Amos 1:3

The expression "for three transgressions [Heb. pesha’im, rebellions, i.e., against the universal Sovereign; cf. Genesis 9:5-17] and for four" is one of Amos’ trademark phrases (cf. Amos 1:6; Amos 1:9; Amos 1:11; Amos 1:13; Amos 2:1; Amos 2:4; Amos 2:6). It means for numerous transgressions (cf. Job 5:19; Job 33:29; Psalms 62:11-12; Proverbs 6:16; Proverbs 30:15-16; Proverbs 30:18-19; Proverbs 30:21-23; Proverbs 30:29-31; Ecclesiastes 11:2; Micah 5:5-6). "Three transgressions" represents fullness and the fourth overflow. Amos cited just the last transgression, the one that "broke the camel’s back" and made judgment inevitable, or possibly the representative one, for Israel’s enemies. [Note: J. Mays, Amos: A Commentary, pp. 23-24.] The phrase may also be a poetic way of describing seven transgressions, symbolizing completeness. [Note: Meir Weiss, "The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1-2, A Re-examination," Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967):418.] Limberg observed that the number seven plays a significant role in the structure of the whole book and in the makeup of certain of the sayings. [Note: J. Limburg, "Sevenfold Structures in the Book of Amos," Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987):217.] This may have been a way Amos certified that the whole book and each section in it was the word of the Lord. [Note: Ibid., pp 222-23.] In the oracle against Israel, Amos cited seven sins (one in Amos 2:6, two in Amos 2:7, two in Amos 2:8, and two in Amos 2:12). Israel’s panic would also be sevenfold (Amos 2:14-16).

"Based on structural parallels with proverbial statements that use the ’three, even four’ numerical pattern (see Proverbs 30:15-16; Proverbs 30:18-19; Proverbs 30:21-23; Proverbs 30:29-31), one expects to find a list of four specific sins in each oracle. But this never happens in the first seven oracles. After specifying one or two sins, the prophet breaks off the list, announces judgment, and then moves on to the next nation as if the real target of God’s anger lies somewhere else. This stylistic device does not become a bad omen for Israel until the list of Judah’s sins is left truncated, suggesting that another nation, which proves to be Israel, will follow." [Note: Chisholm, p. 379.]

Damascus was the capital city of Aram (Syria), and it stands for the whole nation by metonymy. Similarly the capitals Jerusalem and Samaria often represent their respective nations, Judah and Israel, by metonymy, in biblical literature. Yahweh promised that He would not turn back the punishment due Aram because the Arameans had proved to be a scourge to the people of Israel. Threshing Gilead, a transjordanian part of Israel, with sharp iron implements pictures the plowing up of that part of the nation militarily (cf. Isaiah 41:15; Micah 4:13; Habakkuk 3:12). [Note: See D. A. Hubbard, Joel and Amos, p. 131.] Israelite citizens and territory had suffered greatly during constant battles with the Arameans, especially in Transjordan (cf. 2 Kings 8:7-12; 2 Kings 10:32-33; 2 Kings 13:3-7). The Aramean rulers Hazael and his son Ben-hadad III had repeatedly invaded and conquered Israel between 842 and 802 B.C.