Amos

I. The Proiihet. II. TIa I'roptK'CV. 1. Authontidty. 2. Contents. . Theology. 4. Style. TIT. Lltcralnre. I. TlIK Plidl'lIET. — This is the name of the prophet whose book in our Bibles occupies the third place amongst the Minor I'rophels.t The tir. and Lat. Kalhers, being fi)r the most ])art unacrniaiiited with lleh., fr(M|uently Cdiifoiinded liis name with the ipiite different one of Isaiah's father, Amnz. Our prophet has no namesake in • The s.

lrne oivler is observed in our c<litionH of the Ilet). Hible, but in tlie \.\\ v\nio» follows Iloseft. The sanuj is the caj*e iu tlu' Syrlac Lives of the I'l-ojiliets. t^Jreg. Nuz. says — Miai- txitf tiaiv i<i ypaittrtv oi Sut&tKa 'iluift, K afif^f, Ka't /At\a(ac o TpiTOC. t The natne has been very variously explained. »Terome, In his prefiiee to -Joel, uiulerstand.s It as ineanlni; one who h^iirn a load, but In the prefaee to .

\mios he makes it cquivuieiit to the jif'pft/f that in torn tltiniitfr. Kusebius pives the alternatives Htrotn;, faith ful, tearing thf peojtfe aiutu/er. A Kabbitiieal tradition asserts thai ' the propliet was called Amos because he was heavy (ealleb. 'aitiai) of ronffue,* and represents the Lord as sayinu', ' I sent .\nios. and tiu-y called MmMtamiiterfr.^ Tlio Kabbls ascribed the same physical intlrrnity to Moses, Isatah, atid .leremiah. Gesenius ( Then. 104-1 1 was disposed to seek an K(fyp.

etyiuolojry, eomparlnf: such familiar Kcyp. forms as Ainoitin, Anianiti. Kut the most prr>bable view Is that which traces it to the verb 'aman (=to bear), and look.s on It as meau- \netiunli'n-lifaveryiv hurdfncil. 'I'henttetuptat explanation is carried too fur when it Is siiirirested that the name was tm[>osed by the cliiid's parents because of tho heavy load of poverty which ho was doomed to carry. the OT.

* It is almost certain that he was a Judsean by birth : Am li is not absolutely de- cisive, but taken in conjunction with 71- seems to prove that he was a citizen of the southern kingdom. The attempts which have been made to prove his northern origin from the spelling of certain words (4'" o" G»- '■" «^) must be pronounced failures. He owned a small Hock of a peculiar breed of sheep, ugly and short-footed, but valuable for their excellent wool [cf.

2 K 'i*, the only other passage where the word nol-rd (Am V) occurs]. These he pastured in the neighbourhood of Tekoa, in the wilderness of .ludah. (See Tkkoa.) Part of his livelihood was derived from the lightly- esteemed fruit of a few .sycomore trees (T"). His own account of himself (T"- "•) gives us the impres- sion that, though poor, he was independent, anti able, when occasion deiiiaiideil, to leave his flock for a while.

This is more probable than the sup- position that he brought his sheep with him from Tekoa to Bethel. It is extremely likely tliat his father had followed the sann^ occupation, for in the East avocations are hereditary. The omission of the father's name in the super.scriptiim of the I)ropliecy would .seem to inilicate that he did not belong to a distinguished family (contrast Is li, Jerli, Ezk P, Hos fi, .loel P etc.)

A worth- less Jewish tradition makes the wise woman of Tekoa (2 S 14) to have been his gramlmother. In his day it wa-s still connnon for those who appeared a.s prophets to come forth from circles where the pr.actices and influences cherished were of such a nature as to prepare men for tliis hjoh office. But he was doing his ordinary work when the impulse came which brought him to Bethel, the ecclesiastical capital of the N. kitigdotn, there to denounce the sins of Israel.

Gotl calletl him, with- out any intermediary (7'^ ; cf (Jal 1'), and the call came with a constraining force which left no choice but to follow (.'»). External events, no doubt, had their influence. It is impossible to read the book without feeling how deeply A. had been im- pressed by the westward movement of the Assyr. colossus, and we may reasonably believe that the campaigns prosecuted in this direction by Salma- nas.sar III. (78:5-773 n.

c), or by Assurdanil (773- 7')r) lie), had excited his al.arin. The note of time 1 1, ' two years before the earthquake,' does not afford nmch help in dating his mission. Zee 14' .assigns this earthquake to the reign of Uzziah of .Judah ; and .lerome, on Am P, makes bold to identify it with the one which Josephus (.4)i(. I.X. X. 4) .

asserts to have occurred as a punishment of Uzziah's sacrilege : ' quaiuh) iram Domini non solum poina ejus, qui sacrilegus fuit, sed et terne motus ostendit, (juem Hebr;ei tunc accidisse commemorant.' Am U lixes tlie prophet's activity in the jieriod when .Jeroboam II. of I.sr.tel was contemporaneous with Uzziah. This perioii extended from 775 to 760 n.c. The tone of the prophecy leaves little doubt that, when it w.a.

s delivered, the bulk of Jeroboam's • Our Enellsh Dlbles, agreeing In this with tho matorlty o( modern VSS, mention a second Amos. This Is in St'. Luico's account of the (teuealogy of .loseph, the puliitlve father of our Loril, Lk M». Tliere is, however, some nncertaiutv as to whether the correct form is not Aiuoz. Tiie Or. 'Amwc Is luit docl.sive, since it Is used in the L.V.\ inditferently for }'1CN (Is 1') and DIDJ! (Am I'), precisely as , lerome has Amoa In both ca.ses.

The I'eshltta also fails to help us. Whereas it transliterates tlie prophet's name . wsC^V antI that ol Isaiah's father i^', at Lk S" it comliines the two forms I " '-"'' Dellt/sch and Salklnsoii, In Ih.ir llib. New Testa- mentti, decide in favour of Amoz, both ctvini; )i?;n. The (picstlon Is not Important. In nnv case we know nothing con- cerninc the person named, and it is not possible to d.

i nnu'e than Btnte the nej;ntive coiu-iuslon that he cannot have lii'en either the [iropbet of Tekoa or the fnllier .>f Isaiah. sceinR he is removed fom .lusepli by an interval of only seven pciioratlone. 86 AMOS AMOS splendid achievements had already been wrought. The ministry of Amos sliould therefore be dated about 760 B.C. An attempt has recently been made, on the ground of internal evidence, to bring it down a quarter of a century, and date it about 734.

This, however, would require us to set aside .\m7'"'"", a section which bears every mark of verisimilitude. Betliel was the principal scene of his preaching, perhaps the only one. AVhen he had delivered several addresses there, Aniaziah, the chief priest of the royal sanctuary, sent a message to the king, who does not seem to have been present, accusing the preacher of treason, and at the same time ordered the latter to quit the realm.

Evidently there was some reason to fear that the oppressed poor might be stirred up to revolt against their lords and masters. The tnreats of coming judgment would disturb many hearers. The denunciation of cruelty and injustice would awake many echoes. Yet the priest's language evinces all the contempt which a highly-placed official feels towards an interfering nobody, a fellow who, as he thinks, gains a precarious livelihood by prophesyin". Jeroboam does not seem to have paid much heed.

In the Bab. Talm. Pesackim, fol. 876, it is said : ' How is it proved that Jeroboam did not receive the accusation brought against Amos? . The king answered [in reply to Amaziah], God forbid that that righteous man should have said this ; and if he hath said it, what can 1 do to him ? The Shechinah hath said it to him.'

The conversation is fictitious; but Amos doubtless withdrew unmolested, after disclaiming any official and permanent standing as a prophet, predicting Amaziah's utter destruction because of 'lis impious hindrance of the divine word (7''""), and completing the delivery of his own message to Israel (8. 9). On reaching home he doubtless put into writing the substance of his speeches, and the roll thus written is the earliest book of prophecy that has come down to ua.

Concerning his subsequent fortunes we are entirely in the dark. A late Christian tradition, originating probably in the 6th century of our era, affirms that Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, struck him frequently, and treacherously abused him, and finally Amaziah's son kUled him, striking him on the forehead with a club, because he had rebuked him for the apostasy of worship- ping the two golden calves. The prophet survived long enough to reach his own land [another version add.

s, ' at the end of two days '], and was buried with his fathers. It is much more likely that he reached Tekoa in peace, resumed liis shep- herd life, and eventually was gathered to his fathers. Jerome and Euseuius affirm that his sepulchre was still shown at Tekoa in their days. M hen Maundrell was in the neighbourhood in 1 737 he was told that the tomb was in the collage on the mountain. The Roman Church places Amos amongst the martyrs, and commemorates him on the 31st March, the Gr.

Church on the 15th June. Amongst the Jews his freedom of speech gave offence even after his death, for the Kok. Rnb. blames Amos, Jeremiah, and Ecclesiastes for their faultfinding, and states that this is the reason why the superscriptions to their books run, 'The words of Amos,' etc., and not, 'The words of God.' II. The Prophecy. 1. The Authenticity oi the writing which bears his name has never been seriously questioned.

As to its interjritij there is good ground for thinking that the following passages are later additions : 11. s 2*- » 4" 5'- » 6^ V- s^'». Emendations of the Mas- soretic text have been suggested for the under- mentioned passages, and most of them merit careful consideration: 1''-" 2" 3». »• n. la. " 4i.».» 6e.».ii.u. li. 9« g>. S. 10. U ^1. 3. 4. 14. IT g« 9<. 10. 11_ 2. The Contents may be summarised thus :— Ohs.

1 and 2 : THE INTRODUCTION, which touches on the sins, first of the neighbouring nations and then of Israel, and announces their imminent punishment. Chs. 3-6: The First Main Divi.

sion of the Book; 3-4' j4 Minatory Discourse, addressed chielly to the ruling classes; 4*"" A Contimmtion of the same Speech, now directed to the people in general, detailing the judgments by which God had sought to bring them back to Himself, and sharply pointing out that a more decisive stroke was at hand ; 5: A Second Address, in which are contained lamentations, reproofs, exhortations to true religion as opposed to false, threats of ruin and captivity ; 6: A IVoe upon the Luxurious,ihe Self -Conjidcnt , and the Proud.

Chs. 7-9 : THE SECOND MAIN Division OF the Book ; 7'"' Three Visions ; '»-" The Narra- tive of the Expulsion of Amos ; S^'' A Fourth Vision, the rest of the chapter being occupied with de- nunciations of the extortionate traders, the self- indulgent rich, the superstitious pilgrims ; 9 : The Concluding Vision : The Inevitable Punishment oj Wrong-doers : The Messianic Future. 3. The distinguishing characteristics of this prophet's Theology are quite unmistakable : — (1) His Idea of God.

— Amos was an uncom- promising monotheist. There is not a verse in his ■wTitings that admits the existence of other deities. But his conviction of the divine unity was not the result of philosophic thought and argument. It was an immediate certainty springing out of his deep sense of J"'s righteousness, nearness, greatness. So near and so mighty did He seem that there was no room for other gods, and hence there is no discu-ssion of their claims.

J" is all- powerful in Heaven and Sheol, on Carmel and in the depths of the sea, in Caphtor and Kir, and Edom and Tyre. His might is shown in the control of human history (chs. 1 and 2, passim ; 5-' 6" 9'), and esp. in His guidance of the fortunes of Israel. Every movement of the national life, spiritual and external, has been under His hand (2'"").

In all the affairs of men there is no such thing as chance ; it is His purposes that are con- stantly being wrought out : calamity, as well as prosperity, comes from Him (S'""). 'This implies His dominion over Nature, the completeness of which comes out in such sections as 4"'"', where every natural calamity and fecourge, dearth, drought, mildew, locust, pestilence, is traced to the direct exercise of His will.

It scarcely need be added that the personality of God was clear to the prophet's mind. Hence it is that he does not shrink from anthropomorphism : J" steps forth against the house of Jeroboam like an armed warrior (7'') ; in pity for His people He changes His purposes (7' etc.) (2) Tm relation between J" and Israel. — In common with all his countrymen, Amos believed that J" was in a peculiar sense their God, and they His peojile.

But they regarded the bond as a natural and indissoluble one, like that which was conceived to exist between other nations ant their deities, so that, provided they paid His dues in the form of sacrifices. He was hound in honour, and for His own sake, to protect and bless them. The prophet, on the contrary, insisted that the relation was a moral one, not merely dissoluble, but certain to be dissolved if they fell below His standard of moral requirements.

It is in the insistence on this, and in the statement of these moral requirements, that the splendid originality of Amos is most clearly evinced. Ceremonial wor- ship has no intrinsic value {S'^'^) : the only genuine service of (iod consists in justice and righteousness (5") ; when immorality and oppre.

<ision are practised by His worshippers, God shrinks from contact with them as f<^u<n a defilement : inhumanity and nnbrothcrliness, nay even the failure to respect the eentimeuts of others (l'-2^), are hateful to Hiin wlien heathens are tfuilty of them, and much more so when Israel is (3-). As to the illejj;itimate methods of worshipping the Lord, he lias but little to say ; 3" 4' 8" sliow the scorn with which he regarded them.

IJut it is the spirit, not the method, which finds in him so stern an anta- gonist. His main contention is that ritual, as a siibstilute for the social virtues, is an abomination. True religion consists in doing good and abstaining from harm. As in the Epistle of St. James, ethical considerations are paramount. Kigliteousness is the keynote of the proi)hecy. Tlie word Love does not occur. This bent was due primarily to liis apprehension of the di\-ine character.

God, to him, was the God of Itighteousness rather than of Love. Not, of course, that the sense of the Divine Love i.s absent ; ch. 7'"' is a picture of the pUicableness which yields to the prophet's intercession, even at the moment when the stroke of punisliment is falling. But in this particular Amos stands far below Hosea. The circumstances of the time helped to fix his view. Jeroboam's victories had brought wealth and power to the upper classes, but hail left the poor worse off than of old.

The basest advantage was taken of this ; the wicked meanness of the powerful provoked Amos to con- tenijit (2"). AVitliout being what is now called a socialist — for, indeed, he was in no respect a theorist — he felt deeply the rottenness of the social state ; the dignity of man was being trampled on ; the prevalent luxury was founded on oppression, and was sapping the life of those who j)ractised it.

He attacks this luxury unsparingly (()■'"') ; even the custom of reclining at meals, recently introduced from the farther East, is twice rebuKed (3'' «*). The peasant, as well as the prophet, may be felt here. (3) ITie Coming Judgment. — The Book of Amos is tlie earliest writing in wliicli the term ' Tlie Day of J" ' is used. Most probably it was current on the people's lips.

They imagined that when the Lord arose in judgment it would be, not only for the establishment of His rule over the whole world, but also to their great bencht ; all their sufferings would come to a perpetual end ; dominion as large as David's would be restored to Israel. Amos saw that this ' Day ' threatened to be one of judgment on Israel itself (5"*'-"), and its coming aiijieared so inevitable that he speaks of it as already present.

Unlike his predecessors, he looks on the result as totally destructive of the common- wealth (2"'« 3"" 42- s- '^ 5-'' 6 nassim, 7" y'"^'). Kepentance would have averted this (4), but the opi)ortunity has passed. The great world-power which will serve as God's instrument is doubtless Assyria, but the prophet stops short of the mention of its name (5" C *).

Perhajis he was aware of the weakness under which the Eastern colossus then laboured, but believed that it would stand firmly on its feet a^ain. (4) The Messianic picture in Q"-". — One of the weightiest reasons for regarding this as a later addition is it« incongruousness with the Visions of Judgment which have preceded. It shows us the land entirely puri'ed of the sinners, the ricli otticials wlio had abused their power.

The Davidic kingdom is restored, no stress, however, being laid on the person or character of the prince at its head. The ancient bounds of the emjure are re-established, foreigners, especially the hated Edomites, being reduced anew to subjection. The Israelite exiles have been brought home, and have rebuilt the waste cities. Agricultute and vine-grow- ing tlourish to a miraculous degree on a soil of immensely increased fertility. Israel lia.

s reached an earthly paradise, and will never be dispossessed. This is a picture which would have commended itself to the men who heard Amos, as his genuine predictions did not. One point there is in common : everything is human and earthly, there is no tract of expectation of a future life. In so early a writer as Amos it is surprising to meet with so few signs of sympathy with the modes of thought and expression which were afterwards abandoned by the higher religion of the UT.

At 7" he appears to share in the common idea that other lands are unclean to an Israelite. At 9^ he adopts the widespread myth of a dan- gerous serpent inhabiting the sea, the creature, perhaps, which the dwellers on the Mediterranean coast-lands conceived of as swallowing, each evening, the setting sun. At 5'* (a disputed passage) there is probably a mythical idea involved in the mention of the constellation of 'The Fool.' (See art. OluoN.)

At (i'" (another disputed passage) the superstitious dread of pronouncing the divine name amidst inauspicious surroundings is referred to without reproof. 4. There was a time when Jerome's verdict on the Style of Amos, iniperitus semione, sed non scicntid, was generally acquiesced in. Now, however, it is seen that the Christian Kather was prejudiced by his Jewish teacher, and that the prophet was as little deficient in style as in know- ledge.

In point of fact, he is very little inferior to the best OT writers. His language is clear and vigorous ; his sentences are well rounded. His imagery, mainly drawn, as was to be expected, from rural life (threshing-sledges, waggon, harvests, grasshoppers, cattle, birds, lions, fishing), is vivid and telling. He knows how to use the refiain (4), and the poetic lament (5-) ; he is skilful in working up to a tlimax. Two or three solecisms in spelling may well be set down to transcribers.

An Eastern shepherd is not necessarily uncultivated, though his culture be not derived from books. This shepherd's outlook was a wide one (1. 2. 9') ; his apprehension of the meaning of events uncommonly clear ; his knowledge born of reflection and the touch of the Divine Spirit. The boldness of his style was an expression of the boldness of the man and his thoughts.

It required no small courage for a Judiean to enter Israelite territory for the express purpose of inter- fering in the religious and social life of the nation, denouncing everything as corrupt, tlirealeiiiiig swift and utter ruin. Nor is that all.

No speaker ever ran counter to the most cherished convictions of his auditors more daringly than the prophet who tohl them that the destinies of other nations are as really guided by God as those of His chosen people ; 9' is almost a contradiction of 3'. His courage was derived from his conviction of the reality ami dignity of his mission. When the Lord God hath spoken, the man who hears Him cannot but prophesy.

And whoever else may fail to hear, the ]iropliet does not ; he is of the Privy Council (3'- ", cf. Gn 18"). That is the starting-point of Hebrew- prophecy. LiTKRATCRR. — Oalvln, Prmlect. in Duod. Proph. Min. 1610 ; J. Gerhunli, Adn. Ponth. in Proph. Arnon et Jon. 1670; J. C. U.irenberK, Arnoa Proph. Expoxtt. 1763; L. J. Vh\&nii, Artnot. ad loc. qutvil. Am. 1770; J. 8. Vat«r, Amog ril/erit. n. erkUtrl, 1810 ; JuvTibolI, Difpxitatia de A moso, 182H ; Kw.'ihl, Vie Proph.

de$ Alte'n Bundrti, 1H40: HendtTson, Minn/- Prophets, ;s4'i, IS.'^S ; Baur, Dcr Proph. Amog, 1817 ; Gnnilill in Tlie Speaker'i Cmnnu-nffir;/, 187(1; Hitzix-StciniT, 7)i< ZinilJ Kl. Proph. Issl ; W. K. Smith, The Prophet go/ 1 sriieP, 1800; HoITnmiin, 'Vernuflic zu Amos,' in ZA TiV, 1S8;1 ; flunniiijr, De tiotljrj*raken van A oiog, lSS.'i ; iMvidsoti, Kxpositor, .Mar. atui Sept. 1S87 ; Kcil, Die Kl. I'roph. 1S8S; Orclli, IMe Zwol/ Kl. Proph. 18S8(tr.

by Dniilis); nachmann, Prtrjiaratiotien ru den lit. Pr. Hoft 3, 1800; Karrar, The Minor PropheU : WellhuuRen. Die Kl. Propti. 1802; Keu88, Dir Prophelen, Bd. ii. of A.T. 1S02; Michflcl, ylin<i» ocertat. 1803; Ililii'b, IHt mehliqften i!ot:e der n a ( Krilik von Staridp. der v. Am. «. //. au* betrachtet, I8!<;l ; i;ulho in KantzKcira A.T. 180-1; Cornill, Der lur. Prt,ph't 180i ; O. A. Kuiilh, The lik.

qf the Pvxlix Proplicta, laOC ; Dr ve^ 88 AMOZ AMULETS Joel and Amo», 1897 ; laat but not least, well deserving to In truistated into Eng., ValetOD, Avwt en Hogea. 1894. J. Taylor. AMOZ (pes), father of the prophet Isaiah (2 K 19-, Is 1', etc.), to be carefully distinguished from Amos (oicj;) the prophet. See AMOS (p. 85'' n.)