Amos

A prophet of the Lord. See his prophecy. His name hath been sometimes spelt Omas, which signifies a burthen, or somewhat weighty. In allusion, perhaps, to the importance of his writings. But it is more generally spelt Amos, from Amatz, strong

the fourth of the minor prophets, who in his youth had been a herdsman in Tekoa, a small town about four leagues southward of Jerusalem. He was sent to the people of Samaria, to bring them back to God by repentance, and reformation of manners. Hence it is natural to suppose that he must have been born within the territories of Israel, and that he only retired to Tekoa, on being expelled from Bethel by Amaziah, the priest of the calves at Bethel. He frequently complains of the violence offered him by those who endeavoured to impose silence on him. He boldly inveighs against the crying sins of the Israelites, such as idolatry, oppression, wantonness, and obstinacy. Nor does he spare the sins of Judah, such as their carnal security, sensuality, and injustice. He utters frequent threatenings against them both, and predicts their ruin. It is observable in this prophecy, that, as it begins with denunciations of judgment and destruction against the Syrians, Philistines, Tyrians, and other enemies of the Jews, so it concludes with comfortable promises of the restoration of the tabernacle of David, and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. Amos was called to the prophetic office in the time of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel.

Some writers, in adverting to the condition of Amos, have, with a minute affectation of criticism, pretended to discover a certain rudeness and vulgarity in his style; and even Jerom is of opinion that he is deficient in magnificence and sublimity. He applies to him the words which St. Paul speaks of himself, that he was rude in speech, though not in knowledge; and his authority, says Bishop Lowth, “has influenced many commentators to represent him as entirely rude, and void of elegance; whereas it requires but little attention to be convinced that he is not a whit behind the very chiefest of the prophets;” equal to the greatest in loftiness of sentiment, and scarcely inferior, to any in the splendour of his diction, and in the elegance of his composition. Mr. Locke has observed, that his comparisons are chiefly drawn from lions, and other animals, because he lived among, and was conversant with, such objects. But, indeed, the finest images and allusions, which adorn the poetical parts of Scripture, in general are drawn from scenes of nature, and from the grand objects that range in her walks; and true genius ever delights in considering these as the real sources of beauty and magnificence. The whole book of Amos is animated with a fine and masculine eloquence.

A´mos (borne), one of the twelve minor prophets and a contemporary of Isaiah and Hosea. He was a native of Tekoah, about six miles south of Bethlehem, inhabited chiefly by shepherds to which class he belonged, being also a dresser of sycamore-trees. The period during which he filled the prophetic office was of short duration, unless we suppose that he uttered other predictions which are not recorded. It is stated expressly that he prophesied in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel, two years before the earthquake (Amo 1:1). As Uzziah and Jeroboam were contemporaries for about fourteen years, from B.C. 798 to 784, the latter of these dates will mark the period when Amos prophesied.

When Amos received his commission, the kingdom of Israel, which had been ’cut short’ by Hazael (2Ki 10:32) towards the close of Jehu’s reign, was restored to its ancient limits and splendor by Jeroboam the Second (2Ki 14:25). But the restoration of national prosperity was followed by the prevalence of luxury, licentiousness, and oppression, to an extent that again provoked the divine displeasure, and Amos was called from the sheep-folds to be the harbinger of the coming judgments. Not that his commission was limited entirely to Israel. The thunder-storm (as Ruckert poetically expresses it) rolls over all the surrounding kingdoms, touches Judah in its progress, and at length settles upon Israel. Amos 1; Amo 2:1-5, form a solemn prelude to the main subject; nation after nation is summoned to judgment. Israel is then addressed in the same style, and in Amos 3 (after a brief rebuke of the twelve tribes collectively) its degenerate state is strikingly portrayed, and the denunciations of divine justice are intermingled, like repeated thunderclaps, to the end of Amos 6. The seventh and eighth chapters contain various symbolical visions, with a brief historical episode (Amo 7:10-17). In Amos 9 the majesty of Jehovah and the terrors of his justice are set forth with a sublimity of diction which rivals and partly copies that of the royal Psalmist (comp. Amo 9:2-3, with Psalms 109, and Amo 9:6 with Psalms 104). Towards the close the scene brightens, and from the eleventh verse to the end the promises of the divine mercy and returning favor to the chosen race are exhibited in imagery of great beauty taken from rural life.

The writings of this prophet afford clear evidence that the existing religious institutions both of Judah and Israel (with the exception of the corruptions introduced by Jeroboam) were framed according to the rules prescribed in the Pentateuch, a fact which furnishes a conclusive argument for the genuineness of the Mosaic records.

The canonicity of the book of Amos is amply supported both by Jewish and Christian authorities. Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud include it among the minor prophets. It is also in the catalogues of Melito, Jerome, and the 60th canon of the Council of Laodicea. Justin Martyr, quotes a considerable part of Amos 5-6, which he introduces by saying,—’Hear how he speaks concerning these by Amos, one of the twelve.’ There are two quotations from it in the New Testament: the first (Amo 5:25-26) by the proto-martyr Stephen, Act 7:42; the second (Amo 9:11) by the apostle James, Act 15:16.

1. The fourth of the minor prophets, was a herdsman of Tekoah, a small town of Judah, about twelve miles south of Jerusalem. He prophesied, however, concerning Israel, at Bethel, in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam II, king of Israel, about B. C. 787, and was thus a contemporary of Hosea, Joel, and Isaiah. The first two chapters contain predictions against the surrounding nations, enemies of the people of God. But the ten tribes of Israel were the chief subjects of his prophecies. Their temporary prosperity under Jeroboam led to gross idolatry, injustice, and corruption; for which sins he denounces the judgments of God upon them: but he closes with cheering words of consolation. His holy boldness in reproving sin drew on him the wrath of the priests, who labored to procure his banishment, 1Sa 7:10-17 . In regard to style, Amos takes a high rank among the prophets. He is full of imagery, concise, and yet simple and perspicuous.\par 2. One of the ancestors of our Lord, Luk 3:25 .\par

A’mos. (burden). Native of Tekoa in Judah, about six miles south of Bethlehem, originally a shepherd and dresser of sycamore trees, who was called by God’s Spirit to be a prophet, although not trained in any of the regular prophetic schools. Amo 1:1; Amo 7:14-15. He travelled from Judah into the northern kingdom of Israel or Ephraim, and there exercised his ministry, apparently not for any long time.

(His date cannot be later than B.C. 808 for he lived in the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam, king of Israel; but his ministry probably took place at an earlier date, perhaps about the middle of Jeroboam’s reign. Nothing is known of the time or manner of his death. -- Editor).

("a burden".) Of Tekoah, in Judah, six miles S.E. of Bethlehem. A shepherd (probably owning flocks) and dresser of sycamore fig trees; specially called of the Lord to prophesy, though not educated in the prophets’ schools (Amo 1:1; Amo 7:14-15). These personal notices occur only as connected with the discharge of his prophetic function; so entirely is self put in the shade by the inspired men of God, and God is made the one all-absorbing theme. Though of Judah, he exercised his ministry in the northern kingdom, Israel; not later than the 15th year of Uzziah of Judah, when Jeroboam II. (son of Joash) of Israel died (compare 1Ki 14:23 with 1Ki 15:1), in whose reign it is written he prophesied "two years before the earthquake"; compare Zec 14:5. Allusions to the earthquake appear in Amo 5:8; Amo 6:11; Amo 8:8; Amo 9:1; Amo 9:5.

The divine sign in his view confirmed his words, which were uttered before, and which now after the earthquake were committed to writing in an orderly summary. The natural world, being from and under the same God, shows a mysterious sympathy with the spiritual world; compare Mat 24:7; Mat 27:50-54. Probably Amos prophesied about the middle of Jeroboam’s reign, when his conquests had been achieved (Amo 6:13-14; compare 2Ki 14:25-27), just before Assyria’s first attack on Israel, for he does not definitely name that power: Amo 1:5; Amo 5:27 (Hos 10:6; Hos 11:5). The two forces from God acted simultaneously by His appointment, the invading hosts from without arresting Israel’s attention for the prophet’s message from God within the land, and the prophets showing the spiritual meaning of those invasions, as designed to lead Israel to repentance.

This accounts for the outburst of prophetic fire in Uzziah’s and his successors’ reigns. The golden calves, the forbidden representation of Jehovah, not Baal, were the object of worship in Jeroboam’s reign, as being the great grandson of Jehu, who had purged out Baal worship, but retained the calves. Israel, as abounding in impostors, needed the more true prophets of God from Judah to warn her. Her prophets often fled to Judah from fear of her kings. Oppression, luxury, weariness of religious ordinances as interrupting worldly pursuits, were rife: Amo 8:4-5; Amo 3:15. The king’s sanctuary and summer palace were at Bethel (Amo 7:13); here Amos was opposed by Amaziah for his faithful reproofs, and informed against to Jeroboam. (See AMAZIAH.) Like the prophet in 1 Kings 13, Amos went up from Judah to Bethel to denounce the idol calf at the risk of his life.

Calf worship prevailed also at Dan, Gilgal, and Beersheba, in Judah (Amo 4:4; Amo 5:5; Amo 8:14), blended with Jehovah’s worship (Amo 5:14; Amo 5:21-26); 2Ki 17:32-33, compare Eze 20:39.

The book is logically connected, and is divisible into four parts. Amo 1:1 to Amo 2:13; the sins of Syria, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, the neighbors of Israel and Judah Amo 2:4 to Amo 6:14; Israel’s own state and consequent punishment; the same coasts "from the entering in of Hamath," which Jeroboam has just recovered from Syria, shall be "afflicted," and the people carried into "captivity beyond Damascus" (Amo 5:27). Amo 7:1-9:10; Amos’s visions of grasshoppers devouring the grass, and fire the land and deep, both removed by his intercession; the plumb line marking the buildings for destruction; Amaziah’s interruption at Bethel, and foretold doom; the basket of summer fruits marking Israel’s end by the year’s end; the Lord standing upon the altar, and commanding the lintel to be smitten, symbolizing Israel’s destruction as a kingdom, but individually not one righteous man shall perish.

Amo 9:11-15; David’s fallen tabernacle shall be raised, the people re-established in prosperity in their own land, no more to be pulled out, and the conversion of the pagan shall follow the establishment of the theocracy finally; compare Amo 9:12 with Act 15:17. Reference to agricultural life and the phenomena of nature abounds, in consonance with his own former occupation, an undesigned propriety and mark of truth: Amo 1:3; Amo 2:13; Amo 3:4-5; Amo 4:2; Amo 4:7; Amo 4:9; Amo 5:18-19; Amo 6:12; Amo 7:1; Amo 9:3; Amo 9:9; Amo 9:13-14. The first six chapters are without figure; the last three symbolical, with the explanation subjoined. He assumes his readers’ knowledge of the Pentateuch, and that the people’s religious ritual (excepting the golden calves) accords with the Mosaic law, an incidental confirmation of the truth of the Pentateuch.

Stephen (Act 7:42) quotes Amo 5:25-27; and James (Act 15:16) quotes Amo 9:11. Philo, Josephus, the Talmud, Justin Martyr, the catalogues of Melito, Jerome, and the council of Laodicea, confirm the canonicity of Amos. His use of the names Adonai (Lord) and God of hosts marks that Jehovah, Israel’s covenant God, is universal Lord. Characteristic and peculiar phrases occur: "cleanness of teeth," i.e., want of bread (Amo 4:6); "the excellency of Jacob" (Amo 6:8; Amo 8:7); "the high places of Isaac" (Amo 7:9), "the house of Isaac" (Amo 7:16); "he that createth the wind" (Amo 4:13). Hosea, his contemporary, survived him a few years.

(Heb., Amos’, עָמוֹס, bormne Sept. and New Test. Α᾿μώς), the name of two men.

1. One of the twelve minor prophets, and a contemporary of Isaiah and Hosea. He was a native of Tekoah, about six miles south of Bethlehem, inhabited chiefly by shepherds, to which class he belonged, being also a dresser of sycamore trees, and not trained in any of the prophetical schools (Amo 1:1; Amo 7:14-15). Though some critics have supposed that he was a native of the kingdom of Israel, and took refuge in Tekoah when persecuted by Amaziah, yet a comparison of the passages Amo 1:1; Amo 7:14, with Amaziah’s language, Amo 7:12, leads us to believe that he was born and brought up in that place. The period during which he filled the prophetic office was of short duration, unless we suppose that he uttered other predictions which are not recorded. It is stated expressly that he prophesied in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel, two years before the earthquake

(Amo 1:1). This earthquake, to which there is an allusion in Zec 14:5, is represented by Josephus (Ant. 9, 10, 4) and some other Jewish writers as amark of the divine displeasure against Uzziah (in addition to his leprosy) for usurping the priest’s office some time before his death. This agrees with the sacred narrative, which informs us that Jotham, his son, acted as regent during the remainder of his reign; for we must understand the accession spoken of in 2Ki 15:33, when he was twenty-five years old, to refer to this association with his father. SEE JOTHAM.

As Uzziah and Jeroboam were contemporaries for about twenty-seven years (B.C. 808-782), the latter part of this period will mark the dant when Amos prophesied. This agrees with the intimation in Amo 7:10, of the proximity of Jeroboam’s death. Amos speaks of the conquests of this warlike king as completed (6, 13; comp. 2Ki 14:25); on the other hand the Assyrians, who toward the end of his reign were approaching Palestine (Hos 10:6; Hos 11:5), do not seem as yet to have caused any alarm in the country. Amos predicts, indeed, that Israel and other neighboring nations will be punished by certain wild conquerors from the north (Amo 1:5; Amo 5:27; Amo 6:14), but does not name them, as if they were still unknown or unheeded. (See Niemeyer, Charakt. d. Bibel, 5,302 sq.)

BOOK OF AMOS. — When Amos received his commission (B.C. 783), the kingdom of Israel, which had been “cut short” by Hazael (2Ki 10:33) toward the close of Jehu’s reign, was restored to its ancient limits and splendor by Jeroboam II (2Ki 14:25). But the restoration of national prosperity was followed by the prevalence of luxury, licentiousness, and oppression, to an extent that again provoked the divine displeasure; and Amos was called from the sheepfolds to be the harbinger of the coming judgments. The poor were oppressed (Amo 8:4), the ordinances of religion thought burdensome (Amo 8:5), and idleness, luxury, and extravagance were general (Amo 3:15). The source of these evils was idolatry, of course that of the golden calves, not of Baal, since Jehu’s dynasty occupied the throne, though it seems probable from 2Ki 13:6, which passage must refer to Jeroboam’s reign, SEE BENHADAD III, that the rites even of Astarte were tolerated in Samaria, though not encouraged. Calf-worship was specially practiced at Bethel, where was a principal temple and summer palace for the king (Amo 7:13; comp. Amo 3:15), also at Gilgal, Dan, and Beersheba in Judah (Amo 4:4; Amo 5:5; Amo 8:14), and was offensively united with the true worship of the Lord (Amo 5:14; Amo 5:21-23; comp. 2Ki 17:33). Amos went to rebuke this at Bethel itself, but was compelled to return to Judah by the high-priest Amaziah, who procured from Jeroboam an order for his expulsion from the northern kingdom. Not that his commission was limited entirely to Israel. The thunder-storm (as Ruckert poetically expresses it) rolls over all the surrounding kingdoms, touches Judah in its progress, and at length settles upon Israel. Chapters 1; Amo 2:1-5, form a solemn prelude to the main subject; nation after nation is summoned to judgment, in each instance with the striking idiomatical expression (similar to that in Pro 30:15; Pro 30:18; Pro 30:21), “For three transgressions — and for four — I will not turn away the punishment thereof.” Israel is then addressed in the same style, and in chap. in (after a brief rebuke of the twelve tribes collectively) its degenerate state is strikingly portrayed, and the denunciations of divine justice are intermingled, like repeated thunder- claps, to the end of chap. 6. The seventh and eighth chapters contain various symbolical visions, with a brief historical episode (Amo 7:10 -

17). In the ninth chapter the majesty of Jehovah and the terrors of his justice are set forth with a sublimity of diction which rivals and partly copies that of the royal Psalmist (comp. Psa 9:2-3, with Psalms 109, and Psa 9:6 with Psalms 104). Toward the close the scene brightens; and from the eleventh verse to the end the promises of the divine mercy and returning favor to the chosen race are exhibited in imagery of great beauty taken from rural life. The allusions in the writings of this prophet are numerous and varied; they refer to natural objects, as in 3, 4, 8; Amo 4:7; Amo 4:9; Amo 5:8; Amo 6:12; Amo 9:3: to historical events, Amo 1:9; Amo 1:11; Amo 1:13; Amo 2:1; Amo 4:11; Amo 5:26: to agricultural or pastoral employments and occurrences, Amo 1:3; Amo 2:13; Amo 3:5; Amo 3:12; Amo 4:2; Amo 4:9; Amo 5:19; Amo 7:1; Amo 9:9; Amo 9:13; Amo 9:15: and to national institutions and customs, Amo 2:8; Amo 3:15; Amo 4:4; Amo 5:21; Amo 6:4-6; Amo 6:10; Amo 8:5; Amo 8:10; Amo 8:14. The book presupposes a popular acquaintance with the Pentateuch (see Hengstenberg, Beitrage zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament, 1, 83-125), and implies that the ceremonies of religion, except where corrupted by Jeroboam I, were in accordance with the law of Moses. As the book is evidently not a series of detached prophecies, but logically and artistically connected in its several parts, it was probably written by Amos as we now have it after his return to Tekoah from his mission to Bethel (see Ewald, Propheten des Alten Bundes, 1, 84 sq.) (Smith, s.v.).

The canonicity of the book of Amos is amply supported both by Jewish and Christian authorities. Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud include it among the minor prophets. It is also in the catalogues of Melito, Jerome, and the 60th cation of the Council of Laodicea. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho (§ 22), quotes a considerable part of the fifth and sixth chapters, which he introduces by saying, “Hear how he speaks concerning these by Amos, one of the twelve.” There are two quotations from it in the New Testament; the first (5:25, 26) by the proto-martyr Stephen, Act 7:42; the second (9:11) by the Apostle James, Act 15:16. (See, generally, Knobel, Prophet. 2, 147 sq.; Hitzig, Kl. Proph. p. 29; Carpzov, Introd. 3, 314 sq.; Eichhorn, Einleit. 4, 307 sq.; Jahn, II, 2, 401 sq.; Bertholdt, 4, 1611 sq.; Davidson, in Home’s Introd. new ed. 2, 960 sq.).

Special exegetical works on the book of Amos are the following, of which the most important are designated by an asterisk [*] prefixed: Ephraem Syrus, Explanatio (in Opp. 5:255); *Kimchi, Commentarius (in Hebr. ed. Minster, Basil. 1531, 8vo); Luther, Enarratio (in Opp. 3, 513); Brent, Commentarius (in Opp. 4); Ecolampadius, Adnotationes (Basil. 1535, fol.); Quinquaboreus, Notes (Par. 1556, 4to); Mercer, Commentarius (Genev. 1574, fol.; Giess. 1595, 4to); Danean, Commentarius (Genev. 1578, 8vo); Lively, Adnotationes (Lond. 1587, 8vo; also in the Critici Sacri, 3); Schade, Commentarius (Argent. 1588, 4to); Tarnovius, Commentarius (Lips. 1622, 4to); Benefield, Sermons (Lond. 1629, 3 vols. 4to); Hall, Exposition (Lond. 1661, 4to); Gerhard, Annotationes (Jen. 1663, 1676, 4to); *Van Toll, Vitlegginge (Ultraj. 1705, 4to); Michaelis, Exercitatio (Hal. 1736, 4to); Hase, Stilus Amosi (Hal. 1755, 4to); *Harenberg, Amos expositus (L. B. 1763, 4to); Uhland, Animadversiones (Tub. 1779,1780, 4to); *Dahl, Amos’ ubers. u. erlaut. (Gott. 1795,;8vo); *Horsley, Notes (in Bib. Crit. 2, 391); *Justi, Amos ubers. u. erlaut. (Lpz. 1799, 8vo); Berg, Specimem (in Rosenmuller’s Repertor. 2, 1 sq.); Swanborg, Amos illustr. (Ups. 1808 sq. 4to); *Vater, Amos ubers. u. erlut. (Hal. 1810; 4to; also with Latin title, ib. eod.); *Rosenmuller, Scholia (Lips. 1813, 8vo); Juynboll, De Amoso (L. B. 1828, 4to); Faber, Abweichungen d. Gr. Uebers. (in Eichhorn’s Repertor. 6, 288 sq.); *Baur, Amos erklart (Lpz. 1847, 8vo); Ryan, Lectures (Lond. 1850, 12mo). SEE PROPHETS (MINOR).

2. The ninth in the maternal line of ascent from Christ, being the son of Nahum (or Johanan), and the father of Mattathiah (Luk 3:25), B.C. cir. 400. His name perhaps would be more properly Anglicized AMOZ SEE AMOZ , and in that case it would have the same derivation as under that article.

Amos

the Hebrew prophet, is commemorated as a Christian saint in the Byzantine calendar on June 15.

Amos (â’mos), burden. 1. The third of the minor prophets was a shepherd of Tekoa, a small town of Judah. He prophesied concerning Israel, in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam the Second, king of Israel, about b.c. 790. The book of Amos takes a high rank among the writings of the prophets. The writer must have been a man of some education, as is evident from his observations relating to geography, history, and astronomy. He is full of fancy and imagery, concise, and yet simple and perspicuous. Amo 1:1; Amo 1:7; Amo 1:10-15. 2. A son of Nahum, R. V., or Naum, A. V., of Luk 3:25.

[A’mos]

One of the minor Prophets, a native of Tekoa in Judah, possibly the father of the prophet Isaiah. He told Amaziah, "I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdsman and a gatherer of sycomore fruit: and the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said to me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel." Amo 7:14-15. His language indicates an acquaintance with things that would be familiar to one leading an agricultural life: cf. Amo 2:13; Amo 3:12; Amo 4:9; Amo 5:8; Amo 6:12; Amo 7:1-2. He tells us that his prophecy was given in the days of Uzziah king of Judah and of Jeroboam II, son of Joash, king of Israel, two years before the earthquake; or at least began at that time. Amo 1:1. For about 25 years these two kings were contemporaneous: B.C. 810-785.

By: Karl Budde, Kaufmann Kohler, Louis Ginzberg

Home and Occupation.

—Biblical Data:

Jewish prophet of the eighth century B.C.; date of birth and death unknown. Among the minor prophets there is none whose personality is so familiar as that of Amos. His name occurs not only in the superscription of the book, but several times (vii. 8, 10 et seq., 14; viii. 2) in the body of it. His home was in Tekoa in Judah, five miles to the south of Bethlehem. The original title of his book was merely "The Words of Amos of Tekoa"; the rest, "who was among the herdsmen," is a later addition emphasizing the fact gleaned from vii. 14, that Amos had been a herdsman before he became a prophet. From the margin this notice appears to have intruded itself into the text. The attempt has been made to discover a northern Tekoa for his home, but there is no need for that. That Amos was from Judah is the simplest interpretation of vii. 13. Amos himself tells us what his profession was: he was a herdsman and one who tended sycamore-figs (vii. 14). At Tekoa sycamores are not grown, but Amos could very well have been the proprietor of a sycamore-grove at some distance from Tekoa, in the Shefelah, the hill country leading down to Philistia, where there were sycamoretreesin "abundance" (I Kings, x. 27). He makes this statement of his occupation to Amaziah, the chief priest of Bethel, who, startled by the ominous utterances of Amos, advises him to make his escape to Judah and there to earn his livelihood by his profession of prophet. Amos denies both premises involved in this rebuke. He does not need to take fees for his prophecies, because he is well-to-do, and he is no prophet either by profession or extraction, but was called by God from behind his flock by special summons. Amos' attitude marks a turning-point in the development of Old Testament prophecy. It is not mere chance that Hosea, Isaiah (ch. vi.), Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and almost all of the prophets who are more than unknown personages to whom a few prophetical speeches are ascribed, give first of all the story of their special calling.

First to Write down Prophecy.

All of them thereby seek to protest against the suspicion that they are professional prophets, because the latter discredited themselves by flattering national vanities and ignoring the misdeeds of prominent men. But Amos marks an epoch in Old Testament prophecy also in another respect. He is the first of the prophets to write down the messages he has received. It is easy to understand the reason for this innovation. He feels himself called to preach in Beth-el, where there was a royal sanctuary (vii. 13), and there to announce the fall of the reigning dynasty and of the northern kingdom. But he is denounced by the head priest Amaziah to King Jeroboam II. (vii. 10 et seq.), and is advised to leave the kingdom (verses 12 et seq.). Though nothing more is learned than the answer he gave Amaziah (verses 14 et seq.), there is no reason to doubt that he was actually forced to leave the northern kingdom and to return to his native country. Being thus prevented from bringing his message to an end, and from reaching the ear of those to whom he was sent, he had recourse to writing. If they could not hear his messages, they could read them, and if his contemporaries refused to do so, following generations might still profit by them. No earlier instance of a literary prophet is known, nor is it likely that there was any; but the example he gave was followed by others in an almost unbroken succession. It is true, it can not be proved that Hosea knew the book of Amos, though there is no reason to doubt that he was acquainted with the latter's work and experiences. It is quite certain, on the other hand, that Isaiah knew his book, for he follows and even imitates him in his early speeches (compare Amos, v. 21-24, iv. 6 et seq., v. 18 with Isa. i. 11-15; Amos, iv. 7 et seq. with Isa., etc., ix. 7 et seq., ii. 12). Cheyne concludes with great probability that Amos wrote the record of his prophetical work at Jerusalem, after his expulsion from the northern kingdom, and that he committed it to a circle of faithful followers of YHWH residing there.

Repentance and Forgiveness.

Amos is undoubtedly one of the grandest personalities among the Old Testament prophets; indeed, the most imposing of all, if the fact be considered that he is the first of the writing-prophets. His lofty conception of Deity, his uncompromisingly moral conception of the order of the universe, and his superiority to all religious narrowness, are admirable indeed. Leaving the above-mentioned "doxologies" aside, YHWH is in vii. 4, ix. 2 the Ruler of the universe, and in i., ii., and ix. 7 He is the Lord of all other nations as well as of Israel. The standard by which He measures peoples is morality, and morality only. It is by His inscrutable will that Israel was chosen among the peoples, but as a result it follows that God is doubly strict in His demands upon this nation, and doubly severe in His punishment of its transgressions (iii. 2). Ritualistic zeal and the richest burnt-offerings avail nothing in extenuation; such acts are contemptuous in the sight of YHWH, who may be served without any religious ceremonies, but not without morality (iii. 21-25, iv. 4, 5, 13). Therefore let the nation not comfort itself with the hope of the "Day of YHWH," which will be a day of terror for Israel, and not of salvation (v. 18-20). It is all over with Israel; the complete destruction is at hand (see especially ii. 5, v. 1 et seq., ix. 1-4).

Personality of Amos.

Distinct as are these fundamental principles of his discourses, Amos must by no means be considered as an uncompromising prophet of evil; it should not be forgotten that Israel's destruction is brought about by its sinfulness, and it is only because experience appears to show an unwillingness to repent, that the hope of forgiveness is cut off. Should this experience prove false and Israel actually repent, forgiveness and national life would be by no means hopeless; and therefore utterances like v. 4 and 14, however inconspicuous they may be in comparison with the denunciatory passages, are by no means to be overlooked, and certainly not to be held as spurious. It is certain, however, that Amos did not shrink from facing the possibility of the utter destruction of Israel.

Amos has always been admired for the purity of his language, his beauty of diction, and his poetic art. In all these respects he is Isaiah's spiritual progenitor. There is no need for astonishment that a rustic should have been capable of such diction.

The period of the prophet's activity is the reign of Jeroboam II., king of Israel, whose dynasty he mentions in one of his prophecies (vii. 9), while the narrator of vii. 10, etc. (probably not identical with Amos), clearly states that Jeroboam was reigning at the time when Amos preached at Beth-el. The superscription of the book (i. 1) mentions Uzziah, king of Judah, before Jeroboam, which is doubtless correct, inasmuch as Uzziah was a contemporary of Jeroboam; but the statement is at the same time puzzling, since it is not known that Amos was ever active in Judah.

Superscription of the Book.

The superscription adds that he "saw" his words two years before the earthquake. Now Amos doubtless experienced an earthquake (iv. 11), and an earthquake under King Uzziah is testified to in Zech. xiv. 5; but unfortunately this passage does not help us much, seeing that it is of late origin, and may itself be taken from Amos, iv. 11, or even from the heading of the book. On the other hand, the superscription may be based on the hints contained in the book itself, and indeed G. Hoffmann in Stade's "Zeitschrift," iii. 123, has tried to offer an explanation for the phrase "two years before the earthquake" which would deprive the words of every real significance. His explanation seems to be somewhat artificial, but has been accepted by such scholars as Cheyne and Marti. Still, since the heading undoubtedly contains reliable and authentic statements, the possibility that the reference to the earthquake is also authentic must be admitted. The question, however, remains whether all the prophecies united in the Book of Amos are to be understood as uttered in this same year. Their extent would not make this impossible, nor is it likely that Amos, rebuking the sins of Ephraim so openly, would have been tolerated many years before being denounced and expelled, as we read in vii. 10. In this case the earthquake in iv. 11 must be another than that mentionedin i. 1, because it could not be referred to two years before it actually happened. Moreover, it is unlikely that Amos should not have added new prophecies to those spoken during his stay in the northern kingdom, when he once proceeded to write down his utterances (compare Jer. xxxvi. 32). If i. 1 be admitted as authentic, the most probable conclusion is that "two years before the earthquake" was originally the date for only a part of the book, perhaps for only the introductory speech in i. 2.

The reign of Jeroboam II. lasted forty-one years, according to II Kings, xiv. 23. Though it can not be fixed with certainty, this much may be said, that its termination must be placed between 750 and 740 B.C. Marti ("Ency. Bibl." article. "Chronology," p. 797) fixes his reign between 782 and 743 B.C. The activity of Amos could hardly have coincided with the close of his reign. The fact alone that Isaiah's call can not have happened later than 740, while he so evidently draws on Amos' prophecies, is sufficient ground for placing Amos not later than 750.

The Present Form of the Book.

The first indication that a distinction must be made between the prophecies of Amos and the book that bears his name is to be found in the narrative, vii. 10-17. This is inserted after the third of five visions which form a connected series. The insertion in question is simply a comment on vii. 9, and contains the threat of the overthrow of Jeroboam and his house. It is mentioned in vii. 10 that Amos' boldness resulted in his expulsion from the northern kingdom. It is not likely that Amos himself would have interrupted his series of addresses in this way. Moreover, he is not the narrator; another writer speaks of him in the third person. Hence it is clear that his book has not come to us exactly as he wrote it. But, on the other hand, vii. 10 et seq. must have been written soon after the event by a writer who had thoroughly trustworthy accounts of Amos. This is a fact of great importance.

Editorial and Later Additions.

The book is well arranged in its general features. There is in chaps. i. and ii. a coherent series of judgments on sinful and unrepentant peoples, aimed particularly at Israel. In chaps. vii.-ix. are the above-mentioned five visions; in chaps. iii.-vi. a series of discourses, loosely connected, whose beginning and end can not be fixed with certainty. The same problem is presented in other prophetical books; the prophet himself would scarcely lay great stress on the separation of the single discourses when he wrote or dictated them. There is no reason to doubt that this arrangement goes back to the first editors, working soon after the prophet's death or even delegated by him for this task. This does not preclude the possibility of later changes and additions. Since the investigations of Stade and Wellhausen, such changes have been assumed in increasing proportions. The most complete and discriminating survey of those passages whose originality hitherto has been doubted is given by Cheyne ("Ency. Bibl." article "Amos"). They can be grouped under the following titles: (1) Passages widening the horizon of the book, so as to include the southern kingdom of Judah. (2) Additional predictions affirming a better future than the gloomy auguries of the old prophet. (3) Additions giving expression to the loftier and more spiritual theology of a later time. (4) Glosses and explanations based on an erroneous conception of the texts.

(1) The chief passage of the first group is ii. 4, etc., the denunciation of Judah in the series of judgments against the nations. The same judgment against Edom in i. 11 and 12 is perhaps also an addition, and the same has been surmised of the passage about Tyre in i. 9. The isolated verse i. 2, in which Zion is spoken of as the fixed seat of YHWH, is also doubtful, and the same is true of the address to Zion in vi. 1, and the expression "like David" in vi. 5.

(2) The second group is represented by ix. 8-15, canceled by Stade, Wellhausen, Cornill, Nowack, Cheyne, and many others, as spurious. These verses do not form a single whole, but are composed of different passages. Verses 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 seem to be mere fragments or insertions in the context. The last verse, which, by virtue of its inimitable originality, is unanimously ascribed to Amos, can not have formed the concluding verse of the book, but appears to have been the beginning of a new address. If the verses 8-15 are to be taken in their entirety as a later addition, the original continuation must either have been lost through the mutilation of the manuscript, or have intentionally been stricken out on account of the too mournful survey of the future. The latter suggestion is improbable, because verse 7 would have been rejected for the same reason, and because in other passages (see verses 1-4) the most terrible predictions have been retained. If, on the other hand, the conclusion had been lost in consequence of the mutilation and then supplied at hazard, a more uniform continuation would have been expected in place of such a rugged one, with its disjointed and disconnected sentences. The possibility remains that verses 8-15 are a repeated elaboration of the original conclusion. It is erroneous to consider verse 11, concerning the restoration of the fallen tabernacle of David, as a specifically Judaic prediction; it can only assume this character through the addition of verse 12, which regards the subjection of the vassals of Judah as an essential feature of such reestablishment. The verse refers to the reestablishment of the united kingdom of Israel, founded by David and sundered after the death of Solomon. Verses 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 may possibly contain an original prediction directed, like vii. 9, against the house of Jeroboam, and promising for the future the restoration of a united Israel, as pleasing to Jehovah. Of course, conclusive proof of this theory can no longer be secured, nor can the original text of such prediction be restored with reasonable certainty.

(3) The third group of additions are the doxologies iv. 13, v. 8, ix. 56, which invoke YHWH as the Creator and Ruler of the world. While it is not impossible that they may have been written by Amos, the style of these additions indicates a much later period, possibly later than Deutero-Isaiah. Since all three passages interrupt the context, and iv. 12 and v. 7 have inherent difficulties of their own, it may be suggested that the interpolator designed these doxologies to fill up gaps or illegible sentences in the manuscripts.

(4) To the fourth group, iii. 14 and viii. 11, and 12 may be assigned. Other passages are open to discussion, particularly the enigmatical verse v. 26 (Wellhausen, Nowack, Cheyne), the difficulty of which is hardly solved by the suggestion of its being simply a marginal gloss. Finally, there are many individual words of the text of this book which present numerous difficulties.

Concerning the problem which the severe logical attitude of Amos presents in the history of religion, compare especially F. Giesebrecht, "Die Geschichtlichkeit des Sinaibundes," p. 14; also K. Budde, "American Lectures on the History of Religions," vol. iv. lecture iv. To ascribe the whole book to another age, the pre-Deuteronomic period of Josiah (638-621), on account of this and similar difficulties,as H. J. Elhorst, "De Profetie van Amos" (Leyden, 1900), proposes, is entirely unwarranted and impossible. See the criticism of P. Volz in Schürer's "Theol. Literatur-zeitung," May 12, 1900.

Bibliography:

See, besides the monographs and articles already referred to, the commentaries of Orelli, Hitzig, Steiner, Keil, Reuss. Nowack, Handcommentar zum A. T., 1892, et seq.;

Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten, 1892;

J. J. P. Valeton, Amos en Hosea, 1894;

Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, 1896;

idem, The Expositor's Bible;

Driver, Joel and Amos, in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, 1897;

Heilprin, Historical Poetry of the Ancient Hebrews, 1882, ii.

K. B.—In Rabbinical Literature:

According to the rabbis (Lev. R. x., Eccl. R. i. 1) Amos was nick-named "the stutterer" by a popular etymology. The people, on hearing his bitter rebukes, retorted: "Has the Lord cast aside all His creatures to let His spirit dwell only on this stutterer?"

Regarding the teachings of Amos, the following utterance of Simlai, an amora of the beginning of the third century, is noteworthy:

Six hundred and thirteen commandments were given to Moses; King David reduced them to eleven (Ps. xv.); Isaiah to six (Isa. xxxiii. 15); Micah to three (Micah vi. 8); Isaiah, a second time, to two (Isa. lvi. 1); but Amos to one: "Seek Me and Live!" (Mak. 24a). According to rabbinical tradition (Suk. 52b, Pirḳe R. ha-Ḳadosh, viii., based on Micah v. 5 [4]), Amos is one of the "eight princes among men" alluded to in Micah, v. 5.

K.

According to rabbinical tradition, Amos was killed by King Uzziah, who struck him on the forehead with a glowing iron (Gedaliah ibn YaḦyah in his "Shalshelet ha-Ḳabbalah," quoted by Heilprin in "Seder ha-Dorot," i. 3110, Venetian ed. of 1587, does not mention anything of this).

The story of the martyrdom of Amos, found in the pseudo-Epiphanean writings ("Vita Prophetarum"), is somewhat different; according to this version, Amos was killed by a blow on the temple struck by Amaziah, priest of Beth-el.

AMOS

1. The man.—Amos, the earliest of the prophets whose writings have come down to us, and the initiator of one of the greatest movements in spiritual history, was a herdsman, or small sheep-farmer, in Tekoa, a small town lying on the uplands some six miles south of Bethlehem. He combined two occupations. The sheep he reared produced a particularly fine kind of wool, the sale of which doubtless took him from one market to another. But he was also a ‘pincher of sycomores.’ The fruit of this tree was hastened in its ripening process by being bruised or pinched: and as the sycomore does not grow at so great a height as Tekoa, this subsidiary occupation would bring Amos into touch with other political and religious circles. The simple life of the uplands, the isolation from the dissipation of a wealthier civilization, the aloofness from all priestly or prophetic guilds, had doubtless much to do with the directness of his vision and speech, and with the spiritual independence which found in him so noble an utterance. While he was thus a native of the kingdom of Judah, his prophetic activity awoke in the kingdom of Israel. Of this awakening he gives a most vivid picture in the account of his interview with Amaziah, the priest of Bethel (Amo 7:10-17). He had gone to Bethel to some great religious feast, which was also a business market. The direct call from God to testify against the unrighteousness of both kingdoms had probably come to him not long before; and amidst the throng at Bethel he proclaimed his vision of Jehovah standing with a plumb-line to measure the deflection of Israel, and prepared to punish the iniquity of the house of Jeroboam II. The northern kingdom had no pleasant memories of another prophet who had declared the judgment of God upon sin (2Ki 9:25 ff.); and Amaziah, the priest, thinking that Amos was one of a prophetic and official guild, contemptuously bade him begone to Judah, where he could prophesy for hire, (Amo 7:12). The answer came flashing back. Amos disclaimed all connexion with the hireling prophets whose ‘word’ was dictated by the immediate political and personal interest. He was something better and more honest—no prophet, neither a prophet’s son, but a herdsman and a dresser of sycomores, called by God to prophesy to Israel. Herein lies much of his distinctiveness. The earlier prophetic impulse which had been embodied in the prophetic guilds had become professional and insincere. Amos brought prophecy back again into the line of direct inspiration.

2. The time in which he lived.—Amo 1:1 may not be part of the original prophecy, but there is no reason to doubt its essential accuracy. Amos was prophesying in those years in which Uzziah and Jeroboam II. were reigning contemporaneously, b.c. 775–750. This date is of great importance, because few prophetic writings are so interpenetrated by the historical situation as those of Amos. For nearly 100 years prior to his time Israel had suffered severely from the attacks of Syria. She had lost the whole of her territory east of Jordan (2Ki 10:32 f.); she had been made like ‘dust in threshing’ (2Ki 13:7). But now Syria had more than enough to do to defend herself from the southward pressure of Assyria; and the result was that Israel once more began to be prosperous and to regain her lost territories. Under Jeroboam II. this prosperity reached its climax. The people revelled in it, giving no thought to any further danger. Even Assyria was not feared, because she was busy with the settlement of internal affairs, rebellion and pestilence. Amos, however, knew that the relaxation of pressure could be but temporary. He saw that the Assyrian would eventually push past Damascus down into Palestine, and bring in the day of account; and although he nowhere names Assyria as the agent of God’s anger, the references are unmistakable (Amo 5:27, Amo 6:7; Amo 6:14, Amo 7:17).

It is this careless prosperity with its accompanying unrighteousness and forgetfulness of God that is never out of the prophet’s thoughts. The book is short, but the picture of a time of moral anarchy is complete. The outward religious observances are kept up, and the temples are thronged with worshippers (Amo 5:5, Amo 9:1); tithes and voluntary offerings are duly paid (Amo 4:4-5, Amo 5:22). But religion has divorced itself from morality, the stated worship of God from reverence for the character of God (Amo 2:8). The rich have their winter houses and their summer houses (Amo 3:15), houses built of hewn stone (Amo 5:11), and panelled with ivory (Amo 3:15). They drink wine by the bowlful (Amo 6:6), and the fines unjustly extorted from the defenceless are spent in the purchase of wine for the so-called religious feast (Amo 2:8). Lazy, pampered women, ‘kine of Bashan,’ are foremost in this unholy oppression (Amo 4:1). There is no such thing as justice; the very semblance of it is the oppression of the weak by the strong. The righteous are sold for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes (Amo 2:6); the houses of the great are stored with the spoils of robbery (Amo 3:10); bribery and corruption, the besetting sins of the East, are rampant (Amo 5:12). Commerce shares in the prevailing evil; weights are falsified and food is adulterated (Amo 8:5-6). Immorality is open and shameless (Amo 2:7). Small wonder that the prophet declares as the word of the Lord, ‘I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies’ (Amo 5:21). While the observances of religion are maintained, the soul of religion has fled. Those who are responsible for the evil condition of things ‘are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph’ (Amo 6:6).

3. Contents of the book.—The book is framed upon a definite plan, which is clearer in the opening section than in those which follow.

(i) Amo 1:2 to Amo 2:16 treats of the judgment upon the nations for their sins. Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Judah, and Israel are all passed under review. The assumption is that each people is subject to the dominion of Jehovah. Punishment will be visited upon each for the violation of some broad and universally recognized principle of humanity.

(ii) Chs. 3, 4, 5, three threatening discourses, each introduced by ‘Hear ye this word.’

(iii) 7–9:10, a series of five visions, interrupted in Amo 7:10-17 by the account of Amaziah’s attempt to intimidate Amos. The visions are (a) the devouring locusts (Amo 7:1-3); (b) the consuming fire (Amo 7:4-6); (c) the plumb-line (Amo 7:7-9); (d) the basket of summer fruit (Amo 8:1-3); (e) the smitten sanctuary, and destruction of the worshippers (Amo 9:1-10).

Amo 9:11-15 is in striking contrast to the tone of the rest of the book. Instead of threatenings there are now promises. The line of David will be restored to its former splendour; the waste cities shall be built up; the settled agricultural life shall be resumed. This Epilogue is generally acknowledged to be a late addition to the prophecy. It contains no moral feature, no repentance, no new righteousness. It tells only of a people satisfied with vineyards and gardens. ‘These are legitimate hopes; but they are hopes of a generation of other conditions and of other deserts than the generation of Amos’ (G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, i. 195).

4. Theology of Amos.—In his religions outlook Amos had many successors, but he had no forerunner. His originality is complete.

(i) His view of Jehovah.—Hitherto Jehovah had been thought of as a Deity whose power over His own people was absolute, but who ceased to have influence when removed from certain geographical surroundings (1Ki 20:23). The existence of other gods had not been questioned even by the most pious of the Israelites; they denied only that these other gods had any claim over the life of the people of Jehovah. But Amos will not hear of the existence of other gods. Jehovah is the God of the whole earth. His supreme claim is righteousness, and where that is not conceded He will punish. He rules over Syria and Caphtor, Moab and Ammon, just as truly as over Israel or Judah (1, 2, Amo 6:14, Amo 9:7). Nature too is under His rule. Every natural calamity and scourge are traced to the direct exercise of His will. Amos therefore lays down a great philosophy of history. God is all-righteous. All events and all peoples are in His hands. Political and natural catastrophes have religious significance (Amo 6:14).

(ii) The relationship of Jehovah to Israel.—Amos, in common with his countrymen, considered the relation of Jehovah to Israel to be a special one. But while they had regarded it as an indissoluble relationship of privilege, a bond that could not be broken provided the stated sacrifices were maintained, Amos declared not only that it could be broken, but that the very existence of such a bond would lay Israel under heavier moral responsibilities than if she had been one of the Gentile nations (Amo 3:2). As her opportunities had been greater, so too would her punishment for wasting them be proportionately severe. Jehovah’s first demands were morality and justice and kindliness, and any sacrificial system that removed the emphasis from these things and placed it on the observance of ritual was an abomination (Amo 5:21-25).

(iii) The inevitable judgment.—It is his certainty of the moral character of God that makes Amos so sure of the coming catastrophe. For the first time in Hebrew literature he uses the expression ‘the day of the Lord’—a phrase that may already have been current in a more genial and privileged sense to indicate the day that will utterly destroy the nations (Amo 2:14-16, Amo 3:12-15, Amo 4:2-3; Amo 4:13). With this broad view of history, a view from which the idea of special privilege is excluded, he sees in the northern power the instrument of Jehovah’s anger (Amo 5:27, Amo 6:14); a power that even in its self-aggrandisement is working out Jehovah’s purpose.

5. Style.—It was the custom for many a century to accept the verdict of Jerome, that the prophet was rustic and unskilled in speech. That, however, is anything but the case. The arrangement of the book is clear; the Hebrew is pure; and the knowledge of the outside world is remarkable. The survey of the nations with which the prophecy opens is full of precise detail. Amos knows, too, that the Aramæans migrated from Kir, and the Philistines from Caphtor (Amo 9:7); he has heard of the swellings of the Nile (Amo 8:8, Amo 9:5), and regards the fact with a curious dread. He has been a close observer of the social conditions in Israel. Much of his imagery is drawn from nature:—earthquakes and the eclipse of the sun, the cedars and the oaks, the roaring of the lion, the snaring of birds, the bite of the viper; once only does he draw a comparison from shepherd life (Amo 3:12).

6. Religious significance.—Amos’ true significance in religious history is that with him prophecy breaks away on its true line, individual, direct, responsible to none save God. The word of the Lord had come to Amos and he could not but speak (Amo 3:8). Such a cause produced an inevitable effect. In that direct vision of Jehovah, Amos learned the truths which he was the first to proclaim to the world:—that Jehovah was the God of the whole earth; that the nations were in His keeping; that justice and righteousness were His great demands; that privilege, if it meant opportunity, meant likewise responsibility and liability to the doom of those who have seen and have not believed.

R. Bruce Taylor.

(meaning not clear; perhaps "a burden")

Third among the Minor Prophets, a subject of the Kingdom of Juda, born Thecua, 6 miles south of Bethlehem. In the Book of Amos, which is one of the prophetical books of the Old Testament, he thus describes himself: "I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of prophet; but I am a herdsman plucking wild figs. And the Lord took me when I followed the flock, and the Lord said to me: Go, prophesy to my people Israel" (Amos, 7). He toiled for God in the northern kingdom, preaching particularly at Bethel, about 12 miles north of Jerusalem, the king’s sanctuary and center of idolatrous worship. This was within the latter half of the reign of Jeroboam II, 783-743 B.C. (Amos 1 and 7). He describes Israel as reveling in a period of national prosperity, of sinful orgies, and of security from external foes. This fits well with the period when Jeroboam was enjoying the fruits of his victories. Furthermore, the earthquake mentioned in 1:1, and the eclipse in 8:1, suggests proximity with the year 763 B.C.

The prophecy is contained in nine chapters, usually divided in three parts, according to the clues furnished by Amos himself. The first part (1-2) pictures God’s judgment upon the nations encircling Israel, and then upon Israel itself. The second part (3-6) develops God’s judgment upon Israel in three distinct discourses; Saint Augustine calls attention to the power and the eloquence of the lamentation in chapters 5 and 6. The third part (7-9) records five visions; the fifth vision (9:1-10) prepares the glorious perspective of Messianic blessings (verses 11-15).

The book is one of the fairest specimens of Hebrew literature. Its arrangement is simple and artistic, its language plain but forceful, its wealth of imagery delightful and amazing. The reader is struck by the frequent recurrence of identical phrases, as in chapter 1: "For three crimes...and for four...I will send a fire" (3-4, 6-7, 11-10,11-12,13-14, etc;); and in chapter 4: "Yet you returned not to me" (6,8,9, 10, 11). Amos is the prophet of the sovereign Lordship of God over all creation. The canonicity of the book is vouched for by a citation in Tobias (2:6) and two citations in the Acts of the Apostles, where Saint Stephen (Acts 7:42) quotes from Amos 5, and Saint James (Acts 15:16) quotes from Amos, 9. It is used in the Office for Thursday, the fourth week of November, and in the Mass for Wednesday of the Ember Week of September, first lesson (9:13-15). Passages recommended for reading are chapter 1, verse 3, to chapter 2, verse 5, and chapter 4, verses 6-11.

I. NAMEThe third among the Minor Prophets of the Old Testament is called, in the Hebrew Text, "’Ams." The spelling of his name is different from that of the name of Isaias’s father, Amoç; whence Christian tradition has, for the most part, rightly distinguished between the two. The prophet’s name, Amos, has been variously explained, and its exact meaning is still a matter of conjecture. II. LIFE AND TIMESAccording to the heading of his book (i,1) Amos was a herdsman of Thecua, a village in the Southern Kingdom, twelve miles south of Jerusalem. Besides this humble avocation, he is also spoken of in vii, 14, as a simple dresser of sycamore-trees. Hence, as far as we know, there is no sufficient ground for the view of most Jewish interpreters that Amos was a wealthy man. Thecua was apparently a shepherd’s town, and it was while following his flock in the wilderness of Juda, that, in the reigns of Ozias and Jeroboam, God called him for a special mission: "Go, prophesy to My people Israel" (vii, 15). In the eyes of the humble shepherd this must have appeared a most difficult mission. At the time when the call came to him, he was "not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet" (vii, 14), which implies that he had not yet entered upon the prophetical office, and even that he had not attended the schools wherein young men in training for a prophet’s career bore the name of "the sons of a prophet".Other reasons might well cause Amos to fear to accept the divine mission. He, a Southerner, was bidden to go to the Northern Kingdom, Israel, and carry to its people and its leaders a message of judgment to which, from their historical circumstances, they were particularly ill-prepared to listen. Its ruler, Jeroboam II (c. 781-741 B.C.), had rapidly conquered Syria, Moab, and Ammon, and thereby extended his dominions from the source of the Orontes on the north to the Dead Sea on the south. The whole northern empire of Solomon thus practically restored had enjoyed a long period of peace and security marked by a wonderful revival of artistic and commercial development. Samaria, its capital, had been adorned with splendid and substantial buildings; riches had been accumulated in abundance; comfort and luxury had reached their highest standard; so that the Northern Kingdom had attained a material prosperity unprecedented since the disruption of the empire of Solomon. Outwardly, religion was also in a most flourishing condition. The sacrificial worship of the God of Israel was carried on with great pomp and general faithfulness, and the long enjoyment of national prosperity was popularly regarded as an undoubted token of the Lord’s favour towards His people. It is true that public morals had gradually been infected by the vices which continued success and plenty too often bring in their train. Social corruption and the oppression of the poor and helpless were very prevalent. But these and similar marks of public degeneracy could be readily excused on the plea that they were the necessary accompaniments of a high degree of Oriental civilization. Again, religion was debased in various ways. Many among the Israelites were satisfied with the mere offering of the sacrificial victims, regardless of the inward dispositions required for their worthy presentation to a thrice-holy God. Others availed themselves of the throngs which attended the sacred festivals to indulge in immoderate enjoyment and tumultuous revelry. Others again, carried away by the freer association with heathen peoples which resulted from conquest or from commercial intercourse, even went so far as to fuse with the Lord’s worship that of pagan deities. Owing to men’s natural tendency to be satisfied with the mechanical performance of religious duties, and owing more particularly to the great proneness of the Hebrews of old to adopt the sensual rites of foreign cults, so long as they did not give up the worship of their own God, these irregularities in matters of religion did not appear objectionable to the Israelites, all the more so because the Lord did not punish them for their conduct. Yet it was to that most prosperous people, thoroughly convinced that God was well-pleased with them, that Amos was sent to deliver a stern rebuke for all their misdeeds, and to announce in God’s name their forthcoming ruin and captivity (vii, 17).Amos’s mission to Israel was but a temporary one. It extended apparently from two years before to a few years after an earthquake, the exact date of which is unknown (i, 1). It met with strong opposition, especially on the part of Amasias, the chief priest of the royal sanctuary in Bethel (vii, 10-13). How it came to an end is not known; for only late and untrustworthy legends tell of Amos’s martyrdom under the ill-treatment of Amasias and his son. It is more probable that, in compliance with Amasias’s threatening order (vii, 12), the prophet withdrew to Juda, where at leisure he arranged his oracles in their well-planned disposition. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPHETICAL WRITINGThe book of Amos falls naturally into three parts. The first opens with a general title to the work, giving the author’s name and the general date of his ministry (i, 1), and a text or motto in four poetical lines (i, 2), describing under a fine image the Lord’s power over Palestine. This part comprises the first two chapters, and is made up of a series of oracles against Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Juda, and, finally, Israel. Each oracle begins with the same numerical formula: "For three crimes of Damascus [or Gaza, or Tyre, etc., as the case may be], and for four, I will not revoke the doom"; it next sets forth the chief indictment; and finally pronounces the penalty. The heathen nations are doomed not because of their ignorance of the true God, but because of their breaches of the elementary and unwritten laws of natural humanity and good faith. As regards Juda and Israel, they will share the same doom because, although they were especially cared for by the Lord who drew them out of Egypt, conquered for them the land of Chanaan, and gave them prophets and Nazarites, yet they have committed the same crimes as their pagan neighbours. Israel is rebuked more at length than Juda, and its utter destruction is vividly described.The second part (chaps. iii-vi) consists of a series of addresses which expand the indictment and the sentence against Israel set forth in ii, 6-16. Amos’s indictment bears (1) on the social disorders prevalent among the upper classes; (2) on the heartless luxury and self-indulgence of the wealthy ladies of Samaria; (3) on the too great confidence of the Israelites at large in their mere external discharge of religious duties which can in no way secure them against the approaching doom. The sentence itself assumes the form of a dirge over the captivity which awaits the unrepenting transgressors, and the complete surrender of the country to the foreign enemy.The third section of the book (chaps. vii-ix, 8b.), apart from the historical account of Amasias’s opposition to Amos (vii, 10-17), and from a discourse (viii, 4-14) similar in tone and import to the addresses contained in the second part of the prophecy, is wholly made up of visions of judgment against Israel. In the first two visions--the one of devouring locusts, and the other of consuming fire--the foretold destruction is stayed by divine interposition; but in the third vision, that of a plumb-line, the destruction is permitted to become complete. The fourth vision, like the foregoing, is symbolical; a basket of summer fruit points to the speedy decay of Israel; while in the fifth and last the prophet beholds the Lord standing beside the altar and threatening the Northern Kingdom with a chastisement from which there is no escape. The book concludes with God’s solemn promise of the glorious restoration of the House of David, and of the wonderful prosperity of the purified nation (ix, 8c-15). IV. LITERARY FEATURES OF THE BOOKIt is universally admitted at the present day that these contents are set forth in a style of "high literary merit". This literary excellence might, indeed, at first sight appear in strange contrast with Amos’s obscure birth and humble shepherd life. A closer study, however, of the prophet’s writing and of the actual circumstances of its composition does away with that apparent contrast. Before Amos’s time the Hebrew language had gradually passed through several stages of development, and had been cultivated by several able writers. Again, it is not to be supposed that the prophecies of Amos were delivered exactly as they are recorded. Throughout the book the topics are treated poetically, and many of its literary features are best accounted for by admitting that the prophet spared no time and labour to invest his oral utterances with their present elaborate form. Finally, to associate inferior culture with the simplicity and relative poverty of pastoral life would be to mistake totally the conditions of Eastern society, ancient and modern. For among the Hebrews of old, as among the Arabs of the present day, the sum of book-learning was necessarily small, and proficiency in knowledge and oratory was chiefly dependent not on a professional education, but on a shrewd observation of men and things, a memory retentive of traditional lore, and the faculty of original thought. V. AUTHORSHIP AND DATEApart from a few recent critics, all scholars maintain the correctness of the traditional view which refers the book of Amos to the Judean prophet of that name. They rightly think that the judgments, sermons, and visions which make up that sacred writing centre in a great message of doom to Israel. The contents read like a solemn denunciation of the incurable wickedness of the Northern Kingdom, like a direct prediction of its impending ruin. The same scholars regard likewise the general style of the book, with its poetical form and striking simplicity, abruptness, etc., as proof that the work is a literary unit, the various parts of which should be traced back to one and the same mind, to the one and holy prophet, whose name and period of activity are given in the title to the prophecy, and whose authorship is repeatedly affirmed in the body of the book (cf. vii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8; viii, 1, 2; ix, 1, etc.).To confirm the traditional view of Jews and Christians in regard to authorship and date, the two following facts have also been brought forth: first, as was to be expected from a shepherd like Amos, the author of the prophecy uses throughout imagery drawn mainly from rural life (the wagon loaded with sheaves, the young lion in its den growling over its prey, the net springing up and entrapping the bird, the remnants of the sheep recovered by the shepherd out of the lion’s mouth, cattle-driving, etc.); in the second place, there is a close agreement between the state of the Northern Kingdom under Jeroboam II, as described by Amos, and that of the same Kingdom as it is made known to us in the fourth book of Kings and the prophecy of Osee which is commonly ascribed to the same (the eighth) century B.C. It is true that Amos’s authorship of numerous passages, and notably of ix, 8c-15, has been and is still seriously questioned by some leading critics. But in regard to most, if not indeed to all such passages, it may be confidently affirmed that the arguments against the authorship are not strictly conclusive. Besides, even though the later origin of all these passages should be conceded, the traditional view of the authorship and date of the book as a whole would not be materially impaired. VI. RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS OF AMOSTwo facts contribute to give to the religious doctrine of Amos a special importance. On the one hand, his prophecies are wellnigh universally regarded as authentic, and on the other, his work is probably the earliest prophetical writing which has come down to us. So that the book of Amos furnishes us with most valuable information concerning the beliefs of the eighth century B.C., and in fact, concerning those of some time before, since, in delivering the Divine message to his contemporaries, the prophet always takes for granted that they are already familiar with the truths to which he appeals. Amos teaches a most pure monotheism. Throughout his book there is not so much as a reference to other deities than the God of Israel. He often speaks of "the Lord of Hosts", meaning thereby that God has untold forces and powers at His command; in other words, that He is omnipotent. His descriptions of the Divine attributes show that according to his mind God is the Creator and Ruler of all things in heaven and on earth; He governs the nations at large, as well as the heavenly bodies and the elements of nature; He is a personal and righteous God who punishes the crimes of all men, whether they belong to the heathen nations or to the chosen people. The prophet repeatedly inveighs against the false notions which his contemporaries had of God’s relation to Israel. He does not deny that the Lord is their God in a special manner. But he argues that His benefits to them in the past, instead of being a reason for them to indulge with security in sins hateful to God’s holiness, really increase their guilt and must make them fear a severer penalty. He does not deny that sacrifices should be offered to the Divine Majesty; but he most emphatically declares that the mere outward offering of them is not pleasing to God and cannot placate His anger. On the day of the Lord, that is on the day of retribution, Israelites who shall be found guilty of the same crimes as the heathen nations will be held to account for them severely. It is true that Amos argues in a concrete manner with his contemporaries, and that consequently he does not formulate abstract principles. Nevertheless, his book is replete with truths which can never become superfluous or obsolete.Finally, whatever view may be taken of the authorship of the concluding portion of the book of Amos (vii, 8c.-15), the Messianic bearing of the passage will be readily admitted by all who believe in the existence of the supernatural. It may also be added that this Messianic prophecy is worded in a manner that offers no insuperable objection to the traditional view which regards Amos as its author.----------------------------------- For reference to Introductions to the Old Testament, see Bibliography to AGGEUS; recent Commentaries on Amos by TROCHON (1886); KNABENBAUER (1886); ORELLI (Eng. tr., 1893); FILLION (1896); DRIVER (1898); SMITH (1896); MITCHELL (2nd ed., 1900); NOWACK (2nd ed., 1903); MARTI (1903); HORTON (1904). F.E. GIGOT Transcribed by Thomas J. Bress The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume ICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

ā´mos (עמוס, ‛āmōṣ, “burdensome” or “burden-bearer”; Ἀμώς, Amō̇s):

I.    The Prophet

1.    Name

2.    Native Place

3.    Personal History

4.    His Preparation

(1)    Knowledge of God

(2)    Acquaintance with History of His People

(3)    Personal Travel

(4)    Scenery of His Home

5.    His Mission

6.    Date

II.    The Book

1.    Its Divisions

2.    Its Outlook

3.    Value of the Book

(1)    As a Picture of the Social Condition

(2)    As Picture of the Religious Condition

(3)    Testimony to History

(4)    Testimony to the Law

(a)    The Ritual

(b)    Ethical Teaching

(5)    The Prophetic Order

(6)    The Prophetic Religion

Literature

I. The Prophet

1. Name

Amos is the prophet whose book stands third among the “Twelve” in the Hebrew canon. No other person bearing the same name is mentioned in the Old Testament, the name of the father of the prophet Isaiah being written differently (ס, ’amots). There is an Amos mentioned in the genealogical series Luk 3:25, but he is otherwise unknown, and we do not know how his name would have been written in Hebrew. Of the signification of the prophet’s name all that can be said is that a verb with the same root letters, in the sense of to load or to carry a load, is not uncommon in the language.

2. Native Place

Tekoa, the native place of Amos, was situated at a distance of 5 miles South from Bethlehem, from which it is visible, and 10 miles from Jerusalem, on a hill 2,700 ft. high, overlooking the wilderness of Judah. It was made a “city for defense” by Rehoboam (2Ch 11:6), and may have in fact received its name from its remote and exposed position, for the stem of which the word is a derivative is of frequent occurrence in the sense of sounding an alarm with the trumpet: e.g. “Blow the trumpet in Tekoa, and set up a sign of fire in Beth-haccerem” (Jer 6:1 the King James Version). The same word is also used to signify the setting up of a tent by striking in the tent-pegs; and Jerome states that there was no village beyond Tekoa in his time. The name has survived, and the neighborhood is at the present day the pasture-ground for large flocks of sheep and goats. From the high ground on which the modern village stands one looks down on the bare undulating hills of one of the bleakest districts of Palestine, “the waste howling wilderness,” which must have suggested some of the startling imagery of the prophet’s addresses. The place may have had - as is not seldom the case with towns or villages - a reputation for a special quality of its inhabitants; for it was from Tekoa that Joab fetched the “wise woman” who by a feigned story effected the reconciliation of David with his banished son Absalom (2 Sam 14). There are traces in the Book of Am of a shrewdness and mother-wit which are not so conspicuous in other prophetical books.

3. Personal History

The particulars of a personal kind which are noted in the book are few but suggestive. Amos was not a prophet or the son of a prophet, he tells us (Amo 7:14), i.e. he did not belong to the professional class which frequented the so-called schools of the prophets. He was “among the herdsmen of Tekoa” (Amo 1:1), the word here used being found only once in another place (2Ki 3:4) and applied to Mesha, king of Moab. It seems to refer to a special breed of sheep, somewhat ungainly in appearance but producing, an abundant fleece. In Amo 7:14 the word rendered “herdman” is different, and denotes an owner of cattle, though some, from the Septuagint rendering, think that the word should be the same as in Amo 1:1. He was also “a dresser of sycomore-trees” (Amo 7:14). The word rendered “dresser” (Revised Version) or “gatherer” (the King James Version) occurs only here, and from the rendering of the Septuagint (κνίζων) it is conjectured that there is reference to a squeezing or nipping of the sycamore fig to make it more palatable or to accelerate its ripening, though such a usage is not known in Palestine at the present day.

4. His Preparation

Nothing is said as to any special preparation of the prophet for his work: The Lord took me from following the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel” (Amo 7:15, the English Revised Version). In these words he puts himself in line with all the prophets who, in various modes of expression, claim a direct revelation from God. But the mention of the prophetic call in association with the mention of his worldly calling is significant. There was no period interposed between the one and the other, no cessation of husbandry to prepare for the work of prophesying. The husbandman was prepared for this task, and when God’s time came he took it up. What was that preparation? Even if we suppose that the call was a momentary event, the man must have been ready to receive it, equipped for its performance. And, looking at the way in which he accomplished it, as exhibited in his book, we can see that there was a preparation, both internal and external, of a very thorough and effective character.

(1) Knowledge of God

First of all, he has no doubt or uncertainty as to the character of the God in whose name he is called to speak. The God of Amos is one whose sway is boundless (Amo 9:2), whose power is infinite (Amo 8:9 f), not only controlling the forces of Nature (Amo 4:1-13; Amo 5:8 f) but guiding the movements and destinies of nations (Amo 6:1,Amo 6:14; Amo 9:7). Moreover, He is righteous in all His ways, dealing with nations on moral principles (Amo 1:3; Amo 2:1); and, though particularly favorable to Israel, yet making that very choice of them as a people a ground for visiting them with sterner retribution for their sins (Amo 3:2). In common with all the prophets, Amos gives no explanation of how he came to know God and to form this conception of His character. It was not by searching that they found out God. It is assumed that God is and that He is such a Being; and this knowledge, as it could come only from God, is regarded as undisputed and undisputable. The call to speak in God’s name may have come suddenly, but the prophet’s conception of the character of the God who called him is no new or sudden revelation but a firm and well-established conviction.

(2) Acquaintance with History of His People

Then his book shows not only that he was well acquainted with the history and traditions of his nation, which he takes for granted as well known to his hearers, but that he had reflected upon these things and realized their significance. We infer that he had breathed an atmosphere of religion, as there is nothing to indicate that, in his acquaintance with the religious facts of his nation, he differed from those among whom he dwelt, although the call to go forth and enforce them came to him in a special way.

(3) Personal Travel

It has been conjectured that Amos had acquired by personal travel the accurate acquaintance which he shows in his graphic delineations of contemporary life and conditions; and it may have been the case that, as a wool-merchant or flock-master, he had visited the towns mentioned and frequented the various markets to which the people were attracted.

(4) Scenery of His Home

Nor must we overlook another factor in his preparation: the scenery in which he had his home and the occupations of his daily life. The landscape was one to make a solemn impression on a reflective mind: the extensive desert, the shimmering waters of the Dead Sea, the high wall of the distant hills of Moab, over all which were thrown the varying light and shade. The silent life of the desert, as with such scenes ever before him, he tended his flock or defended them from the ravages of wild beasts, would to one whose thoughts were full of God nourish that exalted view of the Divine Majesty which we find in his book, and furnish the imagery in which his thoughts are set (Amo 1:2; Amo 3:4 f; Amo 4:13; Amo 5:8; Amo 9:5 f). As he is taken from following the flock, he comes before us using the language and figures of his daily life (Amo 3:12), but there runs through all the note of one who has seen God’s working in all Nature and His presence in every phenomenon. Rustic he may be, but there is no rudeness or rusticity in his style, which is one of natural and impassioned eloquence, ordered and regular as coming from a mind which was responsive to the orderly working of God in Nature around him. There is an aroma of the free air of the desert about his words; but the prophet lives in an ampler ether and breathes a purer air; all things in Nature and on the field of history are seen in a Divine light and measured by a Divine standard.

5. His Mission

Thus, prepared in the solitudes of the extreme south of Judah, he was called to go and prophesy unto the people of Israel, and appears at Bethel the capital of the Northern Kingdom. It may be that, in the prosecution of his worldly calling, he had seen and been impressed by the conditions of life and religion in those parts. No reason is given for his mission to the northern capital, but the reason is not far to seek. It is the manner of the prophets to appear where they are most needed; and the Northern Kingdom about that time had come victorious out of war, and had reached its culmination of wealth and power, with the attendant results of luxury and excess, while the Southern Kingdom had been enjoying a period of outward tranquillity and domestic content.

6. Date

The date of the prophet Amos can approximately be fixed from the statement in the first verse that his activity fell “in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.” Both these monarchs had long reigns, that of Uzziah extending from 779 to 740 bc and that of Jeroboam II from 783 to 743 bc. If we look at the years when they were concurrently reigning, and bear in mind that, toward the end of Uzziah’s reign, Jotham acted as co-regent, we may safely place the date of Amos at about the year 760 bc. In a country in which earthquakes are not uncommon the one here mentioned must have been of unusual severity, for the memory of it was long preserved (Zec 14:5). How long he exercised his ministry we are not told. In all probability the book is the deposit of a series of addresses delivered from time to time till his plain speaking drew upon him the resentment of the authorities, and he was ordered to leave the country (Amo 7:10). We can only conjecture that, some time afterward, he withdrew to his native place and put down in writing a condensed record of the discourses he had delivered.

II. The Book

We can distinguish with more than ordinary certainty the outlines of the individual addresses, and the arrangement of the book is clear and simple. The text, also, has been on the whole faithfully preserved; and though in a few places critics profess to find the traces of later editorial hands, these conclusions rest mainly on subjective grounds, and will be estimated differently by different minds.

1. Its Divisions

The book falls naturally into three parts, recognizable by certain recurring formulas and general literary features.

(1) The first section, which is clearly recognizable, embraces Amo 1:1-15 and 2. Here, after the title and designation of the prophet in Amo 1:1, there is a solemn proclamation of Divine authority for the prophet’s words. “Yahweh will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem” (Amo 1:2). This is notable in one who throughout the book recognizes God’s power as world-wide and His operation as extensive as creation; and it should be a caution in view, on the one hand, of the assertion that the temple at Jerusalem was not more sacred than any of the numerous “high places” throughout the land, and, on the other hand, the superficial manner in which some writers speak of the Hebrew notion of a Deity whose dwelling-place was restricted to one locality beyond which His influence was not felt. For this God, who has His dwelling-place in Zion, now through the mouth of the prophet denounces in succession the surrounding nations, and this mainly not for offenses committed against the chosen people but for moral offenses against one another and for breaches of a law binding on humanity. It will be observed that the nations denounced are not named in geographical order, and the prophet exhibits remarkable rhetorical skill in the order of selection. The interest and sympathy of the hearers is secured by the fixing of the attention on the enormities of guilt in their neighbors, and curiosity is kept awake by the uncertainty as to where the next stroke of the prophetic whip will fall. Beginning with the more distant and alien peoples of Damascus, Gaza and Tyre, he wheels round to the nearer and kindred peoples of Edom, Ammon and Moab, till he rests for a moment on the brother tribe of Judah, and thus, having relentlessly drawn the net around Israel by the enumeration of seven peoples, he swoops down upon the Northern Kingdom to which his message is to be particularly addressed.

(2) The second section embraces Amo 3:1-15 to 6, and consists apparently of a series of discourses, each introduced by the formula: “Hear this word” (Amo 3:1; Amo 4:1; Amo 5:1), and another introduced by a comprehensive: “Woe to them that are at ease in Zion, and to them that are secure in the mountain of Samaria” (Amo 6:1). The divisions here are not so clearly marked. It will be observed e.g. that there is another “Woe” at Amo 5:18; and in Amo 4:1-13, though the address at the outset is directed to the luxurious women of Samaria, from Amo 4:4 onward the words have a wider reference. Accordingly some would divide this section into a larger number of subsections; and some, indeed, have described the whole book as a collection of ill-arranged fragments. But, while it is not necessary to suppose that the written book is an exact reproduction of the spoken addresses, and while the division into chapters has no authority, yet we must allow for some latitude in the details which an impassioned speaker would introduce into his discourses, and for transitions and connections of thought which may not be apparent on the surface.

(3) The third section has some well-marked characteristics, although it is even less uniform than the preceding. The outstanding feature is the phrase, “Thus the Lord Yahweh showed me” (Amo 7:1, Amo 7:4, Amo 7:7; Amo 8:1) varied at Amo 9:1 by the words, “I saw the Lord standing beside the altar.” We have thus a series of “visions” bearing upon, and interpreted as applying to, the condition of Israel. It is in the course of one of these, when the prophet comes to the words, “I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword” (Amo 7:9) that the interposition of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, is recorded, with the prophet’s noble reply as to his Divine call, and his rebuke and denunciation of the priest, ending with a prophetic announcement of the downfall and captivity of Israel (Amo 7:14-17).

2. Its Outlook

If the discourses are put down in chronological order of their delivery, it would appear that Amos did not immediately take his departure, since more visions follow this episode, and there is a special appropriateness in the intervention of Amaziah just at the point where it is recorded. As to the closing passage of this section (Amo 9:11-15) which gives a bright prospect of the future, there is a class of critics who are inclined to reject it just on this account as inconsistent with the severe denunciatory tone of the rest of the book. It is quite possible, however, that the prophet himself (and no succeeding later editor) may have added the passage when he came to write down his addresses. There is no reason to believe that any of the prophets - harsh though their words were - believed that the God of Israel would make a full end of His people in captivity: on the contrary, their assurance of God’s faithfulness to His promise, and the deep-seated conviction that right would ultimately prevail, lead us to expect even in the sternest or earliest of the prophets the hope of a future glory - that hope which grew brighter and brighter as the nation’s outlook grew darker, and attained intensity and clearness in the Messianic hope which sustained them in the darkest days of exile. It is difficult to believe that any of the prophets were prophets of despair, or to conceive how they could have prophesied at all unless they had a firm faith in the ultimate triumph of the good.

3. Value of the Book

The Book of Amos is particularly valuable from the fact that he is certainly one of the earliest prophets whose writings have come down to us. It is, like the Book of Hosea which belongs to about the same time, a contemporaneous document of a period of great significance in the history of Israel, and not only gives graphic sketches or illuminating hints of the life and religious condition of the people, but furnishes a trustworthy standard for estimating the value of some other books whose dates are not so precisely determined, a definite starting-point for tracing the course of Israel’s history.

(1) as a Picture of the Social Condition

The book is valuable as embodying a contemporary picture of society and the condition of religion. From the abuses which the prophet denounces and the lifelike sketches he draws of the scenes amid which he moved, taken along with what we know otherwise of the historical movements of the period, we are able to form a fairly adequate estimate of the condition of the age and the country. During the reign of Jeroboam II the kingdom of Israel, after having been greatly reduced during preceding reigns, rose to a degree of extent and influence unexampled since the days of Solomon (2Ki 14:25); and we are not astonished to read in the Book of Am the haughty words which he puts into the mouth of the people of his time when they spoke of Israel as the “chief of the nations” a first-class power in modern language, and boasted of the “horns” by which they had attained that eminence (Amo 6:1, Amo 6:13). But success in war, if it encouraged this boastful spirit, brought also inevitable evils in its train. Victory, as we know from the Assyrian monuments, meant plunder; for king after king recounts how much spoil he had taken, how many prisoners he had carried away; and we must assume that wars among smaller states would be conducted on the same methods. In such wars, success meant an extension of territory and increase of wealth, while defeat entailed the reverse. But it is to be remembered that, in an agricultural country and in a society constituted as that of Israel was, the result of war to one class of the population was to a great extent disastrous, whatever was the issue, and success, when it was achieved, brought evils in its train which even aggravated their condition. The peasant, required to take up arms for offense or defense, was taken away from the labors of the field which, in the best event, were for a time neglected, and, in the worst, were wasted and rendered unproductive. And then, when victory was secured, the spoils were liable to fall into the hands of the nobles and leaders, those “called with a name” (Amo 6:1), while the peasant returned to his wasted or neglected fields without much substantial resource with which to begin life again. The wealth secured by the men of strong hand led to the increase of luxury in its possessors, and became actually the means of still further adding to the embarrassment of the poor, who were dependent on the rich for the means of earning their livelihood. The situation would be aggravated under a feeble or corrupt government, such as was certainly that of Jeroboam’s successors. The condition prevails in modern eastern countries, even under comparatively wise and just administration; and that it was the state of matters prevailing in the time of Amos is abundantly clear from his book. The opening denunciation of Israel for oppression of the poor and for earth-hunger (Amo 2:6, Amo 2:7) is re-echoed and amplified in the succeeding chapters (Amo 3:9, Amo 3:10; Amo 4:1; Amo 5:11, Amo 5:12; Amo 8:4-6); and the luxury of the rich, who battened on the misfortune of their poorer brethren, is castigated in biting irony in such passages as Amo 6:3-6. Specially noticeable in this connection is the contemptuous reference to the luxurious women, the “kine of Bashan” (Amo 4:1), whose extravagances are maintained by the oppression of the poor. The situation, in short, was one that has found striking parallels in modern despotic countries in the East, where the people are divided into two classes, the powerful rich, rich because powerful and powerful because rich, and, the poor oppressed, men who have no helper, no “back” in the common eastern phrase, dependent on the rich and influential and tending to greater poverty under greedy patrons.

(2) as a Picture of the Religious Condition

In such a social atmosphere, which poisoned the elementary virtues, religion of a vital kind could not flourish; and there are plain indications in the words of Amos of the low condition to which it had sunk. There was, indeed, as we gather from ins addresses, no lack of outward attention to the forms of worship; but these forms were of so corrupted a character and associated with so much practical godlessness and even immorality, that instead of raising the national character it tended to its greater degradation. The people prided themselves in what they regarded the worship of the national God, thinking that so long as they honored Him with costly offerings and a gorgeous ritual, they were pleasing Him and secure in His protection. Bethel, Dan, Gilgal, Beersheba, and we know not how many other places were resorted to in pilgrimage by crowds of worshippers. With all the accompaniments of ceremonious ritual which the newly found wealth put in their power, with offerings more than the legally prescribed or customary (Amo 4:4, Amo 4:5) the service of these sanctuaries was maintained; but even these offerings were made at the expense of the poor (Amo 5:11), the prevailing luxury forced its way even to the precincts of the altars (Amo 2:8), and justice and mercy were conspicuously absent from the religious life. The people seemed to have settled down to a complacent optimism, nourished no doubt by national prosperity, and, though there had not been wanting reminders of the sovereignty of a righteous God, in convulsions of Nature - drought, famine, pestilence and earthquake (Amo 4:6-11) - these had been of no avail to awaken the sleeping conscience. They put the evil day far from them (Amo 6:3), for Yahweh was their national God and “the day of the Lord,” the good time coming (Amo 5:18), when God would come to their help, was more in their mind than the imperative duty of returning to Him (Amo 4:6, Amo 4:8, etc.).

(3) Testimony to History

The book is valuable for the confirmation it gives of the historical statements of other books, particularly for the references it contains to the earlier history contained in the Pentateuch. And here we must distinguish between references to, or quotations from, books, and statements or hints or indications of historical events which may or may not have been written in books or accessible to the prophet and his hearers. Opinions differ as to the date of composition of the books which record the earlier history, and the oldest Biblical writers are not in the habit of saying from what sources they drew their information or whether they are quoting from books. We can hardly believe that in the time of Amos copies of existing books or writings would be in the hands of the mass of the people, even if the power to read them was general. In such circumstances, if we find a prophet like Amos in the compass of a small book referring to outstanding events and stages of the past history as matters known to all his hearers and unquestionable, our confidence in the veracity of the books in which these facts are recorded is greatly increased, and it becomes a matter of comparatively less importance at what date these books were composed. Now it is remarkable how many allusions, more or less precise, to antecedent history are found in the compass of this small book; and the significance of them lies not in the actual number of references, but in the kind of reference and the implications involved in the individual references. That is to say, each reference is not to be taken as an isolated testimony to some single event in question, but involves a great deal more than is expressed, and is intelligible only when other facts or incidents are taken into consideration. Thus e.g. the reference to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (Amo 4:11) is only intelligible on the supposition that the story of that catastrophe was a matter of common knowledge; and it would be a carping criticism to argue that the destruction of other cities of the plain at the same time and the whole story of Lot were unknown in the days of Amos because they are not mentioned here in detail. So, when we have in one passage a reference to the house of Isaac (Amo 7:16), in another to the house of Jacob (Amo 3:13), in another to the house of Joseph (Amo 5:6) and in another to the enmity between Jacob and Esau (Amo 1:11), we cannot take these as detached notices, but must supply the links which the prophet’s words would suggest to his hearers. In other words, such slight notices, just because they are incidental and brief, imply a familiarity with a connected patriarchal history such as is found in the Book of Gen. Again, the prophet’s references to the “whole family” of the “children of Israel” whom the Lord “brought up out of the land of Egypt” (Amo 3:1), to the Divine leading of the people “forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite” (Amo 2:10) are not odds and ends of popular story but links in a chain of national history. It seems to be on the strength of these and similar references in the books of Am and Hos, whose dates are known, that critics have agreed to fix the date of the earliest historical portions of the Pentateuch as they understand them, namely, the parts designated as Jahwist and Elohist, in the 8th and 9th centuries bc, i.e. at or shortly before the time of these prophets. It may be left to the unbiased judgment of the reader to say whether the references look like references to a newly composed document, or whether it is not more probable that, in an age when written documents were necessarily few and not accessible to the multitude, these references are appeals to things well fixed in the national memory, a memory extending back to the things themselves. Or, if the prophet’s words are to be taken as sufficient proof of the existence of written sources, the fact that the matters are assumed as well known would rather encourage the conclusion that the written sources in question go back to a much earlier period, since the matters contained in them had by this time become matters of universal knowledge.

(4) Testimony to the Law

(a) The Ritual

And what about those other elements of the Pentateuch of a legal and ritual character which bulk so prominently in those books? The question whether the Book of Amos indicates an acquaintance with these or not is important because it is to a great extent on the silence of prophetical and historical writers that critics of a certain school relegate these legalistic portions of the Pentateuch to a late date. Now at the outset it is obvious to ask what we have a reasonable right to expect. We have to bear in mind what was the condition of the people whom Amos addressed, and the purpose and aim of his mission to the Northern Kingdom. It is to be remembered that, as we are told in the Book of Kings (1Ki 12:25), Jeroboam I deliberately sought to make a breach between the worship of Jerusalem and that of his own kingdom, while persuading his people that the worship of Yahweh was being maintained. The schism occurred some 170 years before the time of Amos and it is not probable that the worship and ritual of the Northern Kingdom tended in that interval to greater purity or greater conformity to what had been the authoritative practice of the undivided kingdom at the temple of Jerusalem. When, therefore, Amos, in face of the corrupt worship combined with elaborate ritual which prevailed around him, declares that God hates and despises their feasts and takes no delight in their solemn assemblies (Amo 5:21), we are not justified in pressing his words, as is sometimes done, into a sweeping condemnation of all ritual. On the contrary, seeing that, in the very same connection (Amo 5:22), he specifies burnt offerings and meal offerings and peace offerings, and, in another passage (Amo 4:4, Amo 4:5), daily sacrifices and tithes, sacrifices of thanksgiving and free-will offerings, it is natural to infer that by these terms which are familiar in the Pentateuch he is referring to those statutory observances which were part of the national worship of united Israel, but had been overlaid with corruption and become destitute of spiritual value as practiced in the Northern Kingdom. So we may take his allusions to the new moon and the Sabbath (Amo 8:5) as seasons of special sacredness and universally sanctioned. Having condemned in such scornful and sweeping terms the worship that he saw going on around him, what was Amos to gum by entering into minute ritual prescriptions or defining the precise duties and perquisites of priests and Levites; and having condemned the pilgrimages to the shrines of Bethel, Gilgal, Beersheba, Samaria and Dan (Amo 4:4; Amo 5:5; Amo 8:14), what was he to gain by quoting the law of Deut as to a central sanctuary? And had one of his hearers, like the woman of Samaria of a later day, attempted to draw him into a discussion of the relative merits of the two temples, we can conceive him answering in the spirit of the great Teacher: “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship” (Joh 4:22 the King James Version). A regulation of the form was of no avail while the whole spirit of the observance was corrupt; the soul of religion was dead, and the prophet had a higher duty than to dress out the carcass.

At the root of the corruption of the religion lay a rottenness of moral sense; and from beginning to end Amos insists on the necessity of a pure and righteous life. In this connection his appeals are in striking agreement with the specially ethical demands of the law books, and in phraseology so much resemble them as to warrant the conclusion that the requirements of the law on these subjects were known and acknowledged. Thus his denunciations of those who oppress the poor (Amo 2:7; Amo 4:1; Amo 8:4) are quite in the spirit and style of Exo 22:21, Exo 22:22; Exo 23:9; his references to the perversion of justice and taking bribes (Amo 2:6; Amo 5:7, Amo 5:10, Amo 6:12) are rhetorical enforcements of the prohibitions of the law in Exo 23:6-8; when he reproves those that “lay themselves down beside every altar upon clothes taken in pledge” (Amo 2:8) we hear an echo of the command: “If thou at all take thy neighbor’s garment to pledge, thou shalt restore it unto him before the sun goeth down” (Exo 22:26); and when he denounces those making “the ephah small, and the shekel great, and dealing falsely with balances of deceit” (Amo 8:5) his words are in close agreement with the law, “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in weights, or in measure. Just balances, just weight, a just ephah, and a just hin shall ye have” (Lev 19:35, Lev 19:36, the King James Version).

(b) Ethical Teaching

As a preacher of righteousness, Amos affirms and resists upon those ethical parts of the law which are its vital elements, and which lie at the foundation of all prophecy; and it is remarkable how even in phraseology he agrees with the most ethical book of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy. He does not, indeed, like his contemporary Hosea, dwell on the love of God as Dt does; but, of sterner mould, in almost the very words of Deuteronomy, emphasizes the keeping of God’s commandments, and denounces those who despise the law (compare Amo 2:4 with Deu 17:19). Among verbal coincidences have been noticed the combinations “oppress” “crush” (Amo 4:1; Deu 28:33), “blasting” and “mildew” (Amo 4:9; Deu 28:22), and “gall” and “wormwood” (Amo 6:12; Deu 29:18). Compare also Amo 9:8 with Deu 6:15, and note the predilection for the same word to “destroy” common to both books (compare Amo 2:9 with Deu 2:22). In view of all of which it seems an extraordinary statement to make that “the silence of Amos with reference to the centralization of worship, on which Dt is so explicit, alone seems sufficient to outweigh any linguistic similarity that can be discovered” (H. G. Mitchell, Amos, an Essay in Exegesis, 185).

(5) The Prophetic Order

As Amos is without doubt one of the earliest writing prophets, his book is invaluable as an example of what prophecy was in ancient Israel. And one thing cannot fail to impress the reader at the very outset: namely, that he makes no claim to be the first or among the first of the line, or that he is exercising some new and hitherto unheard-of function. He begins by boldly speaking in God’s name, assuming that even the people of the Northern Kingdom were familiar with that kind of address. Nay, he goes farther and states in unequivocal terms that “the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amo 3:7, the King James Version). We need not search farther for a definition of the prophet as understood by him and other Old Testament writers: the prophet is one to whom God reveals His will, and who comes forward to declare that will and purpose to man. A great deal has been made of the words of Amaziah the priest of Bethel (Amo 7:12), as if they proved that the prophet in those times was regarded as a wandering rhetorician, earning his bread by reciting his speeches; and it has been inferred from the words of Amos himself that the prophets of his day were so disreputable a class that he disdained to be named along with them (Amo 7:14). But all this is fanciful. Even if we admit that there were men calling themselves prophets who prophesied for hire (Mic 3:5, Mic 3:11), it cannot be assumed that the expression here to “eat bread” has that meaning; for in other passages it seems simply to signify to lead a quiet or ordinary life, to go about one’s daily business (see Exo 24:11; Jer 22:15). In any case we are not to take the estimate of a man like Amaziah or a godless populace in preference to the conception of Amos himself and his account of his call. It was not by man or by any college of prophets but by Yahweh Himself that he was appointed, and by whatever name he might be called, the summons was “Go, prophesy unto my people Israel” (Amo 7:15). There is no trace here of the “prophets becoming conscious of a distinction between themselves and the professional n^ebhı̄’ı̄m, who were apt simply to echo the patriotic and nationalistic sentiments of the people, and in reality differed but little from the soothsayers and diviners of Semitic heathenism” (Ottley, The Religion of Israel, 90). Whoever the “professional n^ebhı̄’ı̄m̌” may have been in his day, or whatever he thought of them if they existed, Amos tells us nothing; but he ranges himself with men to whom Yahweh has spoken in truth (Amo 3:7, Amo 3:8), and indicates that there had been a succession of such men (Amo 2:11), faithful amid the prevailing corruption though tempted to be unfaithful (Amo 2:12); in short he gives us to understand that the “prophetic order” goes back to a period long before his day and has its roots in the true and original religion of Israel.

(6) The Prophetic Religion

Finally, from the Book of Am we may learn what the prophetic religion was. Here again there is no indication of rudimentary crudeness of conception, or of painful struggling upward from the plane of naturalism or belief in a merely tribal God. The God in whose name Amos speaks has control over all the forces of Nature (Amo 4:6; Amo 5:8, Amo 5:9), rules the destinies of nations (Amo 6:2, Amo 6:14; Amo 9:2-6), searches the thoughts of the heart (Amo 4:13), is inflexible in righteousness and deals with nations and with men on equal justice (Amo 1:1-15 and Am 2; Amo 9:7), and is most severe to the people who have received the highest privileges (Amo 3:2). And this is the God by whose name his hearers call themselves, whose claims they cannot deny, whose dealings with them from old time are well known and acknowledged (Amo 2:11), whose laws they have broken (Amo 2:4; Amo 3:10) and for whose just judgment they are warned to prepare (Amo 4:12). All this the prophet enforces faithfully and sternly; not a voice is raised in the circle of his hearers to dispute his words; all that Amaziah the priest can do is to urge the prophet to abstain from unwelcome words in Bethel, because it is the king’s sanctuary and a royal house; the only inference is that the people felt the truth and justice of the prophet’s words. The “prophetic religion” does not begin with Amos.

Literature

W. R. Harper, “Amos and Hosea,” in the ICC; S. R. Driver, “Joel and Amos” in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; H. G. Mitchell, Amos, an Essay in Exegesis (Boston); A. B. Davidson, two articles in The Expositor, 3rd ser, V, VI (1887); W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel; G. A. Smith, “The Book of the Twelve Prophets,” in Expositor’s Bible; J. J. P. Valeton, Amos und Hosea (1894); C. von Orelli, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, 3. Aufl. (1908) and ET; Nowack, “Die kleinen Propheten,” in Hand-commentar zum Altes Testament; Marti, “Das Dodekapropheton erklart,” in Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Altes Testament.

During the eighth century BC, there was widespread corruption in Israel and Judah. This stirred up opposition from men of God who condemned the people and announced God’s judgment upon them. Of the four prophets of this time whose writings have been preserved in the Bible, the earliest was almost certainly Amos. The others were Hosea, Isaiah and Micah.

Characteristics of the age

Amos prophesied during the reigns of Jeroboam II in Israel and Azariah (or Uzziah) in Judah (Amo 1:1). These two kings between them expanded Israelite-Judean rule from Syria in the north to Egypt in the south, and from Philistia in the west to Ammon in the east (2Ki 14:23-27; 2Ch 26:1-15). With political stability and economic development, Israel and Judah entered an era of great prosperity. At the same time the religious and moral standards of society declined badly.

Previously, society had been built around the simple agricultural life. Now, with the rapid growth of commerce and trade, the merchants became the dominant people in society, and the farmers became the oppressed. City life developed, and with it came the social evils of corrupt government and commercial greed. Rapid prosperity for the few meant increased poverty for most. As the upper classes grew in wealth and power, they exploited the lower classes. Bribery and corruption flourished, even in the law courts, leaving the poor with no way to obtain justice.

As a shepherd-farmer who had to deal with ruthless merchants and corrupt officials, Amos knew how bad the situation was and he spoke out against it (Amo 1:1; Amo 7:14-15). He condemned the greed and luxury of the rich, for he knew that they had gained their wealth through cheating, oppression and injustice (Amo 2:6-7; Amo 3:10; Amo 3:15; Amo 5:10-12; Amo 6:4-6; Amo 8:4-6). Although they kept the religious festivals, all their religious activity was hateful to God so long as they persisted in social injustice (Amo 5:21-24; Amo 8:3; Amo 8:10). Amos saw that the nation was heading for terrible judgment (Amo 6:14; Amo 7:8-9).

Amos’s message

By announcing God’s judgment on some of Israel’s neighbouring nations, Amos no doubt gained the enthusiastic attention of his hearers (1:1-2:3). He warned, however, that judgment was coming for Judah also (2:4-5), and particularly for Israel, the corrupt northern kingdom with whom Amos was mainly concerned (2:6-16).

As God’s prophet, Amos had a responsibility to announce whatever God told him (3:1-8). He did this fearlessly, condemning the corruption of Israel’s capital city Samaria (3:9-4:3) and the refusal of the people in general to heed God’s warnings (4:4-13). God demanded repentance (5:1-27), and warned that the nation’s corruption was leading it to certain destruction (6:1-14).

Three visions told Amos that God’s patience with the rebellious nation could not last indefinitely (7:1-9). A local priest, tired of Amos’s constant announcements of judgment, tried unsuccessfully to get rid of the troublesome preacher (7:10-17). Amos then revealed two further visions God had given him. The first emphasized that Israel was nearing its end (8:1-14), the second that there was no possibility of escape (9:1-10). But after the punishment of the captivity, God would restore the nation and bless its people again (9:11-15).