Amos Chapter 2: Sins ContinuedJan 21st, 2012 | By admin | Category: Amos, Verse by Verse --Studies led by Br. Frank Shallieu (Click on Book name)
Amos 2:1 Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime:
Amos 2:2 But I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the palaces of Kirioth: and Moab shall die with tumult, with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet:
Amos 2:3 And I will cut off the judge from the midst thereof, and will slay all the princes thereof with him, saith the LORD.
Ammon and Moab were both children born of Lot and his two daughters. Kirioth is somewhat near Petra.
Notice the continuing expression: “For three transgressions … and for four.” These words were used for each of the nations surrounding Israel who were due for judgment. We are not to try to find three or four actual transgressions for each. Rather, the point is that Moab and the other nations had a history of transgressions and would, therefore, be judged.
“He [Moab] burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime.” Edom was Esau’s kingdom, the land of Esau, not Israel. Amos was talking against Moab, an enemy of Israel, for having a history of transgressions. However, the straw that broke the camel’s back among the numerous transgressions was the burning of the bones of the king of Edom into lime. Here were two alien people, kinsmen, but not of the direct commonwealth of Israel, yet Amos was criticizing one alien people for mistreating the king of the other alien people. The judgment of the Lord was coming because of that transgression, so what is the lesson?
Verse 1 is a clue to the theme of much of the Book of Amos; that is, the prophet was against evil no matter where it was. Amos characteristically spoke without partiality about the violation of principle. The Jew, as well as kinsmen of the Jew (who were not part of Israel), all had an obligation to worship God. Conscience and nature would teach them that, if nothing else.
The burning of the bones of a prominent king of Edom, who evidently controlled Moab at one time, showed a deep-seated hatred. When opportunity arose to get even with the Edomites, the Moabites humiliated their king by not even giving him a decent burial. There is an interesting parallel in history.
Wycliffe’s bones were dug up from a grave more than a hundred years after his death.
Papacy’s hatred was so strong against Wycliffe for being the precursor of the Reformation that they dug up his bones, pulverized them, and scattered them over the river Avon, which went into the sea. But, as the poet said, the sea took the “bones” into all parts of the earth, dispersing Wycliffe’s doctrines to all. Therefore, instead of Papacy’s killing Wycliffe, there was a repercussion, and public sentiment favored him. Papacy followed a wrong principle. Even if Papacy had had the right religion, the action showed a wrong spirit.
And here in the Book of Amos, out of all the wicked things the Moabites did, the act that displeased the Lord the most was not allowing a decent burial for an enemy. This shows that the dead of the enemy should be respected where possible. Humanitarian decency is required.
Comment: It seems as if wherever in Scripture a dead body was defiled in any way, it was displeasing to the Lord.
Reply: That is because man was made in the image of God. An enemy should be allowed to bury his dead fellow citizens.
Q: Is this why some brethren feel a body should not be cremated? In Scripture, it seems preferable that the body be buried in the ground.
A: Even anciently, honor was given to the corpse. In Egypt, for example, the body was preserved through an elaborate process because the people believed that anything done to mutilate the body would adversely affect the future resurrection. In fact, they even made a “ka”—a replica, or image, of the body—so that if the body was dug up and desecrated later, the ka would be preserved and a body in the future life would be made after this replica.
Q: Is complete annihilation (Second Death) represented by burning?
A: In Scripture, fire is associated with Second Death. We personally would not want to be cremated. Among brethren, cost seems to be the main reason for cremation, but for figurative or symbolic reasons, burning by fire is not a happy thought because it is hard to detach the literal destruction of the body by fire from the spiritual portent. From that standpoint alone, the scales are tipped in favor of burial—in a cardboard box, if necessary. It is unfortunate that the funeral pyre (fire) is used in India.
Comment: For the consecrated who know what burning by fire symbolizes, it is advisable to avoid cremation.
Reply: We do not feel that those who are cremated go into Second Death, but there is an adverse emotional aspect to cremation. It is hard to detach oneself from the process.
Comment: Where reasonable and possible according to circumstances, burial seems to be preferable. Even with a closed coffin, there is a certain degree of comfort.
Q: Is there a reason why the Jew will not be embalmed?
A: There is a relationship. Jews want to preserve the body as much as possible. They are allowed to leave the blood in the body and have it buried that very day, before sundown, or within 24 hours. That way they are exempt from the law, which says that the corpse must be embalmed after the first day.
The judgment on Moab was precipitated by the incident of the bones of the Edomite king not being allowed a decent burial. Some things should be respected, such as the office of the President, which is often scandalized. The office should not be condemned because of the corrupt individual who is involved. (There is an exception, which will not be discussed now.)
Amos 2:4 Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Judah, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have despised the law of the LORD, and have not kept his commandments, and their lies caused them to err, after the which their fathers have walked:
Amos 2:5 But I will send a fire upon Judah, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem.
Judah, the southern kingdom, was limited to two tribes. Back there a “fire” was sent upon Judah in 606 BC, and the nations mentioned previously in chapters 1 and 2 had the same experience at the hands of the king of Babylon around 606 BC. Here the “fathers” are referred to in an unfavorable sense.
With regard to the future fulfillment, Psalm 83 shows that these same peoples will receive judgment. But how does Jerusalem fit in? “Fire … shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem.” In Jacob’s Trouble, the city will be taken; Jerusalem will be purged. Consider Jerusalem today.
Ben-Gurion, Rabin, and other leaders will have no part in the future Kingdom. The current government in Israel will be replaced by the Kingdom of Christ, which will be built upon the ashes of the old arrangement. Messiah will have his own laws, rules, and regulations. All those whose names are not written in the book for survival will go into the grave temporarily and hence will have no part in the Kingdom government (Isa. 4:3; Dan. 12:1). And the Holy Remnant will be completely subservient to the Ancient Worthies, who will be the human representatives of the spiritual government. It will be a complete change. From that standpoint, “fire” will come on Judah not only to purge out the ungodly element but also to change and replace the entire current government.
Amos 2:6 Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes;
Amos 2:7 That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name:
Amos 2:8 And they lay themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge by every altar, and they drink the wine of the condemned in the house of their god.
Amos had already spoken reprovingly of the habits and deeds of the various peoples who surrounded Israel: Syria, Gaza, Tyrus (Lebanon), Edom, Ammon, and Moab. Judah had also been reproved—and now the ten tribes. All would receive judgments.
Verse 6 gives the reason for Israel’s punishment: “they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes.” This wording reminds us of Amos 8:6, which discusses a Second Death class. Even after all the blessings of the Kingdom, some will still harbor these evil and oppressive tendencies. Therefore, it is quite possible for individuals to develop incorrigible habits in the present life that will prevent them from getting life in the Kingdom—that is, if these habits are indelibly ingrained into their characters. This trait in verse 6 shows a greed for money. Some people will sacrifice principle to get a monetary reward.
For verse 7, the NIV has, “They trample on the heads of the poor, as upon the dust of the ground, and deny justice to the oppressed.” Another translation says they “crush the heads of the poor ones in the dust of the earth.”
“And turn aside the way of the meek” means to override the meek. The proud, the froward, look upon meekness as weakness and ignore the opinions of such individuals. In many nations (for example, Egypt), the poor are regarded as second-class citizens. And the caste system in India sealed a person for life.
“A man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name.” This evil refers to false religious practices and the prostitution that accompanied them; that is, it pertains to behavior associated with religious worship. It was one thing to commit prostitution in private life, but it was another thing when prostitution was identified with the professed (even though false) religion of God.
“And they lay themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge by every altar.” To understand this part of verse 8, we need a little background information. Under the Law, if a worker gave his outer garment to his employer as a pledge, the employer was to return the garment to him at the end of the day—before the sun went down (Exod. 22:26). The purpose of the pledge was to assure the employer that the employee would not steal from him. Since the outer garment, the coat, was more valuable than what the worker could carry away in wheat, rye, etc., he would not steal. When the employee finished the work at the end of the day, the employer was to return the coat along with the day’s wages.
Now, here in Amos, what was the circumstance?
Comment: This practice seems to have been done in connection with temple prostitution. Instead of giving money for the prostitute’s services, whatever was left there (coat, blanket, etc.) became the property of the temple.
Comment: My Bible says the people would lie down on these garments by the heathen altar.
Reply: Yes, and the coat was not returned to the worshipper. Amos was saying that not only did the leaders tread upon the heads of the poor and override the opinions of the meek, but also they disobeyed the Law regarding laborers by depriving them of their pledge at sundown.
In the olden days, money was not used as much as the barter system. Goods and different types of clothing, including shoes, were often traded. The item was left there in exchange for physical intimacy, and it became the property of the temple after one defiled himself in the clothing, blankets, etc. And this was not a heathen place—it was ISRAEL! In the northern kingdom, this practice took place at Baal altars, such as those in Dan and Bethel. Hosea said these Baal altars were on high hills and usually near a large shade tree. The people lined up in columns and went to the altar under the tree to have relations. What a deplorable condition!
Originally the clothes were fraudulently obtained—a bad enough sin—and later the practice of temple prostitution with pledges developed.
In connection with heathen religious worship, the acts of adultery, fornication, and prostitution were not considered a sin or a violation of principle. Even today—for example, in Brahman worship in India—statuary shows fornication taking place in the temple. Prostitution was considered a part of religious worship because the remuneration to temple coffers for the pagan Roman god was substantial. The word “virgins” in “vestal virgins” is a mockery. Abnormal sexual relationships were connected with the religious temple.
Men reclined on the garments and had sexual relations. Then the garments were used as payment to the temple. The religious institution did not look unfavorably on this practice, nor did the individuals see the incongruity of supposedly worshipping the supreme Deity and then committing such abominable acts and giving the polluted garment as payment.
The altars at Dan and Bethel were multiplied so that every high hill in the northern kingdom had a pagan altar that more or less copied the practices of the two main altars. The great number of altars saved the inhabitants from having to travel the distance to Dan or Bethel.
What is the “wine of the condemned” in verse 8? “They drink the wine of the condemned in the house of their god.”
When Socrates was condemned to death, he drank a cup of poison hemlock as a wine. By lying on their clothes as a pledge and committing fornication near an altar that was purportedly the altar of the supreme deity Baal and ignoring Jehovah, the Israelites reached the point of no return in incurring judgment. Some of the most deadly poisons take a little time to act, and that is the sense in which the Israelites drank the wine of the condemned. Although they may have literally drunk wine at the altars, it was the evil acts they practiced, especially those associated with false religious worship, that brought condemnation. For example, priests deprived the poor of their pledges, and leaders “sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes” (verse 6). By evil acts, the Israelites condemned themselves, and the acts enumerated by Amos were the last straw. The evil practices got increasingly worse. And now the people practiced fornication in connection with false heathen worship.
The “wine” is primarily figurative, although it could have been literally imbibed too. Drinking the “wine of the condemned” is like Revelation 17:2, ”The inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her [the great whore’s] fornication.”
Later God promised to restore the nation of Israel to favor. But individuals are a different matter, for God will appoint the Ancient Worthies and the priesthood. Therefore, the thought should not be entertained that God will forgive these evil practices. As individuals, each will have to suffer whatever retribution God sees fit to order.
The danger in thinking God will automatically forgive all the people for their sins when the Kingdom is established is that it leads to the following reasoning: “God is merciful. If He can forgive Israel’s sins of fornication, He will forgive whatever I do in the present life.” However, God does not wink the eye at any willfulness on our part.
God will make the New Covenant with the house of Israel because the fathers were faithful. We have tried to make the distinction that God married Israel, but Jesus marries his Church.
Marriage to Jesus is more favorable because he marries individuals, whereas God married the nation, the collective people. Jesus loves each member of his Church personally and says to each one individually, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:21). Although the relationship can be looked on favorably as the Bride of Christ, it is composed of individuals.
Therefore, the present relationship through Jesus gives closer access to God than any other circumstance. With regard to favor returning to the nation of Israel, God will not just carte blanche forgive individuals who practiced evil but the people as a whole.
As shown by 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, after a person consecrates, even though previously, before consecration, he may have done some of these things (such as being an idolater, a drunkard, or a thief), from that time forward, these things are not to be done. The nation of Israel was born into a covenant relationship, but one is not born into Christ. A young child is covered by the consecrated parent up until a responsible age. From then on, a person is responsible in proportion to his or her knowledge of truth and will be held accountable. Ignorance is no excuse, for even a worldly person’s conscience knows certain things are wrong. Hardened criminals, for example, will have an accounting in the Kingdom, even though Jesus tasted death for every man. All will have the opportunity for life, but willful misdeeds of the past will receive some retribution. Based on Zechariah 8:23, imagine someone in the Kingdom who previously intensely hated the Jew then having to take hold of the skirt of a Jew!
Therefore, we should not read of Israel’s coming forgiveness and draw the lesson that we do not have to be so strict. The old mind is very deceptive and clever in its reasoning and, in this respect, is superior to the new mind. If the flesh gets too powerful, it will justify sin, saying, “God will wink the eye and forgive me down the road.” Such an attitude is going toward sinning the unpardonable sin. And the old mind may even use Scripture to justify its wrong course. We must walk circumspectly and not listen if we are told we are too strict. It is an all out effort to become a member of the Little Flock.
In summation, Israel’s forgiveness is based primarily upon the faithfulness of the fathers: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In Sinai, God told the Israelites that He would make of them a great nation, and that is the promise He has given to us (Exod. 19:5,6; Deut. 14:2). If faithful, we will be a great nation of kings and priests. Some Christians think they will be saved and all others will be destroyed. However, the Kingdom will be the opportunity for mankind to retrace their path, with every encouragement being given to assist them up the road to holiness and life, but certain things will have to be made right. What a man sows, he will reap (Gal. 6:17). This principle applies to the world, as well as to the consecrated. The opportunity of retrieval is marvelous because the deed is worthy of eternal death. God, in His mercy, will grant the opportunity for the world to walk up the highway of holiness (Isa. 35:8).
When did God destroy the Amorites? He destroyed them when their iniquity came to the full. He waited until their judgment was ripe, so the Israelites were kept in bondage in Egypt until that time. As Genesis 15:16 states, ”But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.”
Therefore, when the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the Amorites still existed, but their iniquity was full. Their extermination started in the days of King Saul. Saul and David both did a good job, but that was quite late in history compared to the Exodus, when the iniquity of the Amorites was full. At the time of the prophecy of Amos, the Amorites had already been destroyed, but not Ammon, Gaza, Moab, Lebanon, Judah, Israel, etc.
When the “roots from beneath” were destroyed, the Amorites as a people no longer existed. Thus it is possible for the roots to be left after the fruit is destroyed, but destruction of the roots would be complete national destruction. Jude 12 uses this terminology for a Second Death class in the Gospel Age: “twice dead, plucked up by the roots.”
Notice that God was speaking. He said that the height of the Amorites was “like the height of the cedars” of Lebanon, which were noted for their height. This form of hyperbole, or exaggeration, is permissible. God was taking the perspective of the people, who viewed the Amorites as enemies. In other words, their attitude with regard to opposing the Amorites was, “We might as well forget them, for they are too strong and powerful.” God condescended to the Israelites’ level in giving this perspective. The same explanation applies to the report of the spies, who said the inhabitants of the Promised Land were more numerous and stronger than the Israelites and were like giants (Num. 13:32,33). David faced the giant Goliath with faith. And so, by human strength, the Israelites could not have overcome the Amorites.
The word “Yet” at the beginning of verse 9 signifies that in spite of the sins of the Israelites, God destroyed the Amorites. Even though, from a technical standpoint, the Israelites were not worthy of being spared, God destroyed the Amorites. Verses 10 and 11 will review some of the things God has done for Israel.
God had had it! The ten tribes would go into exile, and the majority would die a violent death at the hand of Assyria. The lesson for the Israelites with regard to the Amorites was, “Do you think you will escape this type of judgment?”
Q: Was God saying the following to Israel through Amos? “Your iniquity has come to the full—just like the Amorites. Consider their example. The Amorites were tall in stature and seemingly a strong, invincible nation, but they were cut down. Now your iniquity is full, and the same thing will happen to you.”
A: That is right. The judgment was set; it was irrepressible.
Amos 2:10 Also I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and led you forty years through the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite.
Amos 2:11 And I raised up of your sons for prophets, and of your young men for Nazarites. Is it not even thus, O ye children of Israel? saith the LORD.
God was reviewing some of the things He had done to help Israel in times past. He was showing His care for and interest in them as a people. Incidentally, the Amalekites were the first enemies Israel encountered after leaving Egypt.
Amos 2:12 But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink; and commanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not.
The subject matter of verse 12 deals with the prophets and the Nazarites.
Comment: The Israelites “commanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not.” Amos had this very experience. ”Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there: But prophesy not again any more at Beth-el: for it is the king’s chapel, and it is the king’s court” (Amos 7:12,13).
Reply: Yes, and this was the general experience of all the Lord’s true prophets in the history of the nation of Israel. The people did not heed the prophets’ admonitions and counsel.
Comment: The Nazarites took a vow not to drink wine, so for the nation to tempt them away from their vow was a serious violation of principle.
Reply: Yes. In a remarkable incident, some Rechabites in Jeremiah’s day were tempted but remained faithful to their Nazarite vow, which had been followed by their family for several generations (Jer. 35:5-7). Jehonadab (or Jonadab), who went up into the chariot with Jehu, was the son of Rechab, who had commanded his posterity to obey the vow (2 Kings 10:15).
What is the difference between the condemnation here in Amos, where Nazarites were tempted to drink wine, and Jeremiah 35:2, where a true prophet set wine before Rechabite Nazarites to tempt them to drink?
Comment: Jeremiah was not trying to lead the Rechabites astray, for it was God’s providence to test their sincerity and thus point out Israel’s unfaithfulness.
There are different ways of tempting: (1) tempting with an evil purpose to lead someone astray and (2) tempting to bring out a person’s good qualities and steadfastness. For example, God said to Moses, “Let me destroy this people, and I will make of you a great nation.” Moses pleaded for Israel and was willing to die himself if Israel would be saved. However, God knew that His statement would bring out a sterling facet of Moses’ character. Thus a person can be tested for his or her own good or welfare, and that was the case when Jeremiah tempted the Rechabites. God knew they would refuse to break their vow. Jeremiah could then use the illustration that the Rechabites had withstood the temptation. In contrast, although God pleaded with the Israelites as a Father, they ignored His advice and admonitions. The Rechabites were sincere and faithful to the instructions of an earthly father, while the Israelites were not faithful to the heavenly Father. Jeremiah was drawing a comparison to show how far off the mark the professed children of Israel were. The object was to awaken Israel from negligence and slumber.
Incidentally, why doesn’t anyone accuse God of being anti-Semitic? The very ones who are so careful about the Bible, both in Jewry and in Christendom, contradict their own reasoning on many of these subjects.
Comment: With regard to the command to “Prophesy not,” the same command was given by the Israelites in Isaiah 30:8-11 when they sought help from Egypt. The people said “to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.”
Reply: When Jeremiah went down to Egypt with those who fled there after Gedaliah’s assassination, his words were considered nonsense. Strong criticism is sometimes valid. We should ask, “Is it true? What is the motivation?” Both Jeremiah and Amos were mouthpieces of God. And Jesus spoke the words of the Father when he criticized. Today people are often so fearful of speaking truth on different issues that they stifle their own conscience by automatically feeling it is wrong to criticize.
The Rechabite family was a powerful illustration. Yet, in spite of all the sins of Israel and Judah, the Lord offered the opportunity of retrieval.
Amos 2:13 Behold, I am pressed under you, as a cart is pressed that is full of sheaves.
Comment: The KJV margin corrects verse 13 to the active voice: “Behold, I will press your place, as a cart full of sheaves presseth.” The NIV also corrects the emphasis: “Now then, I will crush you as a cart crushes when loaded with grain.” And the RSV reads, “Behold, I will press you down in your place as a cart full of sheaves presses down.”
Reply: The Lord would do the pressing, which, by implication, was retribution for what He had endured. Incidentally, in the Middle East, we sometimes wonder if the wheels will fall off the overloaded carts pulled by donkeys because the weight of the sheaves of corn is so terrific.
Amos 2:14 Therefore the flight shall perish from the swift, and the strong shall not strengthen his force, neither shall the mighty deliver himself:
Amos 2:15 Neither shall he stand that handleth the bow; and he that is swift of foot shall not deliver himself: neither shall he that rideth the horse deliver himself.
Comment: Verses 14 and 15 referred to the coming Assyrian captivity. The strength of Israel would be as nothing. The people would be fearful and panicky. Those who thought they were strong would find themselves weak and helpless in the face of the foe. Even those who had horses would be rendered powerless.
Reply: No one for whom the punishment was intended would escape. The relatively few survivors were all taken captive.
Q: Was a lot of strength needed to pull “the bow”?
A: Yes. The northern kingdom was self-confident. The value of the bow depended upon the strength of the one stringing it. The greater the strength, the farther the arrow would fly, and the better the chance the arrow would find its mark. Since the bow and arrow are a weapon of offense from a distance, the one shooting the arrow can be more or less safe from retribution—like a sniper who can shoot long-distance. The account is saying that no matter what form of offense would be taken in warfare against the Assyrians, the energy of those in the ten tribes would seem to miraculously diminish. The physically strong would find they were weak because of fright. Swift runners would be paralyzed, that is, unable to run.
Amos 2:16 And he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day, saith the LORD.
Fear can do two things: (1) Some are rendered powerless and numb. (2) Others get so panicky that they flee as fast as they can, dropping their armor because of the weight. We do not know how we will react until we are tested.
Q: Does “in that day” indicate an antitype in our day in the near future?
A: Chapters 1 and 2 of Amos, with a past historical fulfillment of judgments against the Ammonites, Moabites, Philistines, etc., correspond to Psalm 83, and thus will have a fulfillment, yet future, against the Arab nations and peoples surrounding Israel.
Q: Psalm 83 shows that Israel will have an astounding victory prior to the problem with Gog and Magog. However, here in Amos, Israel and Judah were both defeated. What is the thought?
A: Psalm 83, yet future, includes all of the other nations, whereas Israel and Judah received judgments in the past—Israel was defeated at the hand of Assyria, and Judah at the hand of Babylon. Notice that Egypt is not mentioned. The omission may be providential because the judgment on Egypt is prophesied to occur another way (see Isa. 11:15; 19:1-18).
Amos 2:9-16 tells some of the things God did for Israel in the past and what the nation could expect in the future as a result of their negligence.
Comment: These verses seem to have a spiritual application because the command in verse 12 is, “Prophesy not.”
Reply: Yes, the true prophet will be told not to prophesy.
Comment: The latter verses seem to show that those in Christendom will be defeated. We are thinking more from a Christian perspective.
Reply: The spiritual application would have to be along those lines for the simple reason that at the end of the age, the Holy Remnant will escape harm in Gog’s invasion, and Amos was prophesying utter defeat—that all would have this experience. In other words, the saving of the Holy Remnant does not fit here. When the ten tribes were taken into captivity by Assyria, no distinction was made between the righteous and the unrighteous. The whole ten-tribe kingdom went into captivity. But with Gog and Magog, Israel will be victorious through the small Holy Remnant. God will save Israel.
With regard to the prophets, the spiritual application would pertain to spiritual Israel. But there will also be a natural application in the near future, prior to Jacob’s Trouble, as regards Moab, Ammon, etc.
(1994 Study Frank Shallieu)