The meaning of this sentence was always uncertain to me. I do have an opinion that explains the underlying idea better, but i’m not sure if this is what the text really means. So i thought to ask your opinion here. First, i will cite the text, then make my argument.
I’m not a textual critic or even remotely educated in this field, so my apologies if i’m asking something everyone knows about, and also for my use of terminology that may not be the norm in this field.
This phrase structure occurs 8 times in Amos (chapters 1 and 2). Here is the first in different translations. {} indicate supplied words.
KJV
1:3 Thus saith the Lord; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away {the punishment} thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron: 4 But I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad.
NASB
3 This is what the Lord says:
“For three offenses of Damascus, and for four,
I will not [b]revoke its {punishment},
Because they threshed Gilead with iron sledges.
4 So I will send fire upon the house of Hazael,
And it will consume the citadels of Ben-hadad.
FOOTNOTE
Lit cause it to turn back, and so throughout the ch
NET
3 This is what the Lord says:
“Because Damascus has committed three crimes—
make that four!—I will not revoke my
decree of judgment.
NRSVUE
3 Thus says the Lord:
For three transgressions of Damascus,
and for four, I will not revoke the punishment,[b]
because they have threshed Gilead
with threshing sledges of iron.
FOOTNOTE
Heb cause it to return
NIV
3 This is what the Lord says:
“For three sins of Damascus,
even for four, I will not relent.
Because she threshed Gilead
with sledges having iron teeth, …”
We can summarize it like:
For three transgressions of , and for four, I will not turn away; because they did something really bad. And for this really bad thing they did, there will be punishment.
For three bad things these people did, even for four, God will not turn away. Turn away what? Every translation seems to think the punishment. But that doesn’t make sense with what follows.
To me, ‘for three and for four’ signifies a small number of mistakes. For that, God will not turn away … something. But because people did this other horrible thing, God will punish this time. If it was only 3 or 4 sins, God would not punish. But for this other serious sin, He will.
I will turn to the Septuagint, since i read some Greek:
3 Καὶ εἶπε Κύριος· ἐπὶ ταῖς τρισὶν ἀσεβείαις Δαμασκοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς τέσσαρσιν οὐκ ἀποστραφήσομαι αὐτόν, ἀνθ᾿ ὧν ἔπριζον πρίοσι σιδηροῖς τὰς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσας τῶν ἐν Γαλαάδ·
My word-for-word translation:
And said {the} Lord: on the three impieties of Damascus and on the four i will not turn myself away from him, because they sawed with iron saws those having in the belly from the {people} of Galaad. (apparently they sawed open the pregnant women of the land of Galaad)
The verb ἀποστραφήσομαι is future passive voice. God here talks about himself turning away. The words ἀνθ᾿ ὧν are in the later similar verses replaced by ἕνεκεν, which means the same, ‘due to’ or ‘because’ or ‘because of’.
Here’s an example that the same verb is used (in active voice this time) to signify turning God’s face away, i.e., turn away one’s favor from someone, not hear someone’s plea for help, forget someone:
Psalm 101:3 (LXX) μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ· ἐν ᾗ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ θλίβωμαι, κλῖνον πρός με τὸ οὖς σου· ἐν ᾗ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπικαλέσωμαί σε, ταχὺ ἐπάκουσόν μου …
My poor man’s word-for-word translation:
Do not turn away your face from me. In a day that i would be sad, lean to me your ear. In a day i’d call you, listen to me quickly.
I propose the following interpretation of this verse:
For three transgressions of , and for four, I will not turn myself away from them; {but} because , i will .
For example:
3 This is what the Lord says: For three transgressions of Damascus and for four, i will not turn myself away from them. But because they threshed Gilead with iron sledges, 4 I will send fire upon the house of Hazael, and it will consume the citadels of Ben-hadad. 5 I will also break the gate bar of Damascus …
“i will not turn away from them” could be translated more liberally as ‘they wouldn’t fall out of favor with me’ or ‘i wouldn’t turn my face away from them’ or ‘i would not abandon them’.
I think this way makes a bit more sense. God is slow to anger. It’s not like He is itching to punish people. He tolerates 3 or 4 transgressions, but when things get really hairy He delivers justice by punishment.
Let me know if my proposal makes more sense to you than the traditional translations into English.
God will not turn away. Turn away what? Every translation seems to think the punishment. But that doesn’t make sense with what follows
Could you explain why specifically these translations (taking the thing that God says he won’t turn back to be the punishment he is about to describe) don’t make sense given what follows?
And how is that problem related to the expression, “for three and for four”?
Hi Porphyry,
thanks for your answer. It doesn’t make good sense to me, because God says He will not turn away his punishment for 3 or 4 sins, but then he punishes for another, greater sin. Maybe it’s just my mistaken way of looking at it.
In my proposed version (which is based on the LXX who may have misunderstood it too, but in a different way), God says he wouldn’t punish for just a few sins, but he will punish for the big sin that follows.
A couple of notes from Amos: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text by Duane A. Garrett.
The significance of the formula “for three . . . for four” in Amos is debated. In Proverbs, the N . . . N+1 formula generally indicates that the latter number is the specific number of examples that the teacher will enumerate. For example, Proverbs 6:16 says, “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him,” and verses 17-19 go on to list seven sins. This is not the case in Amos, where for Damascus he cites only one specific sin. The “for three . . . for four” therefore could simply mean, “for several.” It is noteworthy, however, that 3 + 4 = 7, and this is an important number for Amos. The oracles against the nations specify 6 Gentile states plus Judah, the covenant people, for seven oracles of judgment (the fact that Israel is the eighth nation is significant, as discussed below). As is well known, the number seven generally signifies completion. Thus, the point of “for three . . . for four” is probably that Damascus has reached the maximum allowed number of transgressions. That is, the cup of their iniquities is full. Amos therefore asserts that the number of Damascus’ sins has reached the critical point, demanding divine judgment, but he only specifies one particular sin.
As to the issue of what is being turned: in Hebrew the verb has a 3rd person singular pronominal suffix–so it can’t be read as a reflexive verb; there is a “he” or “it” that God says he won’t turn.
Thank you for your responses. Maybe i’m not making myself as clear as i would like. I’m not concerned with tensions of justice or the deeper meaning of the numbers 3 and 4. This is merely about the literary construction of this sentence that doesn’t seem to flow well. Let’s take the NASB translation:
NASB
3 This is what the Lord says:
“For three offenses of Damascus, and for four,
I will not [b]revoke its {punishment},
Because they threshed Gilead with iron sledges.
4 So I will send fire upon the house of Hazael,
And it will consume the citadels of Ben-hadad.
FOOTNOTE
Lit cause it to turn back, and so throughout the ch
First let’s take verse 3. Because the sentence has a lot of negatives that are confusing to me, from now on i will consider ‘I will not revoke its punishment’ to mean ‘I will punish it’. Just to make things easier in my head. So:
For three offenses of Damascus, and for four, I will punish it, because they threshed Gilead with iron sledges.
What does that even mean?! Now, if it said, ‘I will punish it, because they threshed Gilead with iron sledges’, that i can understand. God will punish because of the threshing. On the other hand, if it said ‘For three offenses of Damascus, and for four, I will punish it’, i can understand that too. God punishes Damascus for 3 or 4 transgressions. But when you say the whole thing together, to me at least, it doesn’t make sense (again, i may be wrong and fail to see the meaning behind the lines, but i just don’t see it).
My proposed translation, based on LXX, paraphrasing it to be easier, is:
For three offenses of Damascus, and for four, I will NOT punish it (or ‘i will not turn myself away from them’). But because they threshed Gilead with iron sledges, I will send fire upon the house of Hazael, and it will consume the citadels of Ben-hadad.
Now, that makes sense to me. God says, i’m not going to punish for two or three little things. I’m a good God, slow to anger and quick to forgive. But what these people did to thresh the Gileaites with iron sledges, that’s just too much! I will punish them for that by sending fire upon them.
I’m not sure if i explain myself clearly, or if paraphrasing it makes it muddier. Anyhow, this is purely a translational issue, not a theological or social statement. Thank you again for your input!
I will NOT punish it (or ‘i will not turn myself away from them’)
Like I mentioned above, that is not a tenable translation of the Hebrew, unless I have misunderstood the basic grammar of the passage–which is entirely possible, but not yet demonstrated.
I do see your point: it seems redundant. For x and for y I will punish because z. There are too many causes given for one action.
I’d just chalk that up to Hebrew idiom, not that I know much about Hebrew idiom (aside from the fact it is regularly strange to me as an English speaker) but just the fact that every translation I have found takes this passage to say substantially the same thing makes me think that concurrence it likely right–even if strange.
One of the chief techniques of Hebrew poetry was parallelism. This is when two lines of a Hebrew poem correspond closely with one another to provide contrast or emphasis or to expand on the point. The examples above seem to be variations on what’s called synthetic parallelism where two lines are synthesized and expanded. Another good example is Proverbs 6:16–19.
There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.
For a deeper dive, ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Hey Robert, thanks for the deep reply, that made me think a lot! lol
I don’t know how to quote what others say, if anyone knows please let me know. So i will copy paste what you said and add my two cents.
Robert:
tsiappoutas, it seems like you are assuming αὐτόν in 1,3 LXX is referring to “God’s face” (neuter accusative would be αὐτό not αὐτόν)
Me:
No, i’m not assuming that. αὐτὀν must refer to Damascus. So, ἀποστραφήσομαι αὐτόν means turn away myself from Damascus. Actually, αὐτὀν must be the accusative of the masculine αὐτὀς, not the neutral. ἀποστραφήσομαι is passive voice (as opposed to ἀποστρέψω, which is active voice). So, ἀποστραφήσομαι means will turn myself away from something (αὐτὀν in this case). ἀποστρέψω τὸ προσωπόν is active and means turn away the face. So ‘myself’ is inside ἀποστραφήσομαι.
Robert:
and therefore translating ἀποστρέφω reflexively
Me:
I’m not doing that, since ἀποστρέφω is active not reflexive (passive) verb. ἀποστρέφω needs a direct object outside the subject (like myself or something), like the face or punishment.
Robert:
Is God having mercy on Damascus in 1,4-5? Certainly not.
Me:
I agree. My concern is how we translate the sentence so it makes sense, and i was actually surprised that in LXX it made much more sense to me that all the English translations from the Hebrew (which i don’t read and i will avoid using since i will most probably make a lot of mistakes!).
Robert:
The translator of Amos never uses the verbal phrase ἀποστραφήσομαι τὸ πρόσωπόν μου. Why assume he is thinking of this phrase here?
Me:
Yes, i agree. That’s the thing though. Both Hebrew and Greek use a word that means ‘turn away’. The English translators all assume it’s the punishment that will be turn away. Some of them, the most honest, like NASB and KJV even say the word punishment is supplied! They assumed it.
To be clear, because i think it’s important for the translation: ἀποστραφήσομαι τὸ πρόσωπόν μου is not correct. It literally means i will turn myself away from my face! Because ἀποστραφήσομαι is passive voice (reflexive) it contains ‘myself’. The accusative with this verb is telling you whom you will be turning your face away from. So you can either say ἀποστρέφω το προσωπόν μου (i turn my face away, no ‘myself’), or αποστρέψω το προσωπόν μου (i will turn my face away, future tense).
So, this business of turning away the ‘punishment’ is assumed by all translators! It’s not in the Hebrew, it’s not in the Greek. But in the Greek we get a hint. The verb is passive/reflexive, which means that it is himself that God will turn away, not something else. Now, when you turn away from someone, isn’t it like turning your back to him? so when God says i will not turn myself away from them, i take it to mean, i will not abandon them.
For three and four sins, i wouldn’t abandon them. But for threshing people with iron sledges, i will punish them.
What i’m thinking is that this is one of the few instances that the Hebrew text was translated by the 3rd BCE Hebrew and Greek translators of the LXX accurately. Now, why all the English translations use this long winded sentence that makes no sense, i don’t know. Maybe the Hebrew Masoretic changed from what the LXX had in front of them? Maybe it is the same but the tenses and verb structure in Hebrew do not lend themselves to such an accurate transmission of the meaning, and the LXX understood it differently than today’s scholars? I don’t know.
The fact is, to me is much easier to hear the LXX:
For 3 transgressions of Damascus and for four i will not turn myself away from them. But because they threshed people with iron sledges i will send fire upon them.
Instead of:
For 3 transgressions of Damascus and for four i will punish them. Because they threshed people with iron sledges i will send fire upon them.
Again, punishment here is total conjecture, just made up, but turn myself away, is the passive/reflexive nature of the verb itself, so it’s not made up, it’s in the LXX.
By the way, i like what the Good News Translation (one of my favorite translations in English) puts it:
3 The Lord says, “The people of Damascus have sinned again and again, and for this I will certainly punish them. They treated the people of Gilead with savage cruelty. 4 So I will send fire upon the palace built by King Hazael and I will burn down the fortresses of King Benhadad.
They are still riding on the idea of punishment, but they paraphrased the heck out of it so it at least makes sense to the average reader like me!
Thanks again, i appreciate the good discussion, and happy new year!
Hi Porphyry,
thanks for the reply. My two cents below.
Porphyry
I will NOT punish it (or ‘i will not turn myself away from them’)
Like I mentioned above, that is not a tenable translation of the Hebrew, unless I have misunderstood the basic grammar of the passage–which is entirely possible, but not yet demonstrated.
Me:
I don’t read Hebrew so i don’t know, but i’ll trust you on that. The whole point of my new translation proposal based on the LXX is that the English translations from the MT didn’t satisfy me, at a basic linguistic level, not anything theological or higher meaning. I could just never understand this verse!
Porphyry:
I do see your point: it seems redundant. For x and for y I will punish because z. There are too many causes given for one action.
Me:
Oh, it’s very confusing, i don’t know how others understand it, but to me, it’s unsettling how convoluted it is!
Porphyry:
I’d just chalk that up to Hebrew idiom, not that I know much about Hebrew idiom (aside from the fact it is regularly strange to me as an English speaker) but just the fact that every translation I have found takes this passage to say substantially the same thing makes me think that concurrence it likely right–even if strange.
Me:
I think that many of us think like that. Especially when you read KJV, there are so many things that you kinda get, but you are not sure about, and you are in that limbo state that you think you know what they mean, so you just do a good faith attempt to kind of get most accepted meaning out of a weird phrase… you know?
But isn’t that the reason we got so many different modern translations, so we understand it better? How can this verse be so hard to get? Food for thought…
Porphyry,
the quote you gave from the book ‘A couple of notes from Amos: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text by Duane A. Garrett.’ did you find it online or is it a real book you typed down from?
I have only one Commentary hard book, Moody Commentary, but on this topic it was not extensive. Along the lines of what you cited though.
I think that many of us think like that. Especially when you read KJV, there are so many things that you kinda get, but you are not sure about, and you are in that limbo state that you think you know what they mean, so you just do a good faith attempt to kind of get most accepted meaning out of a weird phrase… you know?
Sure, but that’s the nature of the beast–Hebrew is very strange to us, and it is doubly strange if you are reading poetry.
I remember reading the Psalms in Latin, and thinking–“I know what all the words mean, but I’m not sure what it all means put together.” Then I read it in English and was relieved to realize that my Latin wasn’t bad; taken literally, it didn’t make much sense in translation either.
i like what the Good News Translation (one of my favorite translations in English) puts it:
3 The Lord says, “The people of Damascus have sinned again and again, and for this I will certainly punish them. They treated the people of Gilead with savage cruelty. 4 So I will send fire upon the palace built by King Hazael and I will burn down the fortresses of King Benhadad.
They are still riding on the idea of punishment, but they paraphrased the heck out of it so it at least makes sense to the average reader like me!
I think this is a pretty telling remark. It seems like your problem isn’t with what the original text says (the translation you prefer interprets the text the same as the others do), but with how translators have adapted that to contemporary English idiom (they paraphrase the heck out of it, removing all the Hebrew strangeness).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)