suffering thus far? Humans do wrong, so God punishes them. God causes suffering. Humans cause suffering. Humans act out of evil. God punishes evil with evil. It seems the circle has no end. We cannot end the evil nature of humankind. We cannot adjust God’s anger. You can pray that God will let up, but how often do we see this fulfilled? I will not answer that question here; my concern is not whether you pray, whether you are religious, or whether you are a good, moral person. My concern is, what are you doing to alleviate suffering?

To state the obvious, suffering is related to evil. Where does evil reside? And from where is it born? It comes straight from the heart. Whether humans are inherently good or evil, again, I will let you decide. Whether you agree with the idea of a “sinful nature,” it would be foolish to deny the existence of evil within all of us. While we need to accept this as a fact, we do not have to embrace it or let it define us.

God’s Lament

I would like to introduce one passage from Amos that stands out to me. In Yahweh’s lament and call for repentance in Amos 5, the angry, vengeance seeking God provides a few lines that are beneficial not only to this study, but to the betterment of our world. He says:

“Seek good, not evil,
    that you may live.
Then the Lord God Almighty will be with you,
    just as you say he is.

Hate evil, love good;
    maintain justice in the courts.
Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy
    on the remnant of Joseph.” Amos 5:14-15, New International Version, 2011.

Whether God upholds his end of the deal should not be our concern. These words compose a timeless and universal calling: hate evil, love good. The evil nature that resides within you? Hate it. The pain and suffering felt by the innocent in this world? Hate it. Don’t just say it upsets you. Don’t just say it’s a problem. Hate it. Fight it. Do not sit by idly while all the chaos in this world ensues. Do something!

Start with you. Do not let your evil or “fallen” nature get the best of you or control you. We have all committed acts of evil, whether they are sins, crimes, transgressions, or rebellions. To minimize the suffering in the world, we have to restrict such actions. I do not mean to imply that you should let your anger boil up inside, because eventually, it will overflow, and you will “thresh” someone or something. My point is, do not let the evil in you control you.

Call to Action

I mentioned in the previous post that, according to Amos, God fights fire with fire. Are we to do the same? Absolutely not. I call on you, instead, to fight fire with water. Fight evil with good. Fight hatred with love. It all starts from within. Are you mad at someone? Do not berate them. Love them. Plead your case and explain why you are angry. But do so without hurting the other person. Have they caused you to suffer? Maybe so. Are you justified in making them suffer? No. Can you resolve the situation without hurting the other person? More likely than not!

Donating to UnitedWay is not going to change the world. Giving money to your church is not going to end suffering. Sitting in services on Sundays certainly is not going to make a difference. But the way you treat the people who surround you will make a difference. Small acts of kindness go a long way. Do not be afraid to show love and humility. If you see someone who is suffering, put your arm around them. Tell them that you love them. Tell them that they are not alone. Accept that everyone you encounter is probably suffering to some degree. And you could be the one to change that.

In closing, I would like to reflect on the Golden Rule. You are familiar with it: it is the command to treat others as you would like to be treated. While you probably attribute this saying to Jesus (or Lev. 19:18 if you know your Hebrew Bible!), it actually originated centuries before he walked the earth. It existed before Leviticus was composed. The earliest literary form is derived from the ancient Egyptian story “The Eloquent Peasant” (dates between 2040 and 1650 BCE) where we find, “Do to the doer to make him do.”¹ I will not give an exhaustive, or even concise historical treatment the evolution of the Golden Rule, but I want to highlight another facet of this command: it is a universal rule.

Conclusion

We find it in the works of Zarathustra in Persia, Confucius in China, Thales in Greece, and, of course, in the Bible.² The truth of this rule is timeless, and it knows no cultural, ethical, or religious boundaries. There is enough hatred and divisiveness in this world. Do not be a contributor. A simple word of pride or selfishness hatred makes you one who inflicts suffering upon others. There is an alternative. It is love. Show it in every word and every action. Hate evil; love good.

I would like to close with a reflection on the words of the most important person in the Bible. That person is Yeshua. Is he the Son of God? I don’t know. Is he a deity? I don’t know. Is he the second figure of this divine triangle known as the trinity? Maybe, but again, I do not know. However, I consider him to be the wisest and most influential to ever walk the earth. I believe he is a historical figure. I believe that whether you are religious or not, Christian or not, you can find practical application of his messages. Imagine if we focused more on his teachings than those of Paul, Peter, James, etc. Instead of hearing Paul condemn homosexuals and women who want to follow Jesus (whether these are redactions, as I believe, or not), imagine if we focused on Jesus’ call to show love endlessly.  

1. Swidler, Leonard. “The ‘Golden Rule’: The ‘Best Rule.’” Journal of ecumenical studies. 54, no. 2 (2019): 279, https://doi.org/10.1353/ecu.2019.0008.

2. Ibid., 280.

We all know the Good Shepherd. The Creator of the world and humanity. The loving father who sent his son to die to atone for our sins. The God who “knows” the plans he has made for each individual, plans of hope and prosperity (Jer. 29:11, possibly the most misunderstood verse of the Bible!). Christians gather in sanctuaries and sing feel-good songs about how wonderful, loving and merciful God is. While this may not be problematic to most people, it is to me. My reason for this is that it picks-and-chooses which pieces of the Bible to dwell on. It doesn’t account for the entire message of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments.

Amos’ Yahweh is profoundly different from the God of contemporary Christianity. As I touched on in my last post, maybe he is a God of infinite love. I personally do not hold this as truth. But my mission is not to convince you he is a monster. My mission is to encourage you to look at the whole of the Bible. Do these creeds and hymns you recite reflect the Scripture? When you think of God, do you think of the character of Jeremiah 29:11?

If so, great. You do you. But I encourage you not to remain ignorant about the God you believe in and his character, as it is displayed in his word. There is a wealth of information about him that is not confined to the letters of Paul, the messages of the Gospels, the select feel-good Psalms and Proverbs. Do not cut the Bible down to fit your narrative, as the church has done and continues to do. If you hold that this is the divine, inspired word of God, then examine it. Study it critically. Ask hard questions. Dedicate research. The goal of Living by the Logos is to provide you with tools and resources to accomplish this efficiently.

Amos’ God is a god of violence and anger. Does this contradict what you believe about God? Not necessarily. A loving, well-meaning person can get angry and hurt others. And if you are looking at the whole picture of the Bible, so can God. I urge you to not accept the easy answers given by the church of Christianity. The answers you seek can be found in this collection of writings, but you have to look deeply.

While doing some further research on the oracles of Amos, I came across an article that makes a great point in the introduction. An evangelical scholar, Randall Price from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, stresses what I have thus argued concerning Amos and the way we view the Bible. He states, “…the way we approach the Bible is shaped by presuppositions and biases that influence our reading of the text before we open the book itself.”¹ I can attest to this on a personal level.

When I began my bachelors, I was a devout evangelical Christian. I was an active church member, I prayed regularly, I listened to ONLY Christian music, and strived to live a Christian lifestyle. A tragic event happened about this time, and this is what led me to studying the Bible. It led me to question the God of my (or the church’s?) understanding. Before becoming familiar with it, I was asking the question of the problem of suffering. I wanted answers, but those offered by the church simply did not resonate.

That being said, I pursued answers while clinging to my presuppositional beliefs about God and his Word. I wanted the simple answers given by the church to be correct. I wanted to validate my evangelical theology. But this did not happen. It led me to become frustrated with the church. Eventually, it led me away from the evangelical faith I once held so dearly. And I remain convinced that this evangelical faith is at odds with the Bible.

I saw a post on social media several years ago that used trail mix as an example of how we view the Bible. I love trail mix. I love getting a handful that contains more M&Ms than raisins. I think because of Christianity, this is how we view the Bible. We want the sweet pieces, the promises of a loving God who is on our side. But then there are the raisins, such as Amos. The dried, shriveled up pieces showing us a God we do not want to believe in. A God who threshes nations. A God who sets entire cities and nations ablaze. A God who kills young men with a sword. We don’t want these parts, but we have to take them in as well. You can pick out the M&Ms, but then what is the point of the trail mix? We are not looking at, or digesting, the full picture.

We cannot remove our presuppositions. When I eat a handful of trail mix, I want the majority of the mixture to be chocolate. But if this is so important, why don’t I just buy a bag of M&Ms? What we can do, instead, is minimize such presuppositions. Yes, I may prefer the M&Ms but they are not the nutritious component of the mix. In order to get the energy from trail mix, I have to take in some raisins and peanuts. It may not be what I want, but it is what I need. You may want the good parts of the Bible, but you must be willing to consume the parts that go against the grain of your wants and desires.

Amos is a great example; it is not the only one, but it certainly is a noteworthy piece of the puzzle. Amos is the Prophet of Doom! Who wants to read of death, destruction, and judgment from God? We may not want to, but in order to understand this God of the Bible, we have to consider what Amos reveals about him. It doesn’t fit the Judeo-Christian worldview, and thus it is pushed aside. I want you to be aware of these things. I want you to see everything the Bible says, not just the parts forced down your throat. And not just the parts you want.

So I have chosen to write about Amos. I have chosen to pour into research on this book and what it has to say. Because as a Christian, I never heard what Amos revealed about God. Whether you are Christian or not, I want you to understand what Amos reveals. I want to point you to expert resources, people who truly examine the text for what it is. Not to give you a cheery Sunday morning message. Not to validate what your church leaders tell you. This is not why the Bible was written. It was written to live by, not with.

1. Price, Randall. “Amos: Theological and Ethical Dimensions.” Expository Times 134, no. 3 (2022): 115-122. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/00145246221132265, 115.

The point of this example is to raise yet another question for you: how do you define sin? Or better yet, how does the Bible define sin? A foundational resource in the field of systematic theology, Louis Berkhof’s fourth edition of Systematic Theology provides a few details for viewing sin as it occurs in the Bible: “Sin is a specific kind of evil… not all evil is sin… Sin is a moral evil.”¹ So what does this have to do with Amos? It depends on the translation you are reading.

Amos begins with a literary device common to the prophets: the Oracles Against the Nations. These oracles indicate that a nation is faltering and is soon to be subjugated to the pyre of God’s wrath. God reveals to the prophet that because these nations are guilty of wrongdoing, they will be decimated. Let’s take the translation I normally use as a prime example. The New International Version translates Amos 1:3 as,

“This is what the Lord says:

‘For three sins of Damascus,

Even for four, I will not relent.”

Now, consider the rendering of the same verse in the Complete Jewish Bible:

“Here is what Adonai says:

‘For Dammesek’s three crimes,
no, four — I will not reverse it —’”

Notice the difference? What separates crime and sin? It is easy to push this to the side and say “So what? They did a bad thing.” Of course they did. But there is something deeper at stake here. These nations have not violated God’s law; they were not under it! These nations do not suffer because they have rejected God, but because of how they treat each other. As one scholar notes, “…even those nations who have not had the opportunity to ‘know God’ firsthand are judged.”² Is this what happens to those who make it through life without hearing the Good News?

These nations have not sinned, at least in the sense that you and I understand sin. They have not intentionally acted against God, his will, or even his people as many scholars argue. A leading expert on the book of Amos, John Barton, argues that these nations are guilty of violating self-evident “moral norms.”³ He continues that these war customs are not God given, but the product of humans.⁴ While this is certainly problematic, we need to consider parallels. Especially those found within the traditional biblical canon.

I am in no way arguing that these foreign nations are blameless. These crimes are certainly abhorrent, and I believe they deserve punishment of some form. Yet, we must consider that these “crimes” are viewed differently elsewhere in the Bible. Additionally, the crimes were committed in a different time, place, and culture. While Gaza and Tyre’s offenses of selling civilians to Edom is absolutely inhumane, Edom’s crime of neglecting an oath of kinship would have been decried by Amos’ contemporaries to a much greater extreme. Kings may have been glorified for violence and bloodshed, but never for breaking treaties, especially those bound by blood, in the ancient world.

Let’s quickly examine the first oracle. The nation of Aram (represented by the city Damascus) is judged because it “threshed Gil‘ad with an iron-spiked threshing-sledge.” Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, however, the act of threshing is viewed as neutral or even positive. What is threshing? It is a method of separating the edible grain from a plant, such as wheat. This action is performed with a threshing sledge, a wooden board with stones or iron blades attached to the bottom.⁵ Using this as an illustration of violence is rather unnerving, is it not?

In Judges 8:7, Gideon threatens the officials of Sukkoth for not giving his men bread. He urges, “I will thresh your flesh on the thorns of the wilderness and on briers.” And he is not condemned by God. Consider also what Yahweh promises Israel in Isaiah:

“I will make you into a threshing-sledge,
new, with sharp, pointed teeth,
to thresh the mountains and crush them to dust,
to reduce the hills to chaff.” Isaiah 41:15

Finally, consider the following line of Habakkuk’s prayer: “In fury you trod the earth, in anger you threshed nations” (Hab. 3:12). The individual is addressing God! Are we not made in his image and/or likeness? Is he not our source of morality?

I want to return to the beginning of the discussion here. How do you define sin? Let’s consider a conservative definition: “Sin may then be defined ultimately as anything in the creature which does not express, or which is contrary to, the holy character of the Creator.”⁶ Is “threshing” another nation a crime in this sense? Not only has God advocated for his chosen to partake in this act in another area of the Bible, he himself is guilty of it.

Personal reflection

If we are made in the image of God, as the Judeo-Christian worldview stresses, then we need to consider the full picture of who God is. Is he abounding in infinite love and mercy as your Bible study group tells you? Maybe so. Is he a God of anger? Well, that’s obvious. But what the prophets tell us is that God acts out of this anger. He acts by inflicting nations with suffering whether he is the direct recipient of their offenses or not. Whether they know him or his laws or not. Here, I must stress how the prophets view the problem of suffering: suffering comes from God. Do the entire nations deserve to suffer because of the crimes committed by their military or leaders? In closing, I have included a plea from the father of Israel concerning the imminent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. You are familiar with the story.

“Then Abraham approached him and said: ‘Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?’” Genesis 18:23-25.

What of the nations in Amos? And what of God’s morality?

1 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941), 4^th edition, 231.

2 Rav Yitzchak Etshalom, “Before the Earthquake: Prophecies of Hoshea and Amos,” Eshivat Har Etzion Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash (VBM) https://www.hatanakh.com/sites/herzog/files/herzog/03-78AH%20final.pdf, 6.

3 Barton, John. The Theology of the Book of Amos (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 59.

4 Ibid.

5 Jeremy M. Hutton, “Amos 1:3–2:8 and the International Economy of Iron Age II Israel.” The Harvard Theological Review 107, no. 1 (2014): 81-113, Gale In Context.

6 Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Sin,  edited by Merrill C Tenney and Steven Barabas.1967 (printed 1982?) Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Home, 796.

Amos: A quick summary. A shepherd from Judah (the Southern Kingdom) shares a vision he receives from God regarding the imminent destruction of Israel and its surrounding areas. The book, likely composed by disciples of Amos, recounts Amos’ oral delivery of his vision. Although there is a sense of tranquility in the divided kingdom, Amos predicts this will be short-lived due to the sins of the Israelites and their departure from God. God’s response? Destroy.

Let’s take a moment to consider the historical setting of this prophetic writing. Here, I am not concerned with dating the actual writing of the book, but when Amos received the vision as according to the introductory verse. The vision of Amos is set during the reigns of Uzziah (767-740 BC) in Judah and Jeroboam II (782-853 BC) in Israel between 767-753 BC (Amos 1:1). This time was “relatively calm,” for the divided kingdom era at least.¹ We are also told that this vision occurred to Amos “two years before the earthquake” (1:1, New International Version, Zondervan, 2011). Scholar James Luther Mays, in his 1969 commentary on Amos, notes that excavations at the site of Hazor reveal a major earthquake occurred during this timeframe, though contemporary scholars debate when, exactly, the quake happened.²

Additionally, we are given a few details about the prophet Amos: he is a shepherd from the city of Tekoa. One need not devote much research, just a simple reading of the book, to understand the writer(s) of Amos possessed great intellect. We would not expect this writing to be the product of a simple shepherd. On that note, we must bear in mind that the early prophets were not writers; they were orators, whose messages were penned later by another hand.³ The writers of the Bible worked under different circumstances than modern writers, or even writers of the past millennia. They did not have the internet; they did not have popular magazines or articles, or even easily accessible books! We cannot think that Amos woke up from a dream and decided to jot down everything that happened. The record that we have was likely composed long after Amos had and shared his vision. Keep in mind that a community accepted the words and visions of these prophets; otherwise, why would they be in the Bible? Someone had to give their approval! (For this reason, scholars identify the communities of specific biblical authors. For example, we hold that the Johannine community produced the Gospel of John that appears in our Bibles today. We have zero authentic, original copies!)

The book of Amos serves as a warning for the divided kingdom, that the seemingly placid times will soon come to an end. Why? In a nutshell, because God is angry. Space does not permit a full discussion on whether God’s wrath is justifiable; what I am concerned with here is the depiction of Yahweh in this prophetic book. Bart D. Ehrman, a profound biblical scholar who became an agnostic while studying the biblical responses to the problem of suffering, identifies a particular passage that speaks to God’s anger in the Old Testament.⁴ The “Angry God” in the Old Testament is often swept under the rug by the church. Ehrman is not the first person to question his character; we are often told, “Oh! But you have to examine God’s attitude in light of the New Covenant. He was mad, but eventually he would send his son to die and save the world.” Or, as I have often seen, “How dare you question the character of God, you blasphemous peon!” Amos, however, does not hold back from displaying the true moral character of Yahweh. Read the following passage and decide what you think:

“I sent plagues among you

    as I did to Egypt.

I killed your young men with the sword,

    along with your captured horses.

I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camps,

    yet you have not returned to me,”

declares the Lord.” (Amos 4:10, New International Version)

Wow! Is this a loving god? You have sinned, so therefore I sent plagues and murdered your young men! Is this the God of forgiveness? When Donald Trump was president of the United States (a dark time for America and the rest of the world), children of immigrants crossing the border illegally were separated from their parents and thrown into detention camps. I may have been a simple grocery store clerk at the time, and he may have been a world leader, but that does not mean I did not question his actions or morality. Like his followers, you could argue that because he had authority, we dare not question his actions. But I and countless others have. Why? Because it is immoral! All humans have a moral compass, if you will. I do not believe this is evidence of a perfect creator, but the simple fact that we have knowledge and discernment of right from wrong. Whether this gift is God-given or not, we reserve the right, as intelligible beings, to question his intentions.

An omnibenevolent deity starving people, plaguing others, and murdering the weak? I don’t know about you, but I see a contradiction here. And it’s hard to make sense of this when the biggest religion in the world tells us such a being has the right to violate the commands He has given us because he is God. Trump separating children from their parents simply because he is president does not excuse his actions. Likewise, God (remember! “The all-loving God” you hear of in the sanctuary) killing because he is God should not excuse his actions. Maybe, in some inexplicable way, it does, but does that mean we cannot question it? It is in His Word! Through revelation, he has made his character known; are we wrong to question it? If so, what is the basis for this feat?

Amos and the other prophets make it clear as daylight: the source of suffering is God. Why? Because the nation has sinned. Because the nation has sinned, young men were killed. Was it their fault that Israel turned away from God? How many of these young men deserved the sword? Weren’t there at least a few who saw, or even experienced, the injustice dealt by the nation? We are not told; but these are questions worth asking. To what extremes does a nation have to sin so that the innocent are afflicted by God? Because a child’s parents violated international law, they have to suffer? Surely, there are other ways for justice to “well up like water” (Complete Jewish Bible, Hendrickson Publishers, 2016). But according to the Bible, the righteous must suffer for God’s will to come into fruition.

Amos is a short book, containing only nine chapters, but there is a wealth of information to unpack within it. This is the first entry in what I am calling “The Amos Project.” As I study this book, the problem of suffering guides my methods. We are looking particularly at Biblical Truth #2 in this project: God is omnibenevolent. Is he? Is this consistent with the biblical record, specifically the words of Amos of Tekoa? I hope that this introduction has sparked some kind of interest in the prophetic depiction of God. It is my hope that, like me, you have questions for the Bible. What are we to make of an omnibenevolent yet murderous God? Please join me as we dig deeper into the text in hopes of resolving these necessary questions.  

I feel it is necessary to include a note here on my intentions with this project, as well as the mission of Living by the Logos. I am not out to disprove God. I am not trying to make you hate God. These discussions are not intended to lead you away from the faith you may possess, but to encourage you to think deeply about the convictions you hold. Are you looking at the full picture of the Bible, or just accepting what the church tells you it says? The church has no authority to tell you what to believe, and neither do I. I plead with you to ask questions, especially those that the church fails to or does not answer, and examine the text with those questions in mind. The God of Amos and the prophets is the God of the Bible and you should be aware of who he is. For the record, I completely believe in God’s existence! One cannot convince me otherwise. But I do not hold to the traditional beliefs of the church or Christianity. Why? Because things like the God of Amos are over- or under- looked. And certain problems, especially the problem of suffering, deserve our keen attention. And the church fails to respond to this problem. The purpose of Living by the Logos is not about winning an argument or providing logical, intellectual answers. It’s about examining the text we are told is “inerrant” and “perfect,” and seeking a practical solution from it rather than a logical answer.

1. Chisholm, Robert B. Handbook on the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 377.

2. Mays, James Luther. 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), 20.

3. Thomas L. Lecerc, Introduction to the Prophets: Their Stories, Sayings, and Scrolls; Second Edition, Paulist Press, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, 33.

4. See Bart D. Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer, (New York: Harper Collins, 2009).