Amos

Amos does not appear to have come from a prominent family nor was his father a prophet. He had no link to the associations that were known as “sons of the prophets.” Amos did not mention his father, but identified himself as one of the shepherds from Tekoa, a town in Judah. (Amos 1:1; 7:14)

Although revealing that YHWH had sent him to prophesy to the people of the kingdom of Israel, Amos also made known what was divinely revealed to him regarding Damascus; the Philistine cities of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron; the Phoenician city of Tyre; Edom and the principal city Bozrah as well as Teman, likely a major city or district; Ammon and Rabbah, probably the capital of Ammon; Moab and Kerioth, a major city of Moab; and Judah and the capital city Jerusalem. (Amos 1:6-2:8; 7:15) Besides the messages of judgment, he proclaimed that the time would come when YHWH would turn his favorable attention to his repentant people. (Amos 9:8-15)

Amos began his service as a prophet two years before a strong earthquake during the reign of Uzziah. That earthquake caused the affected people to resort to panicky flight. (Amos 1:1; Zechariah 14:5) Even with this reference point, one cannot fix on a specific date for the prophetic activity of Amos. Just when the spoken messages were committed to writing also cannot be established with certainty.

While Jeroboam II, the son of Jehoash (Joash), reigned in Israel and Uzziah (Azariah), the son of Amaziah, ruled in Judah, Amos carried out his commission as a prophet. (Amos 1:1) The specifics about these two monarchs that are found in the Kings and Chronicles accounts require interpretive harmonization, making dating conjectural.

In the fifteenth year of Amaziah, Jeroboam II became king and ruled over Israel for 41 years. (2 Kings 14:23) After Amaziah was assassinated after having reigned for 29 years, the people of Judah made his 16-year-old son Uzziah (Azariah) king. (2 Chronicles 25:1, 27, 28; 26:1) According to 2 Kings 15:1, Azariah (Uzziah) commenced his reign in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam II, which would have been about 12 years after the death of Amaziah.

One possible way to harmonize the seeming contradiction regarding the start of Uzziah’s reign is to consider that two different phases of his rule are involved. Uzziah’s father Amaziah had deliberately provoked a conflict with Jehoash (Joash), the father of Jeroboam II. Amaziah and his forces experienced a humiliating defeat, suggesting that the kingdom of Judah then became subservient to the kingdom of Israel. (2 Kings 14:8-14; 2 Chronicles 25:17-24) This may have continued even after Uzziah began to rule. Possibly Uzziah then entered a new phase of his rule in the twenty-seventh year Jeroboam II as a king completely independent of the kingdom of Israel.

There is also a problem involving the beginning of the reign of Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam II. The 41-year reign of Jeroboam II ended about 11 years before the time that Zechariah reportedly began to rule in the thirty-eighth year of Uzziah’s (Azariah’s) reign. (2 Kings 15:8) Perhaps, when his father died, Zechariah was too young to administer the affairs of state and so not until the thirty-eighth year of Uzziah did he begin to exercise full royal authority.

Based on the biblical record, all that can be said regarding the prophesying of Amos is that it began while Jeroboam II and Uzziah reigned over their respective kingdoms. The kingdom of Israel then enjoyed a new level of prosperity. In fulfillment of the word of YHWH through the prophet Jonah, Jeroboam II succeeded in regaining territory that had previously been lost. Additionally, Damascus and Hamath appear to have become tributory to him. (2 Kings 14:25-28) Neither Jeroboam II nor his subjects, however, abandoned idolatrous worship, and the poor continued to be subjected to cruel oppression. (Amos 4:1; 5:7. 10-12)

Amos 1:1-15

Amos referred to seeing the words or the messages that he proclaimed, indicating that either in visions or in dreams the thoughts he needed to express about Israel were divinely revealed to him. The plural form of the Hebrew word noqéd designates the occupation Amos pursued. Noqéd has been linked to the Arabic word naqqād and the Akkadian nāqidu, which nouns can designate a shepherd. The Hebrew word is also found in 2 Kings 3:4, where it is applied to Moabite king Mesha and probably identifies him as a ruler who raised or bred sheep. Amos, though, did not own large flocks of sheep and goats but worked as a shepherd. This is apparent from the fact that he also did seasonal labor on fig sycamores. (1:1; 7:14; see the Notes section regarding the rendering in the Septuagint.)

Amos was among the shepherds of Tekoa, a place that has been linked to Khirbet ’et-Tuqu‘ and is located about 10 miles (c. 16 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. He began his prophetic service when Uzziah reigned as king of Judah and Jeroboam II as king of Israel, and this proved to be two years before a catastrophic earthquake affected the people of Judah. (1:1; see the introduction to Amos for additional details.)

The words “YHWH roars from Zion” and “utters his voice from Jerusalem” are parallel expressions. Zion or Jerusalem, as the location of YHWH’s temple, was his representative place of dwelling. From there, his voice roars, probably like loud thunder. In this context, this fear-inspiring sound is indicative of punitive judgment. The effect of the judgment is portrayed as devastating the land. “Pastures of the shepherds,” or the pastures where shepherds led their flocks to graze, would “mourn.” Vegetation would dry up, and so the pastures would take on a sad appearance. The “top of Carmel,” or the vegetation that usually flourished on the Carmel range, would wither. (1:2)

The expression “for three transgressions [‘impious deeds’ (LXX)] and for four” may be understood to include the entire record of wrongs. “Three” (as when something is repeated three times for emphasis or for intensification) could denote a full measure of transgressions. The reference to “four” could then indicate that the number of transgressions was excessive. (1:3)

On account of the transgressions, YHWH decreed that he would “not turn it back.” A masculine suffix is part of the Hebrew form of the verb shuv (here rendered “turn back”). This suffix may be translated either “him” or “it,” but there is no identifiable antecedent. One possibility is to regard the reference to be to what YHWH has said, that is, to the declaration of his judgment. His judgment would without fail be executed. Another possibility is to understand the Hebrew verb with the suffix to mean that YHWH would not turn back the instrument he would use to carry out his judgment. (1:3)

Of the many transgressions of Damascus, the referenced atrocity is the threshing of Gilead with iron sledges. (For information about Damascus, see Damascus.) This ruthless act (if not understood literally) may denote extremely cruel treatment of defeated Israelites living in Gilead, the region located east of the Jordan River and north of the Jabbok (Wadi Zarqa). (For pictures of and comments about Gilead, see Lower Gilead and Upper Gilead.) According to the Septuagint, the ruthlessness was directed against pregnant women. They were subjected to being sawn with iron saws. A partially preserved section of this verse in a Dead Sea Scroll (5QAmos) also includes the words that may be rendered “pregnant women.” (1:3; see the Notes section.)

Hazael seized the kingship over Syria after assassinating King Ben-hadad and ruled from Damascus as had his predecessor. During the reign of Israelite king Jehu, Hazael captured a sizable area from the territory of the kingdom of Israel located east of the Jordan River. (2 Kings 10:32, 33) Thereafter, during the rule of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz, he greatly oppressed the Israelites. (2 Kings 13:3, 22) For its transgressions, YHWH decreed that the royal house of Hazael would cease to exist. His sending “fire on the house of Hazael” pointed to its fiery end in war. The expression “citadels of Ben-hadad” probably applies to the royal complex of Ben-hadad, the king whom Hazael had killed. During the reign of the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III, Damascus experienced the predetermined divine judgment. According to 2 Kings 16:9, Tiglath-pileser III captured Damascus, killed the Syrian king Rezin, and had surviving inhabitants of the city taken into exile. (1:4; see the Notes section.)

YHWH’s breaking the “bar of Damascus” refers to his having the city’s defenses destroyed. “Bars” secured the gates leading into cities, and broken bars would have given easy access to enemy forces. (1:5)

There is uncertainty about the site called “valley of Aven” or “Bikath-aven.” The Seputagint rendering is “place” or “field of On.” A possible identification is the Bekaa Valley situated between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges. The “cutting off” could refer to what befell those “dwelling” (yasháv) in this region when Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III conquered Damascus and the territory that Syria controlled there. In his annals regarding his military campaign, Tiglathpileser III referred to destroying towns in “16 districts of the country of Damascus” and making them resemble hills that a flood had devastated. YHWH, however, is represented as the One decreeing the “cutting off,” and the Assyrians proved to be the instrument he permitted to carry it out with aggressive warring and then by exiling the survivors from the conquered region. (1:5; see the Notes section.)

A “scepter” is the symbol of royal authority, and the one wielding it would be “cut off” from Beth-eden. If Beth-eden is correctly identified with Bît-adini, this could indicate that the king in Damascus exercised control over a region situated on the east side of the Euphrates River. The general location of Bît-adini can be established from the annals of Assyrian monarch Ashurnasirpal II. He referred to departing from the country of Bît-adini, crossing the Euphrates at flood stage, and then advancing to Carchemish, a city on the west bank of the Euphrates. These details locate Bît-adini over 250 miles (400 kilometers) north of Damascus. (1:5)

The Septuagint does not contain a transliteration of the name “Beth-eden.” As to what God would do, it says, “I will cut in pieces a tribe from the men of Charran [Harran].” The Hebrew word for “scepter” (shévet) is also a common word for “tribe,” and Charran or Harran is in the same general area as Bît-adini. (1:5)

According to the word of YHWH, the people of Aram (Syria) would be taken into exile to Kir. “People of Aram” would include the inhabitants of Damascus, Bikath-aven or the valley of Aven, and Beth-eden. The location of Kir is unknown. In the Septuagint, no mention is made of Kir, but it concludes with the words, “and the summoned people of Syria will be taken captive, says the Lord.” (1:5)

The judgment against the Philistine city of Gaza is expressed with the same words as is that against Damascus, “Thus says YHWH, for three transgressions [‘impious deeds’ (LXX)] of Gaza, and for four, I will not turn it back.” (Regarding the phrases, see the comments for verse 3.) Then the representative transgression of the complete record of abundant guilt is singled out as the handing over to Edom the entire body of exiles that the warriors of Gaza had taken captive and led away from their homeland. (1:6)

In the Hebrew text, the exiles are not identified, but the Septuagint indicates that the warriors of Gaza had captured a “captivity of Solomon to shut up in Idumea [Edom].” Possibly the expression “captivity of Solomon” designates a body of Israelites from the kingdom of Judah, as the realm of Solomon was reduced to the two-tribe kingdom of Judah during the reign of his son Rehoboam. The exiles would have been delivered up to the Edomites as slaves and thus would have been “shut up” like captives in prison for the Edomites to control at will. (1:6)

Warriors from Gaza would have shared in the military campaigns the Philistines waged against the kingdom of Judah. During the reign of Jehoram the king of Judah, the people suffered from a devastating invasion. The captives taken by Philistine and Arab forces included the sons and wives of Jehoram, and he was left with only his youngest son Jehoahaz. (2 Chronicles 21:16, 17) Considering that Edomites had been subject to Judean king Jehoshaphat and that there was a time during his rule and that of his son Jehoram when the Edomites did not even have a king (1 Kings 22:47; 2 Kings 8:20-22), they must have dealt very harshly with the exiles from Judah that were handed over to them. Therefore, what the people of Gaza did in delivering exiles into the hand of the Edomites would have been a deliberate act of great cruelty. (1:6)

In retribution for what the people of Gaza had done, YHWH determined to “send a fire upon the wall of Gaza.” That fire would “consume her citadels” (strongly fortified structures) or, according to the Septuagint, “her foundations.” (1:7)

Upon being subjected to Assyrian aggression, Gaza experienced the “fire” associated with war. Tiglath-piler III, according to his annals, conquered Gaza after Hanno the king made a successful escape to Egypt. Hanno later returned to Gaza and resumed his reign as king there. Along with an Egyptian force under the command of Sib’e, Hanno went out to battle against the Assyrian king Sargon II and suffered defeat. In his annals, Sargon II said, “Hanno I captured personally and brought him in fetters to my city Ashur.” Since Gaza thereafter appears to have remained subject to Assyria, the act of Hezekiah in striking down the Philistines as far as Gaza likely was part of his revolt against Assyria. (2 Kings 18:1, 7, 8) Then, in the time of the prophet Jeremiah, the Egyptian army struck down Gaza. (Jeremiah 47:1) Later Gaza became subject to Babylon, as evident from the text on an ancient Babylonian prism. Even more serious fire came upon Gaza from Alexander the Great and his forces. After Alexander’s warriors succeeded in entering the city, the men of Gaza stood together and fought. All of them were slain in the place where “each man had been stationed.” Alexander sold the surviving women and children into slavery. (Arrian [historian in the second century CE] in his Anabasis of Alexander, II, xxvii) More than two centuries later, Alexander Jannaeus the Hasmonean king of Judea, with his forces, completely overthrew Gaza. (Antiquities,XIII, xiii, 3) (1:7)

Like the Philistine city of Gaza, the Philistines inhabiting the other major cities had been hostile to the Israelites. Therefore, YHWH purposed to cut off those “dwelling” (yasháv) in Ashdod and the one wielding the scepter (shévet) from Ashkelon, and to turn his hand against Ekron. All who remained of the Philistines were to perish. (1:8; see the Notes section.)

As in verse 5, the Hebrew form of the verb yasháv is a masculine singular participle that may be understood as a collective singular referring to inhabitants, and the corresponding participle in the Septuagint is plural. In expression of his judgment, YHWH permitted the people of Ashdod to experience foreign aggression and the resulting loss of lives. In his annals, Assyrian king Sargon II (eighth century BCE) mentioned his campaign against Ashdod. “Imani from Ashdod [Asdudu], afraid of my weapons, left his wife and children and fled” to the realm of the king of Meluhha (Ethiopia). Thereafter Sargon II installed one of his own officers as governor. Another inscription of Sargon II says that Azuri the king of Ashdod rebelled. After Sargon II deposed Azuri, replacing him with his younger brother Ahimiti, the people chose another king because Ahimiti had incurred their hatred. Sargon II retaliated, marching against Ashdod and afterward conquering Ashdod, Gath (Gi-im-tu) and Asdudimmu. In the seventh century CE, Pharaoh Psamtik I (Psammetichus), according to Herodotus (Histories, II, 157), besieged Ashdod (Azotus) for 29 years. Judas Maccabaeus, in the second century BCE, waged successful warfare against Ashdod (Azotus), and about 15 years later his brother Jonathan set fire to the city. (1:8; see 1 Maccabees 5:68; 10:84.)

The “cutting off” of the one wielding the “scepter” from Ashkelon indicated that the city would lose its king, for the “scepter” represented royal authority. (For pictures of and comments about Ashkelon and Philistia, see Ashkelon.) A fragmentary inscription of the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III (eighth century BCE) mentions the revolt of Mitini from Ashkelon and that he perished in insanity upon learning about the defeat of Rezon (Rezin) of Damascus. A prism of Assyrian king Sennacherib relates how he dealt with Sidqia, the king of Ashkelon, who did not submit to him, “I deported and sent to Assyria, his family-gods, himself, his wife, his children, his brothers, all the male descendants of his family. I set Sharruludari, son of Rukibtu, their former king, over the inhabitants of Ashkelon and imposed upon him the payment of tribute.” (1:8; compare 2 Kings 16:9, 10.)

For YHWH to turn his hand against Ekron would mean that it, like the other Philistine cities, would be subjected to military conquests. The people of Ekron who would survive along with all those remaining from the other Philistine cities were to perish, and the Philistines finally did cease to exist as a people. (1:8)

Much of the wording of verse 9 is the same as that found in verses 3 and 6. (See verse 3 for the explanation of the phrases “for three transgressions and for four” and “I will not turn it back.”) Of the many transgressions, the one mentioned for Tyre, as in the case of Gaza, is the act of handing over to Edom an entire body of exiles. Whereas the crime of Gaza included taking captives during military campaigns, the role of Tyre appears to have been primarily as a participant in the slave trade. (1:9; see verse 6 for comments about Gaza.)

The reference to a “covenant of brothers” indicates that the exiles the people of Tyre handed over to the Edomites were Israelites. During the reigns of David and Solomon friendly relations existed between them and the king of Tyre. Hiram the king of Tyre supplied both cedar timber and skilled craftsmen for building projects in Jerusalem, including the construction of the temple. (2 Samuel 5:11; 1 Kings 5:1-11; 1 Chronicles 14:1; 2 Chronicles 2:3-16) Accordingly, the agreement that existed between Hiram, David, and Solomon was a “covenant of brothers.” So when Tyre became associated with the enemies of the Israelites, this was great treachery, especially when the Tyrians delivered Israelite exiles into the hands of the Edomites whom they would have known as being avowed enemies. Thus Tyre “forgot” or totally disregarded that there had once existed a “covenant of brothers” between the Tyrians and Israelites. (1:9)

The punishment that YHWH decreed for Tyre is the same one that he expressed against Gaza (verse 7). He determined to “send a fire upon the wall of Tyre,” and that fire was to “consume her citadels” or the strongly fortified structures of the city. According to the Septuagint, the fire would “consume her foundations.” Assyrian monarch Esar-haddon, in his annals, boasted about having dealt severely with the Tyrian king Ba’lu when he attempted to be free of the Assyrian yoke. Many years later Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre. In his Against Apion (I, 21), the Jewish historian Josephus wrote that this siege lasted 13 years. In 332 BCE, Alexander the Great captured the island city of Tyre. (1:10; see the Notes section regarding what Quintus Curtius Rufus wrote in the first century about the end of the siege of Tyre.)

As in verses 3, 6 and 9, there are identical phrases in verse 11 (“for three transgressions and for four” and “I will not turn it back”). Also each of these verses opens with the words, “Thus says YHWH.” (See verse 3 for comments about the same phrases.) (1:11)

YHWH is represented as pronouncing future punitive judgment on Edom (Idumea, LXX) for a complete record of excessive guilt. Typical of the many transgressions was the intense hatred that the Edomites manifested toward the Israelites. They were closely related peoples — the descendants of the fraternal twins Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom). As “brother” nations, both peoples should have been on friendly terms and not have been fighting one another. Edom (the Edomites), however, “pursued his brother [the Israelites] with the sword,” relentlessly carrying on the battle to the bitter end. According to the biblical record, the hostility started very early. When the Israelites were on their way from Egypt to enter the land of Canaan and asked for permission to pass through Edomite territory, the Edomites adamantly refused to honor the request and met them with a show of military force. (1:11; see Numbers 20:14-21.)

Whatever sense of “compassion” (rachám; rachamím [plural]) or affectionate feeling for a “brother” nation they could have displayed, the Edomites “destroyed” (shacháth). The Hebrew word shacháth commonly means “destroy” or “ruin” and could, in this context, denote “thrust away” or “completely numbed.” (1:11)

A different thought is expressed in the Septuagint. “He destroyed [lymaíno] a womb [‘mother,’ Codex Vaticanus]) on the earth,” land, or ground. This could be understood to refer to the violent treatment Edomite warriors meted out to women. The Greek word lymaíno can also denote “outrage.” So a possible meaning could be that the Edomites perpetrated an outrage against the womb of their ancestral mother or against Rebekah, the mother who gave birth to the twins Esau and Jacob. The Hebrew word for “compassion” and “womb” has the same consonants, and this accounts for the Septuagint rendering, but this does not explain the basis for the phrase “on the earth.” (1:11)

Literally translated, the action attributed to Edom is, “and his anger tore [taráph] to perpetuity.” This could signify that the wrath the Edomites directed against the Israelites had no bounds or termination point but tore away at them whenever possible like a beast of prey on its kill. (1:11)

The wording of the Septuagint is puzzling. “He seized [harpázo) his shivering fright [phríke] for a testimony.” “Tearing” (Hebrew, taráph) and “seizing” (Greek, harpázo) can both be violent acts, and so the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew word taráph would not be without any basis whatsoever. Perhaps the thought is that the Edomites “seized” or divested themselves of any sense of fright in their ruthless warring against their “brother” nation “for a testimony” or a proof of their hostility. (1:11)

With reference to the “wrath” of Edom (“his wrath”), the verse concludes, “he kept it everlastingly.” There was never a time when the Edomites relented in being hostile toward the Israelites but continued to harbor animosity toward them. The Septuagint reads, “his assault he guarded for strife [neikos].” A common view is that the last word should be nikos, meaning “victory,” and that the Septuagint rendering indicates that Edom “guarded” or maintained the assault until the end or until victory was attained. (1:11)

YHWH purposed to have his punitive judgment expressed against Edom, with the focus being on Teman (probably an important city or district) and Bozrah, a major city. “And I will send a fire upon Teman, and it will consume the citadels of Bozrah.” (For pictures of and comments about Edom and Bozrah, see Edom.) The Septuagint does not include a reference to “Bozrah,” but reads, “and it will consume the foundations of her walls.” Through the agency of conquering armies, YHWH would bring an end to Teman, and the same destructive “fire” would consume the strongly fortified structures of Bozrah. The Septuagint rendering suggests that the walls of Teman would be consumed to the very foundations. (1:12)

The judgment against the Ammonites is introduced with the words, “thus says YHWH.” These are the same words found in verses 3, 6, 9 and 11 and are followed by the identical wording of two phrases (“for three transgressions and for four” and “I will not hold it back”) contained in those verses. (For comments on the phrases, see verse 3.) Of the complete record of transgressions, one representative atrocity is mentioned. To enlarge their territory beyond their boundary, the Ammonite warriors invaded Gilead, the Israelite territory that lay north of the Jabbok, and savagely ripped up pregnant women during the course of their campaign. (1:13)

According to the biblical record, the Ammonites were related to the Israelites through Abraham’s nephew Lot, which made their ruthlessness toward them an even greater transgression than would otherwise have been the case. (Genesis 12:5; 19:36-38) YHWH is represented as decreeing punitive judgment. “And I will kindle a fire against the wall of Rabbah, and it will consume her citadels [either the palace complex or strongly fortified parts of the city; ‘her foundations,’ LXX], with a shout in the day of war, with a tempest in the day of storm.” (1:14; see the Notes section.)

Rabbah was the principal Ammonite city, situated on a tributary of the upper Jabbok. The ancient site is linked to the modern city of Amman, Jordan. (For pictures of and comments about Amman, see Amman, and for pictures of the Jabbok, see Jabbok.) Rabbah must have experienced the fire of warfare from the Babylonian armies under King Nebuchadnezzar. In his Antiquities (X, ix, 7), the first-century Jewish historian wrote that in “the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem” Nebuchadnezzar “made an expedition against Coele-Syria; and when he had possessed himself of it, he made war against the Ammonites and Moabites.” At that time, warriors would have been shouting in Rabbah, and cries of alarm from the inhabitants would have echoed throughout the city. The tumult that then raged would have been comparable to the howling of a fierce wind. According to the Septuagint rendering, the city would be “shaken in the day of her end.” (1:14)

YHWH’s judgment included the Ammonite king and his princes (members of the royal household and officials in the royal court). They were to be taken into exile. Although there is no extant historical record of Nebuchadnezzar’s taking this action, it was his usual policy respecting conquered monarchs. In the Septuagint, the reference is to the kings of Rabbah, and “their priests and their rulers together,” going into captivity. (1:15)

Notes

In verse 1 of the Septuagint, the plural form of the Hebrew word noqéd is transliterated as nakkarim. This suggests that the translator read the Hebrew noun as being spelled with the letter resh (R) instead of the similar letter daleth (D) and did not know what the word meant. In 2 Kings 3:4 (4 Kings 3:4), the Septuagint rendering noked is a transliteration that reflects the Hebrew spelling of the singular noun noqéd. Again the transliteration suggests that the translator was not familiar with the Hebrew word.

The non-Israelite peoples against whom divine judgment is directed (verses 3 to 15) had no relationship to YHWH and had not been given his law. They did, however, have a conscience. Accordingly, when they engaged in atrocities that violated their innate sense of right and wrong, they incurred guilt that merited divine judgment.

In verse 4, the Septuagint says that the fire would “consume the foundations of the son of Hader.” The Hebrew word ben means “son,” and this accounts for the rendering “son of Hader” instead of “Ben-hadad” or “Ben-Hadar.” On account of the slight difference between the daleth (D) and the resh (R), the two letters are not infrequently confused. An inscription of Assyrian monarch Shalmaneser III appears to refer to this Ben-haded, the king whom Hazael killed, as Hadadezer and says that he perished. This inscription also indicates that Hazael was not of royal lineage, calling him “son of nobody” (meaning a “commoner”).

Most of the wording of verses 4, 7, 10, 12 and 14 is the same.

The form of the Hebrew word yasháv, rendered “dwelling” (verses 5 and 8), is a singular masculine participle, but is probably to be understood as a collective singular. In the Septuagint, the corresponding participle katoikountas is plural.

With the exception of the name of the cities in verse 8, the phrases about the “cutting off” and the one wielding the “scepter” are the same as in verse 5. In verses 5 and 8, the Septuagint renders the Hebrew word shévet as “tribe” (phylé). This is because shévet can have both meanings. In the Septuagint (verse 8), the expression “allophyles” (those of another tribe) is the common rendering for Philistines.

Regarding the fate of Tyre (verse 10), the following is from a first-century work by Quintus Curtius Rufus on the history of Alexander the Great: “The extent of the bloodshed can be judged from the fact that 6,000 fighting-men were slaughtered within the city’s fortifications. It was a sad spectacle that the king’s fury then provided for the victors: 2,000 [Tyrians], by the killing of whom the rage subsided, now hung fastened to timbers all along the extensive stretch of the beach.” (For pictures of and comments about Tyre, see Tyre.)

In verse 14 of a Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIg), the definite article precedes the Hebrew word for “war” or “battle.”

Amos 2:1-16

The opening words, as in verses 3, 6, 9, 11 and 13 of chapter 1, are, “Thus says YHWH,” identifying him as the source of the message. Also the wording of two phrases is the same as found in these verses (“for three transgressions and for four” and “I will not turn it back”). (2:1)

“Three transgressions” (“impious deeds,” LXX ) of Moab may signify a full measure of wrongs or atrocities, and the number “four” appears to function as an intensifier, indicating that Moab had built up a record of excessive guilt. The Hebrew suffix attached to the verb shuv (here translated “turn back”) may be rendered either “him” or “it,” but the suffix has no identifiable antecedent. Perhaps the application is to YHWH’s declaration of judgment (“thus says YHWH”), which he would not hold back from being executed. Another possibility is to take the words “not turn it back” to mean that YHWH would not turn back the instrument he would use to carry out his punitive judgment against Moab. (2:1)

Nothing in the biblical account reveals when or why the Moabites “burned the bones of the king of Edom [Idumea (LXX)] to lime,” which substance was commonly used for plaster. Possibly the act involved the desecration of the royal tomb. It could indicate that the Moabites, besides carrying out a ruthless military campaign against the Edomites, felt impelled not even to leave the bones of the Moabite king undisturbed, removing them from the tomb and burning them to lime. (Compare Jeremiah 8:1, 2.) If this was the case, the transgression of Moab would have reflected an extremely hateful and contemptuous disposition that violated the innate sense of right and wrong that exists in the human family. (2:1)

The Edomites had made themselves guilty of many atrocities and did not have a relationship to YHWH as did the Israelites. This did not mean, however, that he was unaware of acts of inhumanity toward them and that he would leave the guilty ones unpunished. The prophetic words reveal that YHWH continued to be the judge of all humans, including those who do not recognize him as their God. Accordingly, Moab would not escape punishment for burning the “bones of the king of Edom to lime.” (2:1)

YHWH decreed that he would “send a fire upon Moab,” and it would “comsume the citadels of Kerioth.” Enemy invasions would bring this destructive fire into Moab, destroying the strongly fortified structures of Kerioth, a major city for which no certain identification with a specific site is possible. When Moabite cities are mentioned in the biblical account, Ar and Kerioth are not included together. This may provide a basis for identifying Kerioth with Ar, a city situated south of the Arnon. (For pictures of and comments about Moab and the Arnon, see Moab.) According to the annals of Assyrian monarchs, Moab experienced foreign domination. Tiglath-pileser III received tribute from Salamanu of Moab. A prism of Sennacherib, which mentions his attack on the kingdom of Judah during the reign of Hezekiah, also says that Sennacherib received “sumptuous gifts” from various kings, including “Kammusunadbi from Moab.” Assyrian kings Esar-haddon and Ashurbanipal indicate that Musuri, king of Moab, was subject to them, and later Ashurbanipal referred to Kamashaltu, king of Moab, as “a servant belonging to me.” (2:2; see the Notes section.)

The divine decree was that Moab would “die amid uproar, amid shouting, amid the sound of a shofar.” (a ram’s-horn trumpet). The uproar or tumult would result from the fighting between enemy invaders and the defenders of Moab. At that time the shouts of warriors and of the frightened populous would resound in the land. During the conflict and the sieges, trumpets would signal calls for battle or would sound alarms. According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, X, ix, 7), Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar, in “the fifth year” after he had destroyed Jerusalem, “made an expedition against Coele-Syria.” Subsequently to his gaining control over the region, he fought against the Ammonites and the Moabites. The prophetic word concerning Moab was eventually fulfilled, for the Moabites have ceased to exist as a people. (2:2)

The end for Moab also meant that no “judge” (probably designating the king who acted in judicial capacity) and no “princes” (rulers or members of the royal household or the royal court) would remain. YHWH is represented as decreeing, “I will cut off the judge from [Moab’s] midst and all her princes with him I will slay.” The judgment was certain, as emphasized by the declaration, “says YHWH.” (2:3)

In YHWH’s declaration against Judah (the“sons of Judah,” LXX) or the people of the kingdom of Judah, the same phrases appear (“for three transgressions [‘impious deeds’ (LXX)] and for four” and “I will not turn it back”) as in verses 3, 6, 9, 11 and 13 of chapter 1 and verse 1 of chapter 2. (See 2:1 for comments.) From the standpoint of externals, YHWH was the God of the people of Judah, for his temple existed in Jerusalem and the daily sacrificial services continued to be carried out by the Aaronic priests with the assistance of the non-priestly Levites. In the case of the people of other nations, the representative transgressions or impious acts that were singled out involved deeds of inhumanity (flagrant violations of the innate sense of right and wrong), but the representative transgression of the complete record of Judah’s abundant guilt was rejection of YHWH’s law. The people of Judah did not merely have their own conscience to guide them. They also had the “law” or the teaching of YHWH. (2:4)

On account of what was available to them by which to govern their lives, the people of Judah were guilty of more than just mistreatment of members of the human family. They failed to observe YHWH’s commands and were disloyal to him. Instead of following his direction and being exclusively devoted to him, they walked after “lies,” “vanities,” or “empty things that they made” (LXX). These lies were nonexistent deities. As indicated by the Septuagint rendering, they fashioned representations or images of these “vanities” or “empty things.” Like their forefathers, they engaged in idolatrous practices, and their attachment to their “lies,” nonexistent gods and goddesses that provided neither aid nor guidance, caused them to stray from the right course, from faithful conformity to YHWH’s law. (2:4)

The punishment to come upon Judah would be just like that which would befall the other peoples against whom YHWH had expressed his judgment. (See the Notes section.) He would “send fire upon Judah,” and it would “consume the citadels [‘foundations’ (LXX)] of Jerusalem.” During the reign of Hezekiah the king of Judah, the Assyrian forces under the command of Sennacherib devastated much of the realm, but divine intervention saved Jerusalem from being conquered. (2 Kings 18:13-16; 19:32-36) In his annals, Sennacherib boasted, “As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered them.” From the fortified cities and the smaller towns, he claimed to have driven out “200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting.” Although referring to having made Hezekiah a “prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage,” Sennacherib made no boast about actually having conquered Jerusalem. Decades later, the fire of warfare came against the kingdom of Judah and the city of Jerusalem. The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar devastated the land, conquered Jerusalem, destroying the “citadels” (the palace complex and all the other fortified structures) and the temple. At that time fires raged throughout the land of Judah and the city of Jerusalem. (2:5; see 2 Kings 25:9.)

Again the words “thus says YHWH” are followed by the two phrases that appeared in the previous declarations of his punitive judgment (“for three transgressions and for four” and “I will not turn it back”). The “transgressions of Israel” are those of the people of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel. Jeroboam, the first king of the realm, instituted idolatrous calf worship, and this was never abandoned in the kingdom. (1 Kings 12:26-33) The fact that idolatrous worship was a way of life among the masses in the ten-tribe kingdom probably accounts for there being no specific reference to disregard for YHWH’s law when the representative guilt is mentioned. With few exceptions, there must have been little, if any, knowledge among the people about his law. Nevertheless, by their course of action in failing to honor YHWH through upright conduct, the Israelites made themselves guilty of profaning his name as a people whose forefathers had been brought into a covenant relationship with him. (2:6; see verse 1 for comments about the phrases found in verses 3, 6, 9, 11 and 13 of chapter 1 and verses 1 and 4 of chapter 2.)

The people are condemned for oppressing the poor and engaging in abominable acts of prostitution. Particularly the wealthy in their midst must have thought nothing about selling an upright Israelite for some silver pieces, and a poor or needy person for a pair of “sandals.” Upright persons may, through no fault of their own, have been unable to repay a debt, and the wealthy creditors sold them into slavery just so that they would get the amount of silver they wanted. Their selling a poor person for a pair of sandals could mean that they considered the needy individual as having no greater value than the purchase price for a pair of sandals. Another possible meaning is that a poor person could not even pay for a pair of sandals and was sold for a paltry amount of debt. (2:6)

The Septuagint rendering could mean that the sandals are “the things treading upon the dust of the earth” or the ground. According to the Hebrew text, the oppressors “pant [sha’aph] for the dust of the earth on the head of the poor.” This could indicate that the oppressors panted for, or eagerly desired, the opportunity to exploit the needy to the point where they, in expression of their grief and distress, would put dust on their heads. (Compare 2 Samuel 13:19.) In this context, the form of the Hebrew word has been linked to shuph, meaning “bruise” or “trample,” and numerous translators have adopted this significance in their renderings. “They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground.” (NIV) “They trample the heads of the weak into the dust of the earth.” (NAB) “They grind the heads of the helpless into the dust.” (REB) “They have crushed the heads of the weak into the dust.” (NJB) These renderings suggest that the oppressors, in their ruthlessness, had brought the needy down to the lowest condition possible. (2:7)

Turning aside the way of the needy could mean that, although the poor were in the right, the oppressors used their power and influence to deprive them of justice. A number of translations make this sense explicit. They “thrust the rights of the oppressed to one side.” (NJB) They “deny justice to the oppressed.” (NIV) “They refuse to be fair to those who are suffering.” (NCV) In the Septuagint, the phrase about “the things treading” is followed by the words, “and they struck on the heads of the poor, and they turned aside the way of the lowly.” This indicates that the oppressors dealt violently with the poor, using their fists to strike their heads, and they trampled on their rights. (2:7)

Ceremonial prostitution figured prominently in the rites associated with the worship of gods and goddesses. So it appears that both a son and his father had relations with the same prostitute at a cultic site and thus profaned God’s holy name. YHWH had chosen the Israelites as his people and so his name had been called upon them. The debased practice of incestuous prostitution was a gross violation of the holiness or purity that should have been expected from persons upon whom God’s name had been called. (2:7)

Oppressors, when making a loan to the needy, would seize their garments as a pledge to assure repayment of the borrowed amount. Then, when engaging in idolatrous worship, they would recline alongside the altars on these garments. Proceeds from fines that they had unjustly obtained from the poor, they would use to buy wine that they would drink at the “house” or temple of their gods. As expressed in the Septuagint, the drink was “wine of extortions” or wine obtained through extortion. (2:8)

Regarding the garments and the people, the Septuagint says, “Binding their garments with cords, they made curtains next to the altar.” This suggests that the Israelites used their garments to make hangings or curtains to conceal their idolatrous acts from observation. (2:8)

Centuries earlier, when their wandering in the wilderness was coming to a close and they were about to enter Amorite territory east of the Jordan River, the Israelites asked the Amorites for permission to pass through their land, but they refused and chose to fight against them. The Amorites were defeated, and their land became Israelite territory. According to the biblical account, YHWH is the one who gave the victory to the Israelites. (Numbers 21:21-35) This was also the case when the Amorites on the west side of the Jordan determined to war against them. (Joshua 11:1-20) Accordingly, in the book of Amos, YHWH is represented as declaring that he had annihilated the “Amorite” (the Amorites collectively) before the Israelites (literally, “before their face”). (2:9)

The Amorites appear to have been significantly taller than the Israelites. (Compare Numbers 13:32; Deuteronomy 3:11.) This is the apparent basis for referring to the “Amorite” as having a height like that of cedars. The Amorite is portrayed as being strong like “big trees” (’allón) or, according to the Septuagint, an “oak” (drys). Militarily, the Amorites were mightier than the Israelites. (Compare Numbers 13:31; Deuteronomy 4:37, 38; 9:1.) Yet, the Amorites were completely annihilated. (2:9; see the Notes section.)

YHWH is represented as saying, “I destroyed his fruit above and his roots down below.” No “fruit” or offspring was left remaining. With “roots” destroyed, the Amorites could not rise up again as a people. They ceased to exist on account of their depravity. Their corrupt way of life, which violated the innate sense of right and wrong, had reached an extremely low level, ruling out any possibility of a change for the better in their conduct. (Compare Genesis 15:16; Deuteronomy 9:4, 5.) The fate of the Amorites implied that the Israelites, if persisting in the same debased course, would also be rooted out of the land. (2:9)

YHWH then is represented as reminding the Israelites that he had brought them up out of the land of Egypt and led them “in the wilderness forty years” so that they might come “to possess the land of the Amorite.” This brief reference to their past history should have impressed upon them what YHWH had done for their forefathers and that their living in the land the Amorites had formerly controlled was not owing to their own might as a people. Without YHWH’s aid, their forefathers would not have been able to leave Egypt, to survive in the wilderness, and to take possession of Amorite territory. (2:10)

From among the “sons” or descendants of the Israelite forefathers, YHWH raised up prophets, and from among young Israelite men he raised up Nazirites (“young men for consecration,” LXX). This was common knowledge among Israelites, as evident from the rhetorical question that follows. “Is it not so, O people of Israel? says YHWH.” (2:11)

Both men and women could take a Nazirite vow, which required that they abstain from drinking wine and partaking of any other product of the grapevine. They were also not to cut their hair and not to touch any dead body. (Numbers 6:2-7) In certain cases, individuals were divinely appointed as Nazirites for life, which set them aside for carrying out a special commission. Here, in the book of Amos, the reference is to the Nazarites whom YHWH specifically raised up for his purpose. Like Israelites who voluntarily vowed to live temporarily as Nazarites, those whom YHWH raised up would have abstained from drinking wine. (2:11; compare Luke 1:15.)

Faithless Israelites had no regard for the Nazarites (“consecrated ones,” LXX) nor for the prophets. They made the Nazarites drink wine, which would have been contrary to what was required of them in discharging their sacred service. The Israelites generally did not want to hear the word of YHWH that his prophets proclaimed, which word exposed their transgressions and called upon them to repent and to abandon their wayward course. They commanded the prophets not to prophesy, or to stop proclaiming the messages that YHWH had commissioned them to make known. (2:12)

On account of their wayward conduct, the Israelites would have YHWH’s punitive judgment expressed against them. There is uncertainty about how the portrayal of this coming judgment is to be understood. In the Hebrew text, the verb expressing what YHWH would do is the participial form of ‘uq, which lexicographers have regarded as possibly meaning “press down” or “totter.” With reference to the “cart” or the “wagon,” another form of the word ‘uq appears in the text. The uncertainty about the meaning of ‘uq accounts for the various interpretive renderings. “Now, then, I will crush you as a cart crushes when loaded with grain.” (NIV) “I will slow your movements as a wagon is slowed when it is full of cut grain.” (Tanakh) “I will make you groan as a wagon groans when it is loaded down with grain.” (NLT) “I will make you get stuck, as a wagon loaded with grain gets stuck.” (NCV) “I will let the ground underneath you sway like a wagon that is full of sheafs sways.” (Ich lasse den Boden unter euch schwanken, wie ein Wagen schwankt, der voll ist von Garben. [German, Einheitsübersetzung]) “Therefore I will burden you with a load under which you will sway back and forth like a harvest wagon that is too full.” (Darum werde ich euch eine Last aufbürden, unter der ihr hin- und herschwankt wie ein zu voller Erntewagen! [German, Hoffnung für alle]) (2:13)

In the Septuagint, the corresponding verb for ‘uq is kylío, meaning “roll.” God is represented as saying, “Therefore, behold, I roll underneath you in the manner the wagon filled with straw is rolled.” Perhaps the thought is that the rolling motion refers to the severe punishment that the Israelites would come to experience, a punishment that would be comparable to the pressure on the ground from the weight of a full wagon as it rolled along. (2:13; see the Notes section.)

At the time YHWH’s decreed punitive judgment is carried out, there would be no avenue of escape for the wayward Israelites. The swift one would be cut off from the possibility of fleeing to safety. As for the strong man, he would not retain his strength, and the mighty man would not be able to save his “soul” or life. The Septuagint rendering is very emphatic about the strong one’s loss of strength and the mighty man’s inability to save his “soul,” using two words for “not” that may be rendered “by no means” (“the strong one will by no means hold on to his strength, and the warrior will by no means save his soul”). (2:14)

Faced with the enemy invaders that would function as YHWH’s instrument to punish his disobedient people, the defending warriors would be helpless. The one “handling the bow” would not be able to stand his ground, failing to mount a successful counterattack. Even a fast runner (“one swift on his feet”) would be unable to save himself. The horseman (“one riding the horse”) would not succeed in saving his “soul” or life. (2:15)

Among the mighty, the one “strong of heart,” or in possession of exceptional courage, would “flee away naked in that day, says YHWH.” The most courageous one among the warriors would not fight. To make a speedy escape, he would strip off or discard everything that could slow him down. In this context, his being “naked” probably means being without his armor and weapons. (2:16)

The Septuagint reading in Rahlfs’ printed text is obscure. “And he will find his heart in mighty deeds; the naked one will pursue in that day, says the Lord.” According to another reading of the text, “And he will by no means [two Greek words meaning ‘not’] find his heart in mighty deeds.” This would indicate that the warrior would be unable to “find,” or to muster up, courage to perform mighty deeds. A partially preserved Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIc) supports the Septuagint rendering “find.” It reads, “And the one finding his heart.” As to the “naked one,” the Septuagint could be understood to mean that the warrior would “pursue” a course of flight without his armor and weapons. (2:16)

In the foretold day of YHWH’s judgment, the Israelites would prove to be helpless, unable to defend themselves against the onslaught of enemy forces. This did happen during the Assyrian military campaigns against the kingdom of Israel, which terminated in the destruction of the capital Samaria. A partially preserved text from the annals of Tiglath-pileser III says regarding “Omri-land” (meaning Israel [based on Israel’s having had a dynasty that began with Omri]), “its inhabitants and their possessions I led to Assyria.” (Compare 2 Kings 15:29.) At that time, Hoshea, the last monarch of the kingdom of Israel, became Tigalth-pileser’s vassal. When Hoshea withheld the annual tribute and allied himself with Egypt during the reign of Shalmaneser V, the successor of Tiglath-pileser III, this brought the Assyrian forces back into the territory of the kingdom of Israel. After a three-year siege, Samaria fell. (2 Kings 17:3-6) In his annals, Assyrian monarch Sargon II, the successor of Shalmaneser V, claimed that he “conquered and sacked the towns Shinuhtu and Samaria, and all Omri-land”. This version of the fall of Samaria suggests that Sargon II completed the punitive campaign against the kingdom of Israel that Shalmaneser V had begun. (2:16; compare 2 Kings 18:9-12.)

Notes

Much of the wording of verse 2 is the same as that of verses 4, 7, 10, 12 and 14 of chapter 1.

In the Septuagint, “Kerioth” (verse 2) is not rendered as the name of a city, but the text reads, “and it will consume the foundations of her cities.” This is because the Hebrew designation “Kerioth” can mean “cities.”

Most of the wording of verse 5 is the same as that of verses 4, 7, 10, 12 and 14 of chapter 1 and verse 2 of chapter 2.

In verse 9, the plural from of the Hebrew word ’allón appears to designate big or massive trees generally and would include oaks.

In verse 13, a Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIc) precedes the opening words (“behold, I”) with the conjunction “and.” This conjunction does not appear in the Masoretic Text, and the expression in the Septuagint may be rendered “therefore.”

Amos 3:1-15

The “sons of Israel” (“house of Israel,” LXX) are called upon to “hear,” or to listen to, the specific word or message (“this word”) that YHWH has spoken against them. As a people, they are also identified as “all the family [‘tribe’ (LXX)] that I [YHWH] brought up out of the land of Mizraim [Egypt].” Their liberation from enslavement in Egypt demonstrated their unique relationship to YHWH as their God, a relationship that all the peoples of other nations did not have. (3:1)

The word of YHWH made it clear that the unique relationship of the Israelites to him meant that they were accountable to him for their actions. Of all the families (“tribes,” LXX) of the earth, he only “knew” them, for he had made himself known to them and acknowledged them as being in a special relationship with him as his people who had received his law to guide them. Therefore, their failure to conduct themselves as his people meant that he would “visit” them with punishment for all their “iniquities”; or, according to the rendering of the Septuagint, he would “avenge” upon them all their “sins.” (3:2)

Then follows the first in a series of rhetorical questions. “Do two walk together unless they have [so] agreed?” According to the Septuagint rendering, the basis for their walking together is expressed as their having come to know one another. The question apparently does not relate to a chance encounter but to an arrangement to travel together for a specific purpose. This would only take place if the two parties had made prior arrangements or if they were acquainted with one another. The question and the implied answer could have shown to the Israelites that they should expect YHWH to deal with them according to their relationship with him. If, however, the rhetorical question is regarded as relating to a true prophet (verse 7), the thought would be that the prophet could not make known the message he proclaimed unless YHWH had first revealed it to him. Accordingly, the prophet’s existing relationship with YHWH made it possible for him to speak his word or message. A failure to heed the word of the prophet constituted a rejection of YHWH’s word and would lead to suffering the consequences for this failure. (3:3)

Cause and effect is again illustrated in the next rhetorical question. “Does a lion roar in a forest, and [there is] no prey for it? Does a young lion give forth its voice from its den unless it has caught [something]?” When lions are close enough to their prey to make a kill, they roar, confusing and frightening the animals. In their den, young lions may remain quiet unless they have prey to devour. (3:4)

The rhetorical questions continue. “Does a bird fall into a snare on the earth and [there is] not a trap for it? Does a snare spring up from the ground and it has not seized anything?” The Israelites were acquainted with snares and traps and knew that no bird or other creature would be caught in a snare or trap unless it triggered the device. (3:5)

The Septuagint rendering of the first question attributes the falling of a bird to the ground to the act of a fowler. (“Will a bird fall on the earth without a fowler?”) Although this reading differs somewhat from that of the Hebrew text, the cause-and-effect relationship is preserved. (3:5)

“Is a shofar [a ram’s-horn trumpet] blown in a city and people are not terrified? Does evil befall a city, and YHWH has not done it?” When watchmen sounded an alarm with a horn or a trumpet, the people recognized this as signaling imminent danger, commonly from an army that was on its way to lay siege to the city. Therefore, the blowing of the horn aroused fear in those who heard the sound. “Evil” or “calamity” is attributed to YHWH, as he is the one who permitted it to befall the city in expression of his judgment. (3:6)

The relationship of cause and effect also applies in connection with YHWH’s judgments. He does not take action without first disclosing his “counsel,” “instruction” (LXX), or his purpose to “his servants the prophets.” The prophets, as his devoted servants, then proclaim the message he revealed to them, granting the opportunity for individuals to repent and to be spared from experiencing the threatened calamity. If those who hear the proclamation refuse to repent and abandon their corrupt way of life, they will have the punitive judgment expressed against them. (3:7)

“A lion has roared; [and (LXX)] who will not fear? The Lord YHWH has spoken; [and (LXX)] who will not prophesy?” A lion’s roar may be heard from a distance of about 5 miles (c. 8 kilometers) away. For the Israelites, this roar gave rise to fear, for lions posed a threat to their domestic animals and at times to themselves or to their children. Whenever YHWH spoke or revealed his message to a prophet, the prophet could respond in no other way than to prophesy or to proclaim the message. The divine impulse made it impossible for prophets to restrain themselves from speaking. (3:8; compare Jeremiah 20:9.)

A proclamation is to be directed to the “citadels” (’armóhn) or strongholds in Ashdod and in the land of Egypt. This would be an announcement to the people in the well-fortified places there. It seems somewhat unusual that the Philistine city of Ashdod would be linked in this manner to Egypt. According to the Septuagint, the reference is to the “regions [plural form of chóra)] among the Assyrians,” which fits the historical circumstances better. It was not many years after Amos began serving as a prophet that the Assyrians invaded the kingdom of Israel, and the last king of Israel, Hoshea, allied himself with Egypt in an effort to free himself from Assyrian control. (2 Kings 15:29, 30; 17:3, 4; see the Notes section regarding the Hebrew word ’armóhn and the corresponding Greek rendering of this noun as chóra.) (3:9)

Those being addressed are told to assemble “on the mountains [‘mountain’ (LXX)] of Samaria to “see the great [or ‘many’] tumults in her and the acts of oppression in her midst.” “Tumults” may refer to social unrest resulting from the evils or the injustices that were committed in Samaria. The rendering in the Septuagint is thaumastá pollá (“many wonderful things” or “many astonishing things”) and could apply to the people’s corrupt practices that were so shocking as to cause astonishment among observers. Especially the poor would have suffered from oppression, fraud, or exploitation. (3:9; for pictures of and comments about the site of Samaria, see Samaria.)

For one to see or witness injustices or oppression, one would have to be among the people. Therefore, the assembling on the “mountains” or “mountain” of Samaria is apparently to be understood figuratively. Those who are called upon to observe are represented as being summoned to assemble as if on elevated locations in order to see what was happening beneath them. The apparent purpose of the assembling appears to be that those gathered would perceive the evidence that punitive action against Samaria was warranted. (3:9)

Prominent ones of Samaria and the rest of the kingdom of Israel had made themselves guilty of great evils. Therefore, YHWH is represented as saying that they did not know how to do what is right. Justice and honesty were foreign to them. The Septuagint rendering may be understood to mean that people of Samaria, particularly those guilty of building up a record of injustice and misery, did not know or had no idea about the punitive judgment that would befall them (“she [Samaria] did not know the things that will be before her, says the Lord, the ones treasuring up injustice and misery in their regions.”) Injustice and oppression would have brought misery to the disadvantaged ones in their midst, and the cruel oppressors would not escape punishment. (3:10)

In their “citadels” or strongholds (according to the Hebrew text), the oppressors “stored up violence and robbery.” This suggests that they accumulated wealth through violent, oppressive, and unjust means, often attaining their base objectives through bribery. (3:10; see the Notes section regarding “citadels” and the Septuagint rendering.)

YHWH decreed that an “adversary” (tsar) would surround the land and bring down the might of Samaria (“your might”) and plunder the “citadels” or strongholds (“your citadels”). The “adversary” proved to be Assyria. (3:11)

Instead of a word for “adversary,” as is the apparent meaning of tsar in this context, the Septuagint has “Tyre” as its rendering. This is because, in the Hebrew consonantal text, the spelling of Tyre, the Phoenician city, is the same as that of the Hebrew word here translated “adversary.” (3:11)

During the reign of Israel’s king Hoshea, the Assyrians invaded, thus “surrounding the land” with warriors. During the three-year siege of Samaria, the might or strength of the city was brought down or shattered. After the city fell, the Assyrians would have plundered all the treasures they found in the citadels, strongholds, or the well-fortified edifices and structures. (3:11; see the Notes section regarding “citadels” and the Septuagint rendering.)

Shepherds could be held accountable for the loss of animals from the flocks under their care. (Compare Genesis 31:39.) To establish that the loss of a sheep or a goat was not due to his negligence, a shepherd might snatch away “two legs” (kera‘áyim, a dual form Hebrew noun) or a “piece [‘lobe’ or ‘tip’ (LXX)] of an ear” from the “mouth of the lion.” This evidence would then serve to establish that he did not have to make compensation for the animal. (Compare Exodus 22:13.) The Hebrew designation kera‘áyim may here designate the lower part of the leg or the fibula. Other renderings are “pair of shin-bones” (REB) and “two leg bones” (CEV, NIV). (3:12)

There is uncertainty about the meaning of the words that follow the description of a shepherd’s action. Literally translated, the phrases could read, “so the sons of Israel will be snatched away, the ones dwelling in Samaria in the corner of a couch and in a Damascus-divan.” This could indicate that few of the inhabitants of Samaria would survive the conquest. They would be like mere fragments from a sheep or a goat that a shepherd might snatch away from the mouth of a lion. The application may be particularly to wealthy residents who customarily reclined on part of a large luxurious couch or on a divan. A similar meaning is found in a number of translations. “So will the Israelites who live in Samaria be rescued, who repose on the finest beds and on divans from Damascus.” (REB) “So only a few will survive of Samaria’s people, who now recline on luxurious couches.” (GNT, Second Edition) “In the same way only a few Israelites in Samaria will be saved — people who now sit on their beds and on their couches.” (NCV) (3:12)

Another possibility is to understand the Hebrew preposition preceding the words “corner of a couch” and “Damascus-divan” to mean “with.” That would mean that the “sons of Israel, the ones dwelling in Samaria,” would be “snatched away with the corner of a couch and with a Damascus-divan.” Accordingly, wealthy residents of Samaria who might survive the conquest of the city and be taken into exile would be able to carry with them items that would be virtually worthless pieces from among their former abundant possessions. This is similarly expressed in a number of modern translations. “So the Israelites who live in Samaria will be rescued with [only] the corner of a bed or the cushion of a couch.” (HCSB) “So will the people of Israel living in Samaria be saved, with the corner of a bed and a part of a cover.” (NLB) (3:12)

One cannot be sure to what the combination of the two Hebrew words for “Damascus” and “divan” applies. Translators who have retained “Damascus” as a proper noun make the verse apply to the city itself. “So it will be for the Israelites in Samaria lying on luxurious beds, and for the people of Damascus reclining on couches.” (NLT) “They sit in Samaria on the edge of their beds. They lie down in Damascus on their couches.” (NIRV) In their renderings, other translators have interpreted the words “Damascus” and “divan” to mean a “piece of a cot” (NAB) or “a part of a cover” (NLB). This is based on a conjecture that “Damascus” possibly designated luxurious material and so the combination of “Damascus” and “divan” could refer to just a fragment of the material from a cot or a divan. (3:12; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

With the imperatives “hear” and “testify,” the judgment facing the people of the kingdom of Israel is introduced in a solemn manner. “Hear and testify against the house of Jacob, says the Lord YHWH, the God of hosts.” The verbs for “hear” and “testify” are plural, suggesting that all who “hear,” listen, or pay attention to the message should testify regarding it or make it known as the word of the “Lord YHWH, the God of hosts,” or the God with hosts of angels in his service for carrying out his purpose. If the word for “priests” (in the Septuagint) is linked to this verse as a vocative, the priests are the ones called upon to hear and to bear witness. This, however, is not likely to have been the significance of the original Hebrew text, especially since Amaziah the priest of Bethel opposed the prophetic activity of Amos and insisted that he should return to the land of Judah and prophesy there. (3:13; 7:10-13; see the Notes section.)

In verse 9, foreign peoples were directed to assemble and to observe the upheaval and acts of oppression taking place in Samaria. So it could be that they are the ones being addressed with the imperatives “hear” and “testify.” From the actual standpoint, however, foreigners would not be able to do so, for they would not hear the word of YHWH through his prophet and be in a position to testify concerning it. They could only be represented as doing so in a figurative way, as if they had been assembled to see developments in Samaria and to hear the word of YHWH concerning the city and the kingdom of Israel. (3:13)

Another possibility is to regard the ones addressed to include prophets in addition to Amos, but nothing recorded in the book of Amos suggests that any other prophets of YHWH were then active in the kingdom of Israel, making known the word of YHWH against the “house of Jacob” or the people descended from Jacob whose name was changed to Israel after he had wrestled with an angel. (Genesis 32:24-28) The expressions of Amaziah the priest of Bethel to King Jeroboam II, complaining about the message of Amos, and then also the words he directed to Amos, imply that there were no other prophets of YHWH prophesying in the realm. (3:13; 7:10-13)

As in the days of the prophet Elijah, a small remnant of Israelites who were loyal to YHWH must have existed in the kingdom of Israel. (Compare 1 Kings 19:10, 14, 18.) It may be that they are the ones invited to hear the word of YHWH that Amos made known and to testify regarding it. (3:13)

On the “day” or at the time YHWH determined to “make his visit” to execute judgment (“take vengeance,” LXX) for the transgressions (“impious deeds,” LXX) Israel had committed against him, he would also “visit” or attend to the “altars of Bethel.” The “horns of the altar,” the projections from each of the four corners of the altar, would then be cut off and fall to the ground. (For pictures of ancient altars with “horns,” see altar.) The cutting off of the “horns” of the altar indicated that the altar would either be desecrated or destroyed. If it was a common practice for people to take hold of the horns of an altar when seeking protection, the removal of the horns of the altar may also imply that the wayward people of Israel would be deprived of all avenues of escape from the execution of YHWH’s judgment. (3:14; compare 1 Kings 2:28-31.)

Wealthy Israelites appear to have had both a “winter house,” specially built in an area where the temperature was warmer in winter than elsewhere, and a “summer house” in a region that had cooler average temperatures than did other locations during the hot summer months. “Houses of ivory” would have been homes having interiors beautified with ivory inlays. YHWH is represented as determining to “smite” both the winter house and the summer house. “Houses of ivory” would perish, and “great” or “many houses” would come to an end. If, in this context, the meaning of the Hebrew adjective rav is “great,” the houses would be impressive, ornate dwellings. (3:15; for examples of ancient ivories found in Israel, see examples 1, 2 and 3.)

The Septuagint does not mention a “winter house” but refers to a house surrounded by a colonnade. God is represented as saying that he would “pour together” or “mix together” and strike the house having a colonnade upon the summer house. This rendering indicates that both houses would be destroyed and suggests that the houses were in close proximity so that one could fall upon the other and the ruins from both be mixed together. “Houses of ivory” would be demolished, and many other houses would be “added.” This could be understood to mean that, in time, the destroyed ornate homes would be replaced with numerous less-impressive dwellings. (3:15)

Notes

In verses 9, 10 and 11 of chapter three and verse 8 of chapter 6, the Septuagint renders the plural of the Hebrew noun ’armóhn (“citadels” or “strongholds”) as the plural of chóra,” a noun that can refer to a land, region, district, or place. Earlier, in verses 4, 7, 10, 12 and 14 of chapter 1 and verses 2 and 5 of chapter 2, the Septuagint rendering for the plural of ’armóhn has been a noun that means “foundations” (the plural of themélion).

The Septuagint rendering provides no clue as to how the obscure parts of verse 12 may be understood. A literal translation could read, “so will the sons of Israel be pulled out, the ones dwelling in Samaria before a tribe and among [en, often meaning ‘in’] Damascus priests.” In Rahlfs’ printed text, the sentence ends with the Greek word for “priests.” This is not necessarily the case. The sentence could end with “in Damascus,” and the “priests” would then be the ones to whom the imperatives in the next verse are directed. In Hebrew, the consonants for the words “tribe” and “couch” or “bed” are the same, and this explains why the Septuagint reads “tribe,” not “couch.” The rendering “priests” can, however, not be explained on the basis of the extant Hebrew text. One possibility is that the Hebrew noun ‘éres (“couch”) was transliterated as the similarly pronounced hiereis (“priests”). In verse 4 of chapter 6, where the plural form of the same Hebrew word (‘éres) appears, the Septuagint rendering is the plural of klíne, which noun applies to something on which one lies or reclines, a divan, couch, or bed. This indicates that the Septuagint translator did know the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘éres.

In verse 13, the Septuagint, instead of “God of hosts,” reads “the Almighty.”

Amos 4:1-13

Those addressed are called upon to “hear” YHWH’s word (“this word”) or message through his prophet. They are located on the “mountain of Samaria,” identifying them as residents of the city of Samaria that is situated on a hill. For over 200 years, starting with the reign of Omri, Samaria served as the capital of the kingdom of Israel. (4:1; for pictures of and comments about Samaria, see Samaria.)

These particular residents on the “mountain” or hill of Samaria had been guilty of “oppressing” or exploiting the poor and “crushing” the needy, depriving them of their rights. They are called “cows of Bashan.” The region of Bashan on the east side of the Jordan River was known for its good pastures that were ideally suited for cattle. Therefore, the expression “cows of Bashan” applies to wealthy residents of Samaria who lived luxuriously at the expense of disadvantaged Israelites. (4:1)

Although these inhabitants of Samaria are called “cows of Bashan [Basanitis (LXX)],” the imperative “hear” at the beginning of this verse is a masculine plural, not the feminine plural that one would expect. The Hebrew participles translated “oppressing” and “crushing” are both feminine plurals, agreeing with the feminine gender of the noun “cows.” These “cows of Bashan” are the ones “saying to their lords, ‘Bring [Give to us (LXX)], and [that (LXX)] we may drink.’” In the Masoretic Text, the suffix here rendered “their” is masculine gender, and the verb for “bring” is singular. In the preserved portion of verse 1 in a Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIc), as in the Septuagint, the verb is plural, and this may be the original Hebrew reading. Because the verb forms in the Hebrew text are not consistently feminine gender and the suffix that is rendered “their” is masculine gender, some have reasoned that the expression “cows of Bashan” designates oppressive, self-indulgent men who are mockingly represented as being like wanton females. The reference to “their lords” could then apply to the deities to whom they looked to make their grapevines productive, assuring a yield that would supply abundant juice for making wine. According to another view, both men and women may be regarded as being called “cows of Bashan.” (4:1; for pictures of and comments about Bashan, see Bashan.)

The differences in gender existing in the extant Hebrew text of verse 1 do not affect the way in which the Greek participles and the Greek pronoun for “their” are rendered. This is because the Greek plural participles and the Greek adjective “their” are the same for feminine and masculine gender. Based on the reading of the Septuagint, the “cows of Bashan” may be understood to designate domineering rich women who thought nothing of calling upon “their lords” or their husbands to supply them with drink. They may well have acted much like Jezebel, the wife of King Ahab, who wielded tremendous power over him. (4:1; compare 1 Kings 21:5-16, 25.)

Those who are called “cows of Bashan” would not escape divine punishment, for YHWH had sworn by his “holiness” (“holy ones” or angels [LXX]) to this effect. His swearing by his holiness or his absolute purity, which remains untainted at all times, would be like his swearing by himself. His holiness transcends that of all others, and so the oath-bound declaration of judgment would unfailingly be executed. (4:2)

Women who pampered themselves, cruelly dominated over others, and satisfied their every desire would be forcibly taken out of Samaria as if they were cattle led to slaughter. There is uncertainty about the means referred to as used for this purpose. The usual meaning of the Hebrew word tsinnáh is “shield,” and the Septuagint rendering is the plural of hóplon, a “weapon” or a “spear” by which the “cows of Bashan” would be seized. In the context, the meaning “shield” for the Hebrew noun does not fit, and lexicographers have conjectured that the Hebrew word may refer to a “hook” or “barb” used for catching fish. Also an animal could be led with a rope attached to a hook through its nostril. The two Hebrew words sir (“thorn” or “hook”) and dugáh (“fish”) are believed to refer to a “fishhook.” (4:2)

Another lexical definition for the Hebrew noun sir is “pot” or “caldron.” In part, this may explain the unusual reading of the Septuagint, “Fiery pests will toss those with you into a caldrons being heated from underneath.” When recounting the tortures to which King Antiochus Epiphanes subjected seven Jewish brothers who refused to act contrary to the law, 2 Maccabees 7:3 mentions that he ordered caldrons to be heated. Then 4 Maccabees 12:1 specifically refers to one of the brothers as having been thrown into the caldron. Possibly because the Septuagint translator was familiar with this account, he rendered the phrase that included the Hebrew word sir (“pot” or “caldron”) in the manner that he did. (4:2)

The wealthy women of conquered Samaria would go out by way of breaches that the attackers would make in the fortifications of the city, with each woman going out “before her.” This could mean that one woman after another would be led out as captives through the breaches in the walls of Samaria. Another possible meaning is that each woman would be going straight ahead of her. According to the Septuagint rendering, the women would be “naked” when carried out of Samaria “before one another.” (4:3)

YHWH is represented as declaring that the women would be “cast out to Harmon” (“Mount Remman,” LXX). In the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew word for “cast out” (shalák) is active voice and can also mean “drive out.” According to an emendation, translators have commonly rendered the verb as passive. When the active voice of shalák is preserved in the rendering of this verb, the phrase wherein it appears could be translated, “and you will cast one out to Harmon.” (4:3)

The rendering “mount” in the Septuagint does not depart from the Hebrew text, for the Hebrew noun har means “mountain.” “Mount Remman” may be the same as the location known as the “rock of Rimmon,” situated about three and a half miles (c. 6 kilometers) east of Bethel. (Judges 20:45, 47) This site, however, does not fit the context of a conquest of Samaria, a city located about 25 miles (c. 40 kilometers) to the north. When “Harmon” is rendered as “Hermon” (NJB), the meaning of the phrase could be that the women would be “cast out” or driven northward in the direction of Mount Hermon on the way to their exile in Assyria. A number of translators have chosen to render the Hebrew text interpretively without using a proper name. “You shall be cast into the mire.” (NAB) “And flung on the refuse heap.” (Tanakh) “You will be thrown on the garbage dump.” (NCV) “You will be thrown from your fortresses.” (NLT) (4:3)

The imperatives for the Israelites to continue their involvement in divinely disapproved worship constitute a taunt, with the implied message being that they would suffer the consequences for their wayward course. Let them come to Bethel, the center of calf worship in the southern extremity of the kingdom of Israel, and engage in idolatrous practices, transgressing the law that had been divinely given to their ancestors and which they were obligated to obey. (4:4)

Gilgal, a town not far to the north of Bethel, is here identified as a place for idolatrous worship. There, in keeping with their desires, the Israelites are told to go in order to repeatedly transgress the commands set forth in God’s law respecting matters of worship. To both sites they are to continue bringing their sacrifices in the morning and their tithes “on the third day,” possibly meaning the “third day” of a festival or the “third day” after their arrival to participate in worship. (4:4)

According to the rendering of the Septuagint, the verbs are not imperatives but express what the Israelites were doing. They came to Bethel (Baithel), and “were lawless” there, violating God’s commands about idolatry. In Gilgal (Galgala), they increased their acting in an impious or ungodly manner. (4:4)

According to the law, thanksgiving offerings could include both leavened and unleavened items made from grain. (Leviticus 7:11-15) Leavened items, however, could not be burned on the altar as an offering to YHWH. (Leviticus 2:11) In the Hebrew text of verse 5 of Amos chapter 4, the preposition min precedes the noun for “leaven” and could be understood to mean “with” or “without” leaven. Both meanings are found in translations. “Bring a thank offering of leavened bread.” (NRSV) “Burn your thank-offering without leaven.” (REB) It appears preferable to consider the meaning to be “with leaven,” as a leavened item would not be acceptable as a thanksgiving offering to be burned on the altar of YHWH’s temple but could be presented on altars for idolatrous worship. (4:5)

The Septuagint does not mention leaven, and the rendering has nothing in common with the extant Hebrew text. “And outside they read the law and called for confessions.” This could be understood to mean that the people heard the law read to them and thereafter were to confess their wrongs before engaging in worship. (4:5)

The imperative to proclaim “freewill offerings” also has no parallel in the Septuagint. This proclaiming of voluntary offerings may refer to a public, loud, or boastful announcing by the individuals who brought the offerings. Another possible meaning is that the proclamation constituted a solicitation, causing people to be pressured into making such offerings instead of doing so of their own freewill. (4:5)

The Septuagint concludes with the phrase, “Announce that the sons of Israel have loved these things, says the Lord God.” As in the case of the Masoretic Text, the imperative verb in the Septuagint is second person plural, but the wording of the Septuagint does not identify those who are to do the announcing. The reference to this announcing suggests that there was to be no hiding of the God-dishonoring idolatrous practices that the Israelites loved. These practices were to be made known or exposed. (4:5)

The reading of the Masoretic Text is similar. “Cause to be heard [announce or proclaim], for so you love, O sons of Israel — declaration of the Lord YHWH.” Translations commonly link the introductory verb (here rendered “cause to be heard”) to making the announcement about freewill offerings, and a number of them render the verb as an adverb. “Brag about your freewill offerings — boast about them, you Israelites, for this is what you love to do.” (NIV) “Announce publicly your free-will offerings; for that is what you Israelites love to do!” (REB) “Proclaim publicly your freewill offerings, for so you love to do, O men of Israel.” (NAB) “Widely publicise your free-will offerings, for this, children of Israel, is what makes you happy.” (NJB) These renderings suggest that the Israelites loved to broadcast that they were making voluntary offerings. It is also possible to understand the reference to be to the pleasure the Israelites had in pursuing their God-dishonoring practices and that their loving these practices should be made known. (4:5)

YHWH withheld his care and blessing from the Israelites on account of their waywardness. Therefore, he is represented as giving them “cleanness of teeth” in all the cities where they resided and lack of bread everywhere. Having faced starvation, the Israelites experienced “cleanness [aching (LXX)] of teeth.” There would have been no evidence on their teeth that they had eaten anything. The Septuagint reference to “aching” could be understood to mean feeling the pain of having no food in their mouths. Despite having to endure the effects of very limited supplies of food, the people did not repentantly return to YHWH and abandon their lawless ways. (4:6)

Three months before the harvest, possibly meaning the barley harvest, would be a time when the rainy season was in progress. YHWH is represented as withholding the rain at that time, and the resulting drought would have been ruinous for the growing crops. Rain that did fall was unevenly distributed, with one city and the surrounding area getting rain and with another city and the surrounding fields not having any rainfall. Areas of land without rainfall would then “be dried up.” (4:7)

The people from two or three cities suffering from severe drought would, in their weakened state, stagger to a city that did get some rain and so had water, but the supply of water for drinking was not enough for the arrivals. Still, the adversities that drought had caused did not motivate the people to return to YHWH and stop pursuing a course contrary to his commands. (4:8)

YHWH is represented as saying that he struck the Israelites “with blight [shiddaphóhn] and with mildew [yeraqóhn],” which would have devastated the grain harvest. According to the Septuagint, the reference could be to afflicting the people with “inflammation” or “fever” (pýrosis) and “jaundice” (íkteros). Certain lexicographers, however, do not limit the Greek words pýrosisíkteros to these meanings. This explains why The Orthodox Study Bible renders the Greek words as “parching” and “blight.” In Haggai 2:17, the Septuagint renders the Hebrew words shiddaphóhn and yeraqóhn as aphoría (“barrenness”) and anemophthoría (“blight,” “blasting” [which could include damage from a scorching wind]). (4:9)

After the word yeraqóhn (“mildew”), the Hebrew text may literally be rendered, “to increase your gardens and your vineyards.” Believing that the Hebrew infinitive (a form of raváh) does not fit the context, translators have followed an emendation that changes the Hebrew verb to mean “I laid waste.” Other translators have rendered the Hebrew infinitive as an adverb (“repeatedly”) to indicate that an insect devastation had repeatedly consumed the gardens, vineyards, fig trees, and olive trees. The Septuagint, although not rendering the Hebrew verb form as an infinitive, basically corresponds to the Hebrew text. “You increased your gardens.” This could be taken to mean that, although the Israelites increased the number of their gardens, an insect plague devastated what they had planted. (4:9)

Translators have often rendered the Hebrew word gazám as “locust” (a collective singular) or “locusts.” The corresponding word in the Septuagint is kámpe, meaning “caterpillar” (the larval stage of a butterfly or moth). “Caterpillar” is also one of the lexical definitions of the Hebrew word. This significance fits the root gazár (“to cut”), from which gazám is thought to be derived. With each caterpillar devouring more food than its own weight during the course of a day, a caterpillar infestation would have consumed much of the fruit of fig trees and olive trees. (4:9)

The poor grain and fruit yields should have caused the Israelites to think seriously about their standing before YHWH. Yet they did not return to him as a repentant people and abandon their lawless ways. (4:9)

YHWH is referred to as saying that, among the Israelites, he sent the kind of “pestilence” (thánatos [LXX], “death”), or the deadly diseases, that had plagued Egypt (Mizraim). (Compare Deuteronomy 7:15; 28:27, 59, 60.) He slew the young Israelite men with the sword, letting them be killed in battle with their enemies. The victorious attackers also captured the horses of the Israelites. As a result of the many men who perished in the conflicts, the stench from the decaying corpses in the military camps of the Israelites entered the nostrils of the survivors. These adversities, however, did not prompt them to return to YHWH as a repentant people who were desirous of doing his will. (4:10)

The Septuagint makes no mention of the stench. As to what God did, it says, “I caused your camps to go up in fire in my wrath.” These words could be understood to mean that YHWH, in expression of his anger, permitted the enemies of the Israelites to burn the camps of his defeated people. (4:10)

The “overthrow” that YHWH brought about could refer to his use of the enemies of the Israelites to devastate their land. This overthrow would resemble the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, with the defeat of the Israelites being so decisive as to make it appear that they had been annihilated and that their land had been reduced to ruin. It is also possible that the overthrow could refer to an earthquake that caused extensive destruction and resulted in the loss of many lives. (Compare Amos 1:1 and Zechariah 14:5.) As to those who survived the “overthrow,” they were like a firebrand that had been snatched out of a fire (literally, “out of the burning”) to prevent the flames from completely burning it up. Despite all these calamities, the people failed to respond as they should have. Regarding this, the identical expression is set forth in verses 6, 8, 9 and 10, “And you did not return to me — utterance of YHWH.” The Israelites persisted in their wrong course and stubbornly refused to repent. (4:11)

What YHWH purposed to do to the Israelites because of their unwillingness to repent, he would do to them. Therefore, they are challenged with the words, “Prepare to meet [‘to call upon’ (LXX) your God, O Israel.” What he had allowed them to experience in the past had repeatedly given them the opportunity to change their ways. The declaration to be prepared for an encounter with him, however, meant that they would have to face him as the God who would severely punish them. (4:12)

There would be no escape for the wayward Israelites from YHWH’s judgment against them, for he controls everything. This is emphasized in his being identified as in possession of matchless power. YHWH is the former of the mountains, the most prominent and stable features of the landscape. He is the creator of the wind, a force with tremendous destructive power. The Septuagint does not mention “mountains,” but refers to God as making “thunder” strong. This reference to “thunder” in connection with wind is suggestive of a severe thunderstorm. (4:13)

YHWH’s announcing to “man” (the “earthling”) “what his thought” is could relate to his communicating to humans what his purpose is, as he did to the Israelites through his prophets. Another possible meaning would be that he is fully aware of what humans may be thinking. Either in the main text or in footnotes, translators have explicitly expressed both meanings. “I let humans know what I am thinking.” (CEV) He “declares his thoughts to mankind.” (REB) He “reveals his mind to humankind.” (NJB) “No one’s secret thoughts are hidden from me.” (CEV, footnote) He “reveals the thoughts of humankind.” (NJB, footnote) The Septuagint conveys a different significance, referring to God as “announcing to men his anointed one.” (4:13)

YHWH’s making “dawn” or morning into darkness could relate to the darkness that results from a solar eclipse or from thunderclouds when they blacken the sky. According to the Septuagint rendering, he makes “dawn” and “mist,” “fog,” or “darkness.” (4:13)

As YHWH is perceived as coming down from above when turning his attention to the inhabitants of the earth, he is represented as “treading on the high places of the earth.” This may also serve to indicate that he is in control of everything that is beneath him. (4:13)

The One whom the unrepentant Israelites would have to face is unmistakably identified. “YHWH, the God of hosts, [is] his name.” He is the God who has revealed his name and has hosts of angels in his service for carrying out his will. (4:13)

Amos 5:1-27

The “house” (or the people) of Israel is called upon to hear or to listen to “this word,” the specific message being taken up over the people as a “lamentation” or “dirge.” According to the Septuagint, this message is the “word of the Lord,” indicating that YHWH himself is the one taking it up. The “word” is a lamentation or dirge, for the message relates to the future abandoned condition of Israel that is represented as if then already existing. This sad development was certain to occur unless (as expressed in verse 4) the people repented. (5:1)

The “virgin of Israel” is portrayed as having suffered a fall from which she cannot rise or recover. In her own land, she has been forsaken, and no one is there to raise her up. (5:2)

At Mount Sinai, the Israelites had been brought into a covenant relationship with YHWH, comparable to that of a wife to her husband. On the basis of this covenant, the people came under his husbandly care and protection. As a “virgin,” Israel is here depicted as not in this relationship and so without the protective care and concern of a husband. Unable to get up on her own upon having fallen, she is also without a husband to assist her to stand up. (5:2)

The word of the Lord YHWH (“Lord, Lord” [LXX]) indicated that the Israelites would be subjected to enemy invasions of their land. They would be unsuccessful in their efforts to halt enemy aggression. Of a 1,000 men leaving a city to engage the enemy, only 100 would survive. From the place 100 would go forth, only ten would be left as survivors to the “house” or the people of Israel. (5:3)

Even though the calamity to befall Israel is expressed in terms of certainty, the opportunity for the people to repent had not been cut off. Through his prophet, YHWH said to the house of Israel, “Seek me and live.” This seeking meant taking the essential action to become reconciled to God as his repentant people who were determined to conduct themselves in harmony with his commands. As a forgiven people who had abandoned their wayward course, they would “live” or be spared the judgment that would result in the devastation of their land and the loss of life for the majority. (5:4)

The Israelites were admonished not to seek Bethel (Baithel [LXX]), the center of idolatrous calf worship that Jeroboam (the first monarch of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel) established to prevent his subjects from going to worship at the temple in Jerusalem. (1 Kings 12:26-33) For individuals to seek Bethel would have meant for them to go there for the purpose of securing divine aid and blessing by engaging in acts of worship, including the offering up of sacrifices. Although the golden calf at Bethel was an idol, Jeroboam represented it to his subjects as the God who had led the Israelites out of Egypt. (1 Kings 12:28) He thereby instituted a corrupt form of worshiping YHWH. Possibly, if influenced by Canaanite views about their deities, the Israelites regarded the calf as being the animal upon which YHWH stood representatively. (5:5)

Not far from Bethel lay Gilgal (Galgala [LXX]), a place that also had become a site for idolatrous worship. The apparent reason the Israelites were not to enter this town was to stop engaging in the veneration of idols there. (5:5)

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew name “Beer-sheba” is rendered according to its meaning, “well of the oath.” This city in the southern part of the kingdom of Judah appears to have become a site where the Israelites participated in worship that YHWH disapproved. It does seem unusual, however, that the Israelites from the kingdom of Israel would undertake a journey to this distant location. Perhaps the reference to Beer-sheba serves to indicate that the people of the kingdom of Judah, like the Israelites in the northern kingdom, engaged in idolatrous practices. If this is the case, they are the ones who were instructed not to cross over to Beer-sheba. (5:5)

YHWH would express his judgment against Gilgal, allowing it to fall before enemy invaders. Gilgal, meaning the surviving inhabitants of the city, would go into exile. Military conquest would reduce Bethel to “nothingness.” According to the Septuagint rendering, Bethel (Baithel) “will be as not existing.” (5:5)

To escape the threatened calamity, the Israelites needed to seek YHWH (as already stated previously in verse 4), wanting to be reconciled to him as a repentant people. As persons forgiven of their sins, they would live and not perish. If they refused to abandon their corrupt practices, YHWH would break out like a destructive fire in the “house of Joseph.” Many of the people of the kingdom of Israel were descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, and Ephraim was the dominant tribe in the realm. Accordingly, the designation “house of Joseph” represented all the people of the kingdom of Israel. The “fire” that YHWH would unleash against them would come through military conquest, leading to a devastation of the land and death for many. In this way, the “house of Joseph” would be devoured as by fire. (5:6)

As a center of idol worship, Bethel may here be singled out as the object of fire that no one would be able to extinguish. In the Septuagint, the name “Bethel,” meaning “house of God,” is translated as “house of Israel,” making it a parallel expression for “house of Joseph.” It is possible that the Hebrew text may be understood similarly. As YHWH’s people, the Israelites had become the “house” or household of God, the One to whom they had been unfaithful. Therefore, if they persisted in their waywardness, they would be devoured by a fire that no one could quench. (5:6)

The Israelites should have upheld a high standard of “judgment” or justice and conducted their affairs with exemplary uprightness. Instead, they had turned “judgment” to wormwood, a plant with a very bitter taste. Especially the lowly ones among them could not expect to have a just judgment rendered in a legal case. They remained at the mercy of cruel oppressors who commonly resorted to bribery. In their dealings, the Israelites generally cast “righteousness” to the ground, refusing to do what is right as if trampling upon uprightness like the ground underneath their feet. (5:7)

The extant Septuagint text conveys a very different meaning. YHWH (the “Lord”) is represented as carrying out (“doing”) “judgment in the height,” his exalted place of dwelling, and establishing “righteousness in the earth.” This rendering indicates that he would not indefinitely tolerate the lawlessness of the Israelites but would execute his judgment against them, thereby establishing what is right. (5:7)

The activity that is attributed to YHWH apparently serves to stress that whatever he decrees will be accomplished, including the execution of his judgments. He is identified as the maker of two constellations, designated as kimáh and kesíl in Hebrew. The Hebrew word kimáh is commonly thought to refer to the Pleiades constellation. In the Vulgate, kesíl is rendered “Orion.” In this context, “Orion” has also generally been accepted as the significance of kesíl. In the Septuagint, no mention is made of constellations, but the opening phrase identifies God as “making everything and transforming.” (5:8)

YHWH turns “dark shadow [‘shadow of death’ (LXX)] into morning and darkens day into night.” Depending on his purpose, he can either transform the deepest darkness into morning light, or change the light of day into the darkness of the night. (5:8)

He is the one “calling” or “summoning” the “waters of the sea,” and then pours them out in the form of rain on the “face” or surface of the “earth” or ground. As evident from the identification that follows (“YHWH [is] his name”), he is not a mere “higher power,” but the living and true God who has personally revealed himself by name. The extant Septuagint text refers to him as the “Lord God, the Almighty.” (5:8)

In possession of matchless power, YHWH is the one “making destruction flash forth against the strong one, and destruction comes upon the fortress.” The “strong one” could be a valiant warrior or warriors (when regarded as a collective singular). It is also possible that “strong one” means “strong thing” and is a parallel expression for “fortress.” A number of translations make this sense explicit in their renderings. “He destroys the protected city; he ruins the strong, walled city.” (NCV) “He destroys places of safety. He tears down cities that have high walls around them.” (NIRV) With destruction flashing forth against the strongly fortified place, destruction would come “upon the fortress.” (5:9)

If the “strong one” is understood to mean a warrior or warriors, the destruction of the defending force would also spell the destruction of the fortress. A number of translations interpretively translate the text to refer to warriors. “With blinding speed and power he destroys the strong, crushing all their defenses.” (NLT) “God destroys mighty soldiers and strong fortresses.” (CEV) (5:9)

The Septuagint rendering represents God as “apportioning ruin upon strength and bringing misery upon the fortress.” This indicates that he allows human strength to fail, letting misery come upon those who are unable to defend the fortress. (5:9)

Among the corrupt Israelites, there existed an attitude of contempt for justice. Any elder functioning as a judge in the open area adjacent to the city gate became the object of their hatred when he reproved wrongdoers. They abhorred anyone who spoke truth or whatever was sound. According to the Septuagint, they abhorred a “holy word” or undefiled speech. (5:10)

Wealthy Israelites oppressed the needy ones in their midst. Either because the poor had borrowed money from them or labored as tenant farmers, they were treated harshly. The action the oppressors took against the poor is expressed with the infinitive form of bashás. This Hebrew verb has been defined as “trample,” but this significance is not certain. Based on Akkadian, bashás has been understood to mean “impose taxes.” Regarding the oppressors, the Septuagint reads, “you were pummeling [form of katakondylízo] the poor.” The Greek verb katakondylízo denotes to strike with the fist, indicating that the poor were subjected to physical abuse. (5:11)

From the meager share the poor had from the grain harvest, the oppressors exacted tribute. The Septuagint refers to these oppressive Israelites as accepting or taking “choice gifts,” suggesting that from the little the needy had the wealthy insisted on being given the very best. (5:11)

The oppressors may have felt secure in their position, but YHWH’s judgment was certain to be executed against them because of their mistreatment of the needy. Although they had built houses of stone for themselves, they would not be able to continue dwelling in them. They had planted desirable vineyards, but they would not continue to drink the wine produced from the harvested grapes. (5:11)

YHWH “knew” or was fully aware of their many transgressions (“impious deeds” [LXX]) and the enormity of their sins. They had made themselves guilty of “being hostile toward the righteous one” or, according to the Septuagint, “trampling upon the righteous one.” The oppressors conducted themselves as outright enemies of upright persons and showed no regard for their rights. Those responsible for administering justice accepted a “ransom” or a bribe so as to render unjust verdicts. If the needy had just claims or serious grievances, they would be turned aside “in the gate.” At the gate, the open area adjacent to the city gates where the elders handled legal cases, the poor would be turned away without having been granted an impartial hearing. (5:12)

On account of the oppression and injustices, the prudent Israelite would choose silence to avoid becoming entangled in disputes with the oppressors. It was a time when evil prevailed, for the harsh oppressors used their power and influence to attain their corrupt objectives. With no possibility of being treated fairly, the prudent person would do whatever was necessary not to get involved in a legal case. (5:13; compare Luke 12:58.)

Despite the sins of the Israelites, the prophet’s appeal to them was to seek “good and not bad.” This would make it possible for them to “live” and not to perish for persisting in their lawless course. Even though their conduct dishonored YHWH, they imagined that he was with them as his people. YHWH, the God of hosts, however, would only be with the Israelites, as they had said or claimed he was, if they repented and began doing what was good or right. Whereas the Hebrew text refers to YHWH as the “God of hosts,” or the God with hosts of angels in his service, the Septuagint contains the designation the “Lord God, the Almighty.” (5:14)

The Masoretic Text expresses the admonition, “Hate evil and love good.” A partially preserved text of verse 15 in a Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIg) appears to represent the Israelites who were seeking to do what is right as saying, “We hated evil.” The Septuagint reads similarly, “We have hated the evil things and loved the good things.” To have YHWH’s approval, individuals must abhor what is bad or corrupt and have love for what is good, giving evidence of such love by living uprightly and responding compassionately to those in need. (5:15)

In the “gate,” or in the open area adjacent to the city gates where elders considered legal cases, justice needed to be established. For the elders who acted as judges, this required refusing to accept bribes and granting an impartial hearing to those who presented their case. (5:15)

If the people endeavored to do what is right and the elders rendered just decisions, the possibility existed that the threatened calamity would not overtake them. “YHWH, the God of hosts” (“the Lord God, the Almighty” [LXX]), as the prophet continued, “may show [‘us’ (4QXIIg)] favor” (“may have mercy” [LXX]). The ones who might be the recipients of the favor or mercy are identified as “the remnant of Joseph.” As the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, “Joseph” represents the entire remnant of the Israelites living in the territory of the kingdom of Israel, for it was there that the dominant tribe Ephraim and the tribe of Manasseh had their allotted inheritance. (5:15)

“Therefore,” if the Israelites did not repent, “YHWH, the God of hosts” (the “Lord God, the Almighty” [LXX]) declared that they would give way to lamentation. According to the Hebrew text, the prophet additionally referred to YHWH, the God with hosts of angels in his service, as “my Lord,” the one whom he devotedly served. The Septuagint, however, does not include “my Lord.” (5:16)

In all the squares or the open areas near the city gates, wailing would be heard. When expressing their distress while in the streets, people would be saying, “Woe! Woe!” Even the men laboring in the field were to be called to share in expressing grief. The lamentation would become more intense with the summoning of professional mourners for the purpose of adding their loud wailing. (5:16)

There would also be wailing in all the vineyards, with the laborers there joining in the lamentation. The Septuagint does not mention any wailing in the vineyards but refers to lamentation “in all the ways” or the roads. As to the reason for the wailing, YHWH is represented as declaring, “I will pass through the midst of you,” indicating that he would be coming to execute his punitive judgment. (5:17)

Amos had proclaimed the coming of YHWH’s day, and the response of the people appears to have been, Let it come. Imagining themselves to be God’s people, the Israelites did not believe they had anything to fear from the arrival of this day. They may even have thought that YHWH’s day would be a time when he would intervene for them, delivering them from their enemies. The prophet, however, pronounced woe upon those who “desired the day of YHWH,” and then raised the question, “What is this [day] to you?” According to the Septuagint, the question may be rendered, “What [is] this to you — the day of the Lord?” The day of YHWH would be a day of “darkness and not light.” It would bring darknes in the form of great distress. There would be no “light,” no glimmer of hope, or no possibility of a change for the better. (5:18)

Amos illustrated that the “day of YHWH” would not be a time marked by deliverance from calamity. He likened the developments of that day to the situation of a man who ran away from a lion only to encounter a bear, or to a man who entered “the house” (“his house” [LXX]) as a safe place, leaned against a wall, and then got bitten by a serpent that had been concealed in a crack. (5:19)

Reemphasizing that YHWH’s day would exclusively be a time of darkness in the form of calamity or distress, Amos continued, “Is not the day of YHWH darkness and not light, and gloom and no brightness in it?” Absolutely nothing would brighten the gloom that would set in upon the arrival of YHWH’s day of punitive judgment. (5:20)

Even though, in the kingdom of Israel, the supposed worship of YHWH was linked to golden calves, the people seemed to have believed that their faithful observance of festivals would save them from calamity. YHWH’s word through Amos revealed that this would not be the case. YHWH is represented as telling the Israelites, “I have hated, I have rejected your festivals, and I will not smell at your assemblies.” The reference to his not “smelling” at the assemblies may mean that he would not perceive with any pleasure the aroma of the burnt sacrifices offered up at their sacred conventions. (5:21; compare Genesis 8:20, 21.)

YHWH was displeased with the people on account of their idolatrous practices and wayward conduct. Therefore, if they offered him holocausts and presented gift offerings as an expression of thanksgiving, he would not accept them. He would not look with favor upon the communion sacrifices of fatlings. The Septuagint does not mention communion sacrifices, but represents God as saying, “I will not look upon the display of your deliverance.” The words “display of your deliverance” could refer to the presentation of an offering made in expression of thanks for having been saved from calamity. (5:22)

Songs and instrumental music must have been a prominent feature of the sacred festivals. None of this music pleased YHWH. He is represented as directing the Israelites to remove the sound of their songs from him and telling them that he would not listen to the resounding of their stringed instruments. (5:23)

To have YHWH’s approval and to escape the distress that was bound to befall them, the people of the kingdom of Israel needed to change their ways and to stop thinking that their festival observances and sacrifices would secure his favor. Especially among the leading members of the nation, judgment or justice should have been practiced to the fullest extent so that it could be likened to flowing abundantly like the water of a river. Righteousness, or upright living, should have come to be evident in the realm as if it were flowing like a perennial torrent. The Septuagint rendering expresses this as a future reality. “Judgment will roll down like water, and righteousness like an impassable torrent.” (5:24)

Regarding the past history of the Israelites, YHWH, through his prophet Amos, raised the question as to whether the “house” or the people of Israel had offered sacrifices and gifts” (gift or thanksgiving offerings) to him during their wandering in the wilderness for “forty years”? The implied answer to the rhetorical question was, No. In their inward disposition, the Israelites, after being liberated from Egyptian enslavement, continued to be idolaters. This became evident when they engaged in calf worship soon after they began wandering in the wilderness. (5:25; Exodus 19:1; 32:1-4)

In the centuries that followed, the Israelites in the kingdom of Israel continued to practice idolatry. According to the Hebrew text, they would “take up Sakkuth” their “king” and “Kaiwan,” their “images,” the “star of [their] god,” which they had made for themselves. In relation to the next verse, this may be understood to mean that, upon being taken into exile, the Israelites would carry the made-made images of their deities Sakkuth and Kaiwan with them. (5:26)

The Septuagint rendering represents the idolatry as a past development. “You took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Raiphan, the representations [literally, ‘types’] of them that you made for yourselves.” The Hebrew words for “Sakkuth, your king” are here rendered “tent of Moloch.” This difference can readily be explained. The Hebrew word for “tent” or “booth” is sukkáh, and the Septuagint translator appears to have understood this to be the significance of the Hebrew word in the text that served as the basis for his rendering. In Hebrew, the consonants of the name “Moloch” are those for the word “king,” but one cannot be certain to which deity this designation was applied. When the rendering is “tent of Moloch,” this may be understood to refer to a portable tent or shrine in which an image of “Moloch” had been placed. As a proper name, “Sakkuth” would designate a deity that was regarded as a king. (5:26)

The name “Kaiwan” appears to be the designation for the Akkadian kaimanu (or kaiwanu), the planet Saturn that was venerated as a deity. The Egyptian (Coptic) designation for the planet Saturn as a deity is Repa, also called Seb. Possibly the Greek designation Raiphan is a transliterated form of Repa (Saturn). The words “star of your god” may then be understood to apply to the planet Saturn, venerated as an astral god. (5:26)

On account of their unfaithfulness to him, YHWH decreed that he would take the Israelites into exile “beyond Damascus.” This is solemnly concluded with the words, “says YHWH, God of hosts [the ‘Lord God, the Almighty’ (LXX)] — [that is] his name.” He is the living God who had revealed himself to the Israelites by name and as having hosts of angels in his service. Accordingly, his word was certain to be carried out. In the fulfillment, the Israelite survivors of the Assyrian campaigns were taken into exile beyond the city of Damascus in Syria. Their deportation is attributed to YHWH, for he permitted it to take place in expression of his judgment against the wayward Israelites. (5:27)

Amos 6:1-14

The wealthy leading inhabitants of Zion or Jerusalem seemingly are described as being at ease, enjoying a comfortable life. Samaria, the capital of the kingdom of Israel, was located on an elevated site, and the residents appear to have felt secure on account of the location of their strongly fortified city. The pronouncement of woe revealed that the seemingly secure position of both capital cities would end. (6:1)

The rendering of the Septuagint portrays Zion as the object of contempt, suggesting that the Israelites in the northern kingdom of Israel may have prided themselves as citizens of the stronger kingdom and as, therefore, having a more notable capital. (6:1)

Based on the extant Hebrew text, the prominent ones or leaders of Zion and Samaria may then be identified as the “distinguished men” [naqáv] of the chief of the nations.” The form of the Hebrew word naqáv, here rendered “distinguished men,” is a plural passive participle in the masculine gender and basically means “having been pierced.” In this context, this participle appears to describe notable or distinguished men as if they had been distinctively “pierced” or “marked.” (6:1)

In the time of Amos, these notable men were corrupt, but they would have regarded themselves as members of the “chief of the nations” because of being YHWH’s chosen people. According to Deuteronomy 28:13 (NJB), however, that status depended on obedience to God’s commands. “Yahweh will put you at the head, not at the tail; you will always be on top and never underneath, if you listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God.” (6:1; regarding the Septuagint rendering, see the Notes section.)

The prominent men of Zion and Samaria would have functioned as judges and counselors. Therefore, they would have been the ones to whom the “house of Israel,” or the people of Israel, went to present their legal cases and to obtain sound advice. (6:1)

It appears that the prominent ones from Zion and Samaria are directed to pass over to Calneh, to go from there to “great” Hamath, and then to go down to the Philistine city of Gath. It is not known just where the city of Calneh was located, and what could have been “seen” at the site. Jeroboam II, who reigned in the kingdom of Israel during the time of Amos, brought Hamath under Israelite dominion. (2 Kings 14:28) The Judean king Uzziah (Azariah), likewise a contemporary of Amos, conquered Gath. (2 Chronicles 26:3, 6) This suggests that Calneh, like Hamath and Gath, had suffered defeat. The biblical record, however, makes no mention of any military campaign against the city, which also means that there is no information regarding a victor. If having been subjected to conquest is what Calneh, Hamath, and Gath shared in common, then those going to Calneh would “see” that the city had been successfully besieged just like Hamath and Gath. (6:2; for comments about the Septuagint rendering, see the Notes section.)

In view of what had happened to the kingdoms with which Calneh, Hamath, and Gath were associated, this raised the question as to whether Zion or Jerusalem and Samaria were better than these kingdoms or whether these kingdoms had greater territory than that under the control of Zion and Samaria. The implied answer appears to be that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were no better and did not exercise dominion over more territory. Therefore, just as the other kingdoms had been conquered, so also would be the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. (6:2)

Although the people of the kingdom of Judah may be included in the pronouncement of coming judgment, the message appears to be primarily for the people of the kingdom of Israel. They are addressed as persons “putting away the evil day,” never considering that, in expression of YHWH’s punitive judgment, they would face a day of reckoning and experience conquest and exile. Their bringing near a “seat of violence” could refer to their acting in a manner that would result in having enemy armies gaining control over them and exercising it in a violent, harsh, or ruthless way. Another possibility is to regard the “seat of violence” as being the cruel manner in which the leading members of Israel tyrannized over others, especially the poor. Both meanings are reflected in the interpretive renderings of translations. “You are hastening the reign of violence.” (NJB) “You are only bringing closer the Assyrian rule of terror.” (NIRV) “You bring near the day when you can do evil to others.” (NCV) “You are cruel.” (CEV) (6:3; for the Septuagint rendering, see the Notes section.)

Woe or calamity is pronounced upon the wealthy Israelite leaders. They are described as lying on beds of ivory, meaning that the supporting frames for the bedding was adorned with ivory inlays. At meals, they stretched out on divans, eating the meat of lambs and fattened calves. Generally, the Israelites partook of meat only on special occasions. Reflective of their luxurious lifestyle, the wealthy did so on a regular basis. Their extravagance is evident from their feasting on the meat of young animals (“lambs from the flock” [“kids from the flocks” (LXX)]) and “calves from the midst of a stall” where they had been fattened [“young calves from the midst of the herds, (yes), sucklings”]). (6:4)

It appears that singing or chanting and instrumental music accompanied the extravagant feasting. There is uncertainty, however, about the meaning of the participial form of the verb parát that is linked to the “mouth” (probably meaning the “sound” which is perceived as if coming from a mouth). The Septuagint appears to refer to the wealthy members of the house of Israel as “clapping to the sound of musical instruments.” Renderings of modern translations reflect the various conjectures of lexicographers. “They hum snatches of song to the tune of the lute.” (Tanakh) “You strum away on your harps.” (NIV) “You sing foolish songs to the music of harps.” (CEV) “They bawl to the sound of the lyre.” (NJB) (6:5)

The comparison to David has been interpreted to apply to inventing musical instruments or to composing songs. “Like David, they invent musical instruments.” (NJB) “Like David, you compose songs on musical instruments.” (NCV) As the words of Amos seem to relate to a customary practice, it is more likely that the reference is to improvisation on musical instruments and not to the invention of new instruments. (6:5)

The rendering of the Septuagint includes no reference to David and, in the concluding phrase of the verse, shares nothing in common with the extant Hebrew text. It reads, “as they accounted [them] as being established and not as fleeting.” Perhaps, because they regarded their luxurious lifestyle as something permanent, they believed that they would be able to continue indefinitely with their idle amusements. (6:5)

The Israelites who were accustomed to a lavish lifestyle appear not to have restrained themselves in their drinking of wine, using “bowls” instead of the usual smaller cups. According to the Septuagint, they drank “filtered wine.” Ostentatiously, they anointed themselves with the finest perfumed oils. As self-indulgent people, they were not “sickened” or distressed over the “shattering” or ruin of Joseph. In this case, Joseph denotes the people of the kingdom of Israel, with the descendants of Joseph’s son Ephraim being the dominant tribe in the realm and those of his son Manasseh forming another tribe. The shattering of Joseph may refer to the injustices, oppression, and moral corruption that came to prevail in the kingdom of Israel and to past calamities such as droughts, insect plagues, and military defeats. This ruin proved to be of no concern to the wealthy and did not trouble them. (6:6)

Therefore, in expression of YHWH’s judgment, these self-indulgent Israelites would go into exile, being the first or at the head of those being deported from the land. According to the Septuagint, they would be “captives from the authority of powerful ones.” Possibly this means that, as captives, they would be deprived of their prominent position of authority as powerful ones in the kingdom of Israel. (6:7)

The reference to the “revelry of those stretching themselves” probably refers to the riotous feasting of the self-indulgent Israelites who stretched out on comfortable couches while eating and drinking. In view of their approaching exile, this revelry would end. The Septuagint rendering appears to reflect a different underlying Hebrew text. “And the neighing of horses will be taken away from Ephraim.” With horses being a significant part of a military force, the removal of their neighing would signify that the military strength of Ephraim, representative of the kingdom of Israel as its dominant tribe, would be crushed. (6:7)

There would be no escape from punitive judgment for the wayward Israelites, for the Lord YHWH had “sworn by his soul” (“by himself” [LXX]) that this would be the case. “YHWH, the God of hosts” (the God with hosts of angels in his service) had solemnly declared his abhorrence for the “pride of Jacob” and his hatred for “his citadels” or strongholds (“lands” [LXX]). In this context, the name Jacob (the forefather of the Israelites) designates the people of the kingdom of Israel. Instead of relying on YHWH for their security and well-being, the Israelites put their trust in fortifications and their warriors. This was the pride of self-reliance that YHWH abhorred, and he hated the “citadels,” strongholds, or fortified places that were the objects of the people’s misplaced confidence. Therefore, YHWH is represented as stating, “I will deliver up [the] city and its fullness.” As indicated in the Septuagint rendering, the “fullness” refers to “all those inhabiting” the city. The definite article does not precede the word for “city,” suggesting that “city” is a collective singular designating all the Israelite cities. This would mean that YHWH would deliver up all these cities, allowing invading armies to conquer them. (6:8)

Among the Israelites, the loss of lives would be very great. If “ten men” remained in one house, all of them would die. The Septuagint rendering appears to represent the ten men as survivors of the military conflict. Nevertheless, they would still die. Possibly the portrayal is that of ten men who would take refuge in one house but then would die from starvation or pestilence. The Septuagint indicates that a remnant of Israelites would remain. (6:9)

A surviving relative (dohd) would assume responsibility for the dead bodies. The Hebrew noun dohd basically means “beloved one” and also is the designation for “uncle.” In this context, the reference is probably to a close relative who would be bringing the “bones” or the remains out of the house and would burn them. The Septuagint, however, makes no reference to “burning,” and another view is to interpret the “burning” to mean the burning of incense for the dead person. According to the Septuagint rendering, surviving family members would “take them and forcibly bring their bones out of the house.” (6:10)

When finding a survivor in the innermost part of the house, the relative would ask, “[Is there] still [someone else] with you?” After the survivor answers, “No,” either the relative or the survivor then says, “Hush! For [it is] not [the time] to mention the name of YHWH.” These concluding words may be indicative of a superstitious fear that mentioning the name of YHWH would cause YHWH’s attention to be directed to the one who had been overlooked for the intended punitive judgment and, therefore, could jeopardize his life. (6:10)

There is a measure of obscurity in the Hebrew text, and this accounts for various interpretive renderings about the interchange that takes place with someone in the house. “As you carry out a corpse to prepare it for burial, your relative in the house will ask, ‘Are there others?’ You will answer, ‘No!’ Then your relative will reply, ‘Be quiet! Don’t dare mention the name of the LORD.’” (CEV) “Relatives might come to burn the dead bodies. If they do, they’ll have to carry them out of the house first. They might ask someone still hiding there, ‘Is anyone here with you?’ If the answer is no, the relatives will say, ‘Be quiet! We must not pray in the Lord’s name.’” (NIRV) “And when a relative who is responsible to dispose of the dead goes into the house to carry out the bodies, he will ask the last survivor, ‘Is anyone else with you?’ When the person begins to swear, ‘No, by...,’ he will interrupt and say, ‘Stop! Don’t even mention the name of the Lord.’” (NLT) “When the relatives come to get the bodies to take them outside, one of them will call to the other and ask, ‘Are there any other dead bodies with you?’ That person will answer, ‘No.’ Then the one who asked will say, ‘Hush! We must not say the name of the LORD.’” (NCV) (6:10)

YHWH is represented as commanding the devastation of Israelite habitations. In the fulfillment, this occurred when he permitted invading military forces to conquer the cities in the kingdom of Israel. The reference to the “great house” and the “small house” may be understood collectively as applying to all the impressive homes of the wealthy and the much smaller modest houses of the other inhabitants. Upon being struck, the “great house” built of stone would be reduced to “fragments,” ruins, or rubble. The “small house” would be one constructed of mud brick, and this dwelling would be reduced to “bits.” According to the Septuagint rendering, the great house would be struck with “bruises” and the small house with “cracks.” (6:11)

The implied answer to the rhetorical question about whether horses would run (“pursue” [LXX]) on a cliff or “rocks” (LXX) is, “No.” They are not so surefooted as to be able to gallop over very rocky terrain. The implied answer to the second rhetorical question is that no one would “plow with cattle [on a cliff].” A different question appears in the Septuagint. “Will they [stallions] be silent among mares?” Yet the Israelites had done the very things that were contrary to nature or sound judgment. They had turned justice into “poison” or, according to the Septuagint, “wrath.” Those responsible for administering justice rendered corrupt decisions that were as injurious as poison to the innocent. As expressed the the Septuagint, the innocent ones ended up being the ones against whom wrath was directed. Wayward Israelites turned the “fruit of righteousness into wormwood” (“bitterness” [LXX]), a plant with a very bitter taste. Whereas righteousness or uprightness has a wholesome effect on society, a perversion of what is right brings bitterness into the lives of those affected. It is comparable to their being forced to partake of wormwood. (6:12; see the Notes section about the question regarding plowing.)

Although guilty of grave corruption, the Israelites, especially the leaders who should have been exemplary in upholding justice, boasted about their achievements. Translators have rendered the Hebrew text in two different ways, either as applying to conquered cities or to attainments that are represented as amounting to nothing. “You who rejoice in the conquest of Lo Debar and say, ‘Did we not take Karnaim by our own strength?’” (NIV) “Jubilant over a nothing, you boast, ‘Have we not won power by our own strength?’” (REB) The reason for the difference in translation is that Lo Debar may be rendered “not a thing” and Karnaim “horns” or “power” (because “horns” represent might). (6:13)

If the reference is to two cities, these may have been regained as Israelite territory during the military campaign of King Jeroboam II, a contemporary of the prophet Amos. (2 Kings 14:28) The Israelites would then have rejoiced over their success and boasted about having attained the victory in their own strength. Their arrogant self-reliance would have ignored the reality that YHWH had permitted them to be triumphant. (6:13)

The reading of the Septuagint supports a rendering that does not use place names. “[You], the ones rejoicing over not a thing, the ones saying, ‘Did we not have horns in our [own] strength?’” Whereas the Israelites boasted in their achievement, it amounted to nothing. The “horns” or “power” that they imagined to be the source of their own strength would prove to be futile. It would be of no avail when faced with the execution of YHWH’s judgment against them. (6:13)

Through his prophet, YHWH declared that he would raise up against the “house of Israel” or the people of Israel a “nation” that would oppress them “from the entrance of Hamath to the wadi of the Arabah.” This was certain to take place, for YHWH is identified as the “God of hosts” or the God with hosts of angels in his service for the accomplishment of his purpose. In comparison with what the Israelites thought they had attained in their own strength, the reversal they would experience would be much greater. An enemy nation would gain control over the entire region from the northern boundary (the “entrance of Hamath,” probably meaning the boundary between the kingdom of Israel and the southern part of Hamath territory) to the southernmost point of Israelite territory. The reference to the wadi of the Arabah may be understood to indicate that foreign domination would extend as far south as the Gulf of ‘Aqaba. This would mean that the kingdom of Judah would also be oppressed. Historically, Assyria subjected both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah to oppression and conquest. (6:14; see the Notes section concerning the Septuagint rendering.)

Notes

In verse 1, the Septuagint refers to the “first ones of the nations” but represents those trusting in the mountain of Samaria as having “harvested” them. This harvesting could apply to the despoiling of defeated nations upon completion of successful military campaigns. According to Rahlfs’ printed text, the phrase that concludes the sentence is, “and they themselves have come.” This phrase does not convey an understandable meaning, for it does not mention a place to which “they themselves” came. The designation “house of Israel” is then linked to the words that follow in verse 2.

In the Septuagint, the words of verse 2 are directed to the “house of Israel” or the people of Israel (verse 1). “All” of the house of Israel are told to cross over and see, but no mention is made of Calneh. From the location to which they crossed over, they were to pass on to “Hemath Rabba” and to go down to “Geth [Gath] of allophyles [those of another tribe].” The “allophyles” are designated as the “noblest” or greatest “from all these kingdoms,” with their borders enclosing more territory than that of the house of Israel.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 3 differs considerably from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. Those of the house of Israel are represented as “coming to the evil day,” and they are referred to as “approaching and laying hold of false Sabbaths.” These words could be understood to mean that the people were about to experience a day or time of judgment. Perhaps God is the one whom they imagined they were approaching with their observance of “false Sabbaths.” This may indicate that the way in which the people conducted themselves during the Sabbaths did not honor YHWH.

In verse 12, the second question of the Masoretic Text may be literally translated, “Does one plow with cattle?” The answer to this question would be, “Yes.” A negative response requires the addition of an object (“on a cliff”). Based on a conjectural emendation, a number of translations refer to the plowing as being done on the sea. “Can the sea be ploughed with oxen?” (NJB, REB) “Does one plow the sea with oxen?” (NRSV)

The Septuagint rendering of verse 14 represents the oppression of the “house of Israel” as preventing the people from entering “into Hemath [Hamath] and as far as the torrent of the west.”

Amos 7:1-17

Probably in a vision or a dream, the Lord YHWH revealed to Amos specific punitive judgments. The prophet saw the forming of a locust swarm (literally, a “locust” [a collective singular]) at the time the late-season crops began sprouting. This was after the “mowings of the king,” which may refer to the initial reaping of fodder for flocks and herds that was turned over to the monarch as his exclusive share. (Compare 1 Samuel 8:15.) Another possibility is that the reference is to the first reaping of the fields belonging to the king. With only the initial reaping having been completed, the locust swarm would consume the major part of the crop. This meant that a whole year would pass before another harvest might be expected. (7:1)

According to the Septuagint, Amos saw “offspring of locusts coming in the morning.” Such offspring would have been far more numerous than the previous locust swarm. This suggests that the locusts would start devouring vegetation early in the morning and would continue to do so for the rest of the day. The next phrase in the Septuagint refers to one “locust” (broúchos, probably meaning a locust in its wingless stage) as being “Gog the king.” This obscure rendering does not convey a comprehensible significance. (7:1)

Deeply troubled upon seeing the locust swarm completely consume the vegetation of the land, Amos pleaded, “O Lord YHWH, forgive, I pray. [‘Lord, Lord, be gracious.’ (LXX])] How [mi] can Jacob stand [qum], for he [is] small?” Jacob, the forefather of the Israelites, represents all the people of the kingdom of Israel. The people would not be able to “stand” or survive if the locusts devoured all the crops on which they depended for their sustenance. They were “small,” weak, or helpless when faced with a devastating locust plague. (7:2)

The Hebrew interrogative mi usually denotes “who,” and the basic meaning of the verb qum is “arise” or “stand up.” This accounts for the rendering of the Septuagint, “Who will raise up Jacob?” The implied answer would be that there would be no one able to raise up Jacob, undoing the harm that the people of Israel had incurred. (7:2)

YHWH “repented” about bringing this devastating locust plague upon the Israelites. According to the Septuagint, the prophet is the one petitioning him to “repent.” In this context, YHWH’s repenting refers to his choosing not to have this particular judgment expressed against the Israelites. He assured Amos that this plague would not occur. (7:3)

YHWH showed Amos that he was calling for a judicial case or a judgment by fire. The prophet then saw the fire devouring a “great deep” and consuming the land (“the portion” [LXX]). This “fire” may refer to extreme drought, with the dry conditions also giving rise to grass and forest fires. The expression “great deep” designates a large body of water, which the prophet saw being devoured or completely dried up. In this context, “land” refers to what grew on the land. With all vegetation, including the leaves on the trees, having been scorched, the land would have looked as though it had been consumed by fire. (7:4)

Amos petitioned the Lord YHWH to desist from bringing the calamity (“Lord, Lord, do refrain” [LXX]) and again repeated as his reason, “How can Jacob stand, for he [is] small?” (7:5; see verse 2 for comments regarding this wording.)

As in the case of the locust plague, YHWH “repented” concerning this “fire” and assured Amos, “This also will not be.” YHWH’s “repentance” does not denote regret but applies to his choosing to refrain from letting the threatened calamity come upon the Israelites in expression of his punitive judgment. In the Septuagint, Amos is the one appealing to YHWH to repent or to change his purpose respecting the judgment of fire. (7:6)

YHWH next showed Amos developments about a wall. According to the Masoretic Text, “the Lord stood on a wall … plumb line [’anák], and in his hand [was] a plumb line [’anák].” In the Septuagint (fourth-century Codex Vaticanus), there is no reference to the “Lord” as standing. It reads, “Look! A man was standing on an adamantine wall, and in his hand [was] adamant.” The Hebrew word ’anák is not found in any other book of the Bible, and there is uncertainty about its meaning. Based on cognate languages, the meaning is “lead.” In the context, this would refer to a lead weight attached to a cord or to a “plumb line.” The meaning “plumb line” agrees with the Vulgate rendering trulla cementarii in the second occurrence of ’anák. (7:7)

To indicate the relationship of the “plumb line” to the wall, words need to be supplied to convey an understandable meaning. Among the renderings translators have chosen are: “a wall built with the aid of a plumb-line” (REB), “a wall checked with a plumb line” (Tanakh), “a wall that had been built true to plumb” (NIV), and “a wall built with a plumb line” (NRSV). The Vulgate refers to the Lord’s standing “on a plastered wall” (super murum litum). Similarly, the Septuagint translator rendered ’anák as an adjective modifying “wall” and appears to have regarded the Hebrew word as designating a very hard material (“adamant”). (7:7)

Asked what he saw, Amos replied, ’anák (a “plumb line”; adamant [LXX]). According to the Masoretic Text, the “Lord said, Look! I am setting a plumb line [adamant (LXX)] in the midst of my people Israel. I will not again add [time] to pass them by.” These words directed to Amos suggest that the “wall” represented the people of Israel who did not measure up as upright when checked as by a “plumb line” that was set in their midst. Therefore, YHWH would not again “add” (yasáph) more time of toleration, passing them by for, or sparing them from, punitive judgment. (7:8; see the Notes section.)

The “high places of Isaac” would be made desolate. As the forefather of the Israelites, “Isaac” here denotes the people of the kingdom of Israel, and their high places are the sites where they engaged in idolatry. The name “Isaac” means “laughter,” and this is the reason for the Septuagint rendering “altars of laughter.” Whatever sacrifices may have been offered on the altars located at the various high places would not have brought any benefits to the Israelites. Therefore, it could be said that these altars were objects of “laughter” or derision. (7:9)

The sanctuaries where the Israelites carried out their idolatrous rites would be desolated. According to a literal rendering of the Septuagint, the reference is to the “rituals of Israel,” which may be understood to mean the places where the cultic rites were performed. (7:9)

Amos made known that YHWH would “rise up against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.” At that time, Jeroboam the son of Jehoash ruled over the kingdom of Israel. YHWH’s word through Amos revealed that the royal house would come to a violent end. Jeroboam’s son Zechariah, who succeeded him as king, died at the hands of Shallum, fulfilling the prophecy. (7:9; 2 Kings 15:8-12)

The prophesying of Amos greatly disturbed Amaziah, the priest at Bethel. This priest, probably the chief one at the center of idolatrous calf worship, informed Jeroboam the king of Israel that Amos had conspired against him in the “midst of the house of Israel” and that the “land” (the people of the land) cannot bear “all his words.” In this manner, Amaziah represented Amos as proclaiming a message that could not be tolerated and that Jeroboam should put a stop to it, as even he as king was the object of denouncement. The implication may have been that Amos was inciting a plot on the king’s life. With the proclamation of Amos being directed against the entire kingdom of Israel, Amaziah appears to have perceived it as ruinous to the morale of the people. (7:10)

He referred to Amos as saying that Jeroboam would die by the sword and that Israel would be taken away from the land into exile. As this was the manner in which Amaziah represented the message of Amos, one cannot be sure whether the prophet actually stated that Jeroboam would “die by the sword.” The “sword” did come against the house of Jeroboam, for his son and successor was assassinated, and the dynasty that began with King Jehu then ended. Decades later the Assyrians conquered the kingdom of Israel and exiled the surviving inhabitants. (7:11; 2 Kings 15:10-12; 17:22, 23)

Besides informing Jeroboam about the prophet, Amaziah confronted Amos. He said to him, “Seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah and eat bread [‘spend your life’ (LXX)] there, and there prophesy.” These words suggest that, for his own safety, Amos was to depart from Bethel as quickly as possible, returning to Judah to live and never coming back to the territory of the kingdom of Israel. (7:12)

Amaziah appears to have viewed Amos as an outsider who had no right to prophesy at Bethel, telling him that he should never again do so (literally, “not add [yasáph] again to prophesy”) there. The priest then gave his reason, identifying Bethel as a “sanctuary of a king” and a “house of a kingdom.” Jeroboam, the first king of the kingdom of Israel, established Bethel as a center for calf worship, and this may be the reason that it is designated as a “sanctuary of a king.” As the location of a major sanctuary to which the Israelites in the southern half of the kingdom went for worship, Bethel was also a “house” or temple of the kingdom of Israel. Thus Amaziah represented Bethel as a place where the prophesying of Amos had to end, for the prophet’s words constituted an attack against the kingdom of Israel because of the relationship the city had to the king and to his realm. (7:13; see the Notes section.)

The words of Amaziah did not intimidate Amos, but he answered with the words, “I [was] not a prophet and not the son of a prophet, but I [was] a herdsman and a nipper of sycamore figs.” Contrary to what Amaziah must have thought when he demanded that Amos leave and prophesy in the land of Judah, Amos had never served as a prophet there and had no direct link with other prophets. His father had not been a prophet nor had Amos ever been part of an association known as the “sons of the prophets.” In the land of Judah, he had worked as a herder of livestock (a “goatherd” [LXX]) and did seasonal labor as a “nipper [scratcher (LXX)] of sycamore figs.” (7:14)

Theophrastus, the ancient Greek philosopher and naturalist who succeeded Aristotle, wrote that sycamore figs cannot ripen until they are scraped. According to him, the Egyptians used iron claws for this purpose. In more recent times, it has become known that wounding or piercing the fruit releases ethylene, resulting in the ripening of the fruit. So it may be that, on a seasonal basis, Amos pierced the fruit of sycamore trees (Ficus sycomorus). (7:14)

Amos made it clear that he was no professional prophet, saying, “YHWH took me from following the flock, and YHWH said to me, Go, prophesy to my people Israel.” He had not headed to the kingdom of Israel on his own volition but had acted in harmony with the commission that YHWH had entrusted to him. (7:15)

On account of the demand Amaziah had directed to him, Amos had a message from YHWH for him. “Therefore, hear the word of YHWH, you the one saying, Do not prophesy against Israel and do not proclaim against the house of Isaac.” According to the Septuagint, the concluding phrase is, “and by no means should you incite a crowd against the house of Jacob.” In this context, the expression “house of Isaac” (or “house of Jacob” [LXX]) applies to the people of the kingdom of Israel regarding whose exile Amos had prophesied. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that the proclamation of Amos stirred up trouble among the people. (7:16; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Because Amaziah had told Amos to leave Bethel, YHWH’s word revealed that he would experience a severe judgment. In the city, the wife of Amaziah would become a harlot. As the context suggests, this would be because of being raped by foreign invaders. Amaziah’s sons and daughters would perish by the sword. His land would be parceled out with a measuring line, and he would die on “unclean” ground (in a foreign land and not in Israel, the “clean” or holy land). As far as the Israelites were concerned, they would be taken into exile. Just how the prophetic word was fulfilled upon Amaziah and his family is not revealed in the biblical record, but the survivors of the Assyrian campaigns against the kingdom of Israel were deported. (7:17; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In one Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIc), the form of the verb for “set” (verse 8) may be rendered “have set.” Another Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIg) reads like the Masoretic Text.

A literal rendering for the concluding phrase of verse 8 is, “I will not add [yasáph] again to pass them by.” Both in this verse and in verse 13, the Hebrew text contains a form of the verb yasáph, and the corresponding rendering in the Septuagint is a form of prostíthemi, which verb also can mean “add.”

For verse 16, the expression “by no means” is a rendering of two Greek words for “not,” which serve to convey an emphatic sense.

In verse 17, the preserved portion of the opening words of a Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIg) are, “Lord YHWH.” The Masoretic Text, however, does not include the word for “Lord.”

Amos 7:1-17

Probably in a vision or a dream, the Lord YHWH revealed to Amos specific punitive judgments. The prophet saw the forming of a locust swarm (literally, a “locust” [a collective singular]) at the time the late-season crops began sprouting. This was after the “mowings of the king,” which may refer to the initial reaping of fodder for flocks and herds that was turned over to the monarch as his exclusive share. (Compare 1 Samuel 8:15.) Another possibility is that the reference is to the first reaping of the fields belonging to the king. With only the initial reaping having been completed, the locust swarm would consume the major part of the crop. This meant that a whole year would pass before another harvest might be expected. (7:1)

According to the Septuagint, Amos saw “offspring of locusts coming in the morning.” Such offspring would have been far more numerous than the previous locust swarm. This suggests that the locusts would start devouring vegetation early in the morning and would continue to do so for the rest of the day. The next phrase in the Septuagint refers to one “locust” (broúchos, probably meaning a locust in its wingless stage) as being “Gog the king.” This obscure rendering does not convey a comprehensible significance. (7:1)

Deeply troubled upon seeing the locust swarm completely consume the vegetation of the land, Amos pleaded, “O Lord YHWH, forgive, I pray. [‘Lord, Lord, be gracious.’ (LXX])] How [mi] can Jacob stand [qum], for he [is] small?” Jacob, the forefather of the Israelites, represents all the people of the kingdom of Israel. The people would not be able to “stand” or survive if the locusts devoured all the crops on which they depended for their sustenance. They were “small,” weak, or helpless when faced with a devastating locust plague. (7:2)

The Hebrew interrogative mi usually denotes “who,” and the basic meaning of the verb qum is “arise” or “stand up.” This accounts for the rendering of the Septuagint, “Who will raise up Jacob?” The implied answer would be that there would be no one able to raise up Jacob, undoing the harm that the people of Israel had incurred. (7:2)

YHWH “repented” about bringing this devastating locust plague upon the Israelites. According to the Septuagint, the prophet is the one petitioning him to “repent.” In this context, YHWH’s repenting refers to his choosing not to have this particular judgment expressed against the Israelites. He assured Amos that this plague would not occur. (7:3)

YHWH showed Amos that he was calling for a judicial case or a judgment by fire. The prophet then saw the fire devouring a “great deep” and consuming the land (“the portion” [LXX]). This “fire” may refer to extreme drought, with the dry conditions also giving rise to grass and forest fires. The expression “great deep” designates a large body of water, which the prophet saw being devoured or completely dried up. In this context, “land” refers to what grew on the land. With all vegetation, including the leaves on the trees, having been scorched, the land would have looked as though it had been consumed by fire. (7:4)

Amos petitioned the Lord YHWH to desist from bringing the calamity (“Lord, Lord, do refrain” [LXX]) and again repeated as his reason, “How can Jacob stand, for he [is] small?” (7:5; see verse 2 for comments regarding this wording.)

As in the case of the locust plague, YHWH “repented” concerning this “fire” and assured Amos, “This also will not be.” YHWH’s “repentance” does not denote regret but applies to his choosing to refrain from letting the threatened calamity come upon the Israelites in expression of his punitive judgment. In the Septuagint, Amos is the one appealing to YHWH to repent or to change his purpose respecting the judgment of fire. (7:6)

YHWH next showed Amos developments about a wall. According to the Masoretic Text, “the Lord stood on a wall … plumb line [’anák], and in his hand [was] a plumb line [’anák].” In the Septuagint (fourth-century Codex Vaticanus), there is no reference to the “Lord” as standing. It reads, “Look! A man was standing on an adamantine wall, and in his hand [was] adamant.” The Hebrew word ’anák is not found in any other book of the Bible, and there is uncertainty about its meaning. Based on cognate languages, the meaning is “lead.” In the context, this would refer to a lead weight attached to a cord or to a “plumb line.” The meaning “plumb line” agrees with the Vulgate rendering trulla cementarii in the second occurrence of ’anák. (7:7)

To indicate the relationship of the “plumb line” to the wall, words need to be supplied to convey an understandable meaning. Among the renderings translators have chosen are: “a wall built with the aid of a plumb-line” (REB), “a wall checked with a plumb line” (Tanakh), “a wall that had been built true to plumb” (NIV), and “a wall built with a plumb line” (NRSV). The Vulgate refers to the Lord’s standing “on a plastered wall” (super murum litum). Similarly, the Septuagint translator rendered ’anák as an adjective modifying “wall” and appears to have regarded the Hebrew word as designating a very hard material (“adamant”). (7:7)

Asked what he saw, Amos replied, ’anák (a “plumb line”; adamant [LXX]). According to the Masoretic Text, the “Lord said, Look! I am setting a plumb line [adamant (LXX)] in the midst of my people Israel. I will not again add [time] to pass them by.” These words directed to Amos suggest that the “wall” represented the people of Israel who did not measure up as upright when checked as by a “plumb line” that was set in their midst. Therefore, YHWH would not again “add” (yasáph) more time of toleration, passing them by for, or sparing them from, punitive judgment. (7:8; see the Notes section.)

The “high places of Isaac” would be made desolate. As the forefather of the Israelites, “Isaac” here denotes the people of the kingdom of Israel, and their high places are the sites where they engaged in idolatry. The name “Isaac” means “laughter,” and this is the reason for the Septuagint rendering “altars of laughter.” Whatever sacrifices may have been offered on the altars located at the various high places would not have brought any benefits to the Israelites. Therefore, it could be said that these altars were objects of “laughter” or derision. (7:9)

The sanctuaries where the Israelites carried out their idolatrous rites would be desolated. According to a literal rendering of the Septuagint, the reference is to the “rituals of Israel,” which may be understood to mean the places where the cultic rites were performed. (7:9)

Amos made known that YHWH would “rise up against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.” At that time, Jeroboam the son of Jehoash ruled over the kingdom of Israel. YHWH’s word through Amos revealed that the royal house would come to a violent end. Jeroboam’s son Zechariah, who succeeded him as king, died at the hands of Shallum, fulfilling the prophecy. (7:9; 2 Kings 15:8-12)

The prophesying of Amos greatly disturbed Amaziah, the priest at Bethel. This priest, probably the chief one at the center of idolatrous calf worship, informed Jeroboam the king of Israel that Amos had conspired against him in the “midst of the house of Israel” and that the “land” (the people of the land) cannot bear “all his words.” In this manner, Amaziah represented Amos as proclaiming a message that could not be tolerated and that Jeroboam should put a stop to it, as even he as king was the object of denouncement. The implication may have been that Amos was inciting a plot on the king’s life. With the proclamation of Amos being directed against the entire kingdom of Israel, Amaziah appears to have perceived it as ruinous to the morale of the people. (7:10)

He referred to Amos as saying that Jeroboam would die by the sword and that Israel would be taken away from the land into exile. As this was the manner in which Amaziah represented the message of Amos, one cannot be sure whether the prophet actually stated that Jeroboam would “die by the sword.” The “sword” did come against the house of Jeroboam, for his son and successor was assassinated, and the dynasty that began with King Jehu then ended. Decades later the Assyrians conquered the kingdom of Israel and exiled the surviving inhabitants. (7:11; 2 Kings 15:10-12; 17:22, 23)

Besides informing Jeroboam about the prophet, Amaziah confronted Amos. He said to him, “Seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah and eat bread [‘spend your life’ (LXX)] there, and there prophesy.” These words suggest that, for his own safety, Amos was to depart from Bethel as quickly as possible, returning to Judah to live and never coming back to the territory of the kingdom of Israel. (7:12)

Amaziah appears to have viewed Amos as an outsider who had no right to prophesy at Bethel, telling him that he should never again do so (literally, “not add [yasáph] again to prophesy”) there. The priest then gave his reason, identifying Bethel as a “sanctuary of a king” and a “house of a kingdom.” Jeroboam, the first king of the kingdom of Israel, established Bethel as a center for calf worship, and this may be the reason that it is designated as a “sanctuary of a king.” As the location of a major sanctuary to which the Israelites in the southern half of the kingdom went for worship, Bethel was also a “house” or temple of the kingdom of Israel. Thus Amaziah represented Bethel as a place where the prophesying of Amos had to end, for the prophet’s words constituted an attack against the kingdom of Israel because of the relationship the city had to the king and to his realm. (7:13; see the Notes section.)

The words of Amaziah did not intimidate Amos, but he answered with the words, “I [was] not a prophet and not the son of a prophet, but I [was] a herdsman and a nipper of sycamore figs.” Contrary to what Amaziah must have thought when he demanded that Amos leave and prophesy in the land of Judah, Amos had never served as a prophet there and had no direct link with other prophets. His father had not been a prophet nor had Amos ever been part of an association known as the “sons of the prophets.” In the land of Judah, he had worked as a herder of livestock (a “goatherd” [LXX]) and did seasonal labor as a “nipper [scratcher (LXX)] of sycamore figs.” (7:14)

Theophrastus, the ancient Greek philosopher and naturalist who succeeded Aristotle, wrote that sycamore figs cannot ripen until they are scraped. According to him, the Egyptians used iron claws for this purpose. In more recent times, it has become known that wounding or piercing the fruit releases ethylene, resulting in the ripening of the fruit. So it may be that, on a seasonal basis, Amos pierced the fruit of sycamore trees (Ficus sycomorus). (7:14)

Amos made it clear that he was no professional prophet, saying, “YHWH took me from following the flock, and YHWH said to me, Go, prophesy to my people Israel.” He had not headed to the kingdom of Israel on his own volition but had acted in harmony with the commission that YHWH had entrusted to him. (7:15)

On account of the demand Amaziah had directed to him, Amos had a message from YHWH for him. “Therefore, hear the word of YHWH, you the one saying, Do not prophesy against Israel and do not proclaim against the house of Isaac.” According to the Septuagint, the concluding phrase is, “and by no means should you incite a crowd against the house of Jacob.” In this context, the expression “house of Isaac” (or “house of Jacob” [LXX]) applies to the people of the kingdom of Israel regarding whose exile Amos had prophesied. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that the proclamation of Amos stirred up trouble among the people. (7:16; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Because Amaziah had told Amos to leave Bethel, YHWH’s word revealed that he would experience a severe judgment. In the city, the wife of Amaziah would become a harlot. As the context suggests, this would be because of being raped by foreign invaders. Amaziah’s sons and daughters would perish by the sword. His land would be parceled out with a measuring line, and he would die on “unclean” ground (in a foreign land and not in Israel, the “clean” or holy land). As far as the Israelites were concerned, they would be taken into exile. Just how the prophetic word was fulfilled upon Amaziah and his family is not revealed in the biblical record, but the survivors of the Assyrian campaigns against the kingdom of Israel were deported. (7:17; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In one Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIc), the form of the verb for “set” (verse 8) may be rendered “have set.” Another Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIg) reads like the Masoretic Text.

A literal rendering for the concluding phrase of verse 8 is, “I will not add [yasáph] again to pass them by.” Both in this verse and in verse 13, the Hebrew text contains a form of the verb yasáph, and the corresponding rendering in the Septuagint is a form of prostíthemi, which verb also can mean “add.”

For verse 16, the expression “by no means” is a rendering of two Greek words for “not,” which serve to convey an emphatic sense.

In verse 17, the preserved portion of the opening words of a Dead Sea Scroll (4QXIIg) are, “Lord YHWH.” The Masoretic Text, however, does not include the word for “Lord.”

Amos 8:1-14

Amos reported that YHWH showed him a “basket of summer fruit [qáyits].” The Hebrew word qáyits means “summer,” but in this context denotes the produce of summer. “Summer fruit” could include grapes, figs, pomegranates, and dates. According to the rendering of the Septuagint, the basket or container was that of a “fowler” (ixeutés, which word is also found Amos 3:5). (8:1)

When YHWH asked him what he saw, Amos replied, “A basket of summer fruit” (a “basket of a fowler” [LXX]). After this interchange, YHWH revealed its significance to the prophet, “The end [qets] has come upon my people Israel. I will not again add [time] to pass them by.” The link to the basket of qáyits (“summer fruit”) is conveyed through a wordplay with qets (“end”). Just as the harvest marked the end of the agricultural cycle and a ripe basket of summer fruit would not last long, so the people of the kingdom of Israel would not long remain on their land. YHWH would cease to tolerate their wayward conduct. He would not be extending time to pass them by or to spare them from punitive judgment. (8:2)

The Septuagint rendering does not include a wordplay. The word for “fowler” (ixeutés) bears little resemblance to the word péras, meaning “end,” “limit,” or “boundary.” Nevertheless, a bird that came to be in a fowler’s container had met its end. Accordingly, the Septuagint rendering may be regarded as preserving a similar thought. (8:2)

The declaration of the Lord YHWH regarding the “songs” at the temple was that these would be replaced with sounds of howling. In view of the earlier reference to Bethel, the word that may be rendered “temple” probably designates the sanctuary that functioned as the center for calf worship. In that “day” or at that time, the people would howl or wail because of the calamity that had befallen them. Many of the Israelites would be slaughtered by the invading military force, and the corpses would be cast either everywhere or outside the city. According to the rendering of the Septuagint, the slain would be in every place. The concluding word “hush” may indicate that, because of the many who would perish, a hush or silence would come over the site that had once been filled with activity. In the Septuagint, God is identified as the one who “will cast silence,” bringing an end to the hustle and bustle of the location. (8:3)

Those who are called upon to “hear” are corrupt wealthy Israelites. The Hebrew word sha’aph describes their ruthless treatment of someone poor. If linked to shuph, sha’aph may be understood to mean “trample” or “crush.” The corresponding word in the Septuagint is a participial form of ektríbo, meaning “wipe out” or “destroy.” Both the Hebrew and the Greek words indicate that the oppressive measures of the wealthy brought ruin to the poor. The oppressors caused the needy of the land to “cease.” Deprived of every vestige of dignity, the oppressed were treated as if they were nothing. In their helpless state, they appeared as persons who did not exist. (8:4)

The corrupt Israelites are portrayed as waiting impatiently for the new moon festival to end so that they could resume selling grain. Their impatience is expressed as a question, “When will the new moon [festival] be over …?” The same question includes the Sabbath, as these Israelites wanted to get back to their commercial business as soon as possible. According to the Septuagint rendering, they would then be “opening storehouses.” Their observance of the new moon festival and the Sabbath proved to be merely an outward show. (8:5)

When transacting business, Israelite oppressors engaged in dishonest practices. They made the “ephah [a dry measure equal to about 20 dry quarts or 22 liters] small,” apparently using smaller than standard containers to measure amounts of grain for the buyers. For the fraudulently reduced amount, they collected payment in excess of the price charged for a standard ephah measure of grain. A shekel was the basic unit of weight, requiring that the purchase price in silver be determined by weight. The defrauders made the “shekel great,” using a weight that was heavier than a standard shekel when establishing the purchase price. They dealt deceitfully with their scales, using other than standard weights when buying or selling. (Compare Proverbs 20:23.) Their scales may also have been rigged in other ways to cheat everyone with whom they did business. (8:5)

As victims of oppression and fraud, needy Israelites were reduced to a state of extreme poverty and either had to sell themselves into slavery or were forced to do so on account of debts they could not repay. Corrupt wealthy Israelites would callously buy poor fellow Israelites for silver and “someone poor for sandals.” Buying a needy person “for sandals” could mean that the wealthy considered the individual as having no greater value than the purchase price for a pair of sandals. Another possible meaning is that the wealthy would buy a poor man for the small debt he owed, a debt comparable to what a pair of sandals would cost. Besides using deceptive weights and measures to defraud those who bought grain from them, corrupt Israelites sold grain of the poorest quality — “refuse.” According to the Septuagint rendering, they would trade in “every [kind] of produce.” (8:6)

YHWH is represented as swearing by the “pride of Jacob,” declaring, “I will never forget all their deeds.” The expression “pride of Jacob” could refer to the God in whom Jacob, the forefather of the Israelites, took pride. (Compare Genesis 31:53, where the apparent meaning of Jacob’s swearing by the “Fear of his father Isaac” is swearing by the God whom Isaac feared as his devoted servant.) If the words “pride of Jacob” are thus to be understood, YHWH is identified as the one who swears by his own person, as he could not swear by anyone greater. (Compare Hebrews 6:16-18.) The wording of the Septuagint, however, could be translated to mean swearing “against the arrogance of Jacob.” This could indicate that the oath-bound words that follow are directed against the Israelites because of their haughtily refusing to trust in YHWH. Another possible meaning for the expression “pride of Jacob” is that the arrogance of the Israelites was so firmly entrenched that it could furnish a basis for YHWH’s oath-bound words that he would not forget their deeds. (8:7)

The fact that YHWH would never forget all the deeds of the Israelites indicated that he would punish them for their wayward course. They had repeatedly acted contrary to his commands, building up a record of evil deeds. (8:7)

In view of YHWH’s not forgetting the deeds of the Israelites, they would experience severe punitive judgment. This is expressed by means of a question, “Will not the land tremble and all those dwelling in it mourn?” With invading armies trampling through the land and devastating it, the land could be represented as trembling. On account of humiliating defeat and much loss of life, all the survivors would lament. The trembling of the land appears to be poetically depicted as being comparable to the rising of the water of the Nile at flood stage. It then becomes very turbulent (“tossed about”). As the flooding subsides, the Nile of Egypt “sinks again” to the usual water level. (8:8)

“In that day” of judgment, the Lord YHWH would make the “sun set at noon” and “darken the earth” or land on a clear day (literally, “day of light”). These words revealed that the time of judgment would be a period of great gloom, with all hope for relief being eclipsed. It would be comparable to night coming in the middle of the day, with darkness enshrouding the whole land. According to the reading of the Sepuagint, “the light will darken upon the earth [land] in the day[time].” (8:9)

YHWH would turn the joyous festivals of the Israelites into a time of mourning and all their songs into lamentation. Because of what he would allow the people to experience from enemy military forces, he is represented as causing them to attire themselves as mourners. They would wear sackcloth, a rough cloth commonly made from goat’s hair on the bare skin of their loins, and shave their hair, making themselves bald in expression of their grief and pain. The intensity of the sorrow that YHWH would cause them to experience is likened to the mourning associated with the death of an only son. In the Septuagint, the reference is to the mourning for a “beloved one.” It concludes with the thought that God would make those “with him like a day of pain.” This could be understood to mean that the ones closest to the beloved one would sorrow as in a day or time of pain or great grief. (8:10; see the Notes section regarding “beloved one.”)

In the Masoretic Text, the final thought is that YHWH would make the “end of her like a bitter day.” This may mean that for the grieving “mother” (possibly representing the people of Israel) the culmination would prove to be like a day of great pain or grief, with no hope in sight. (8:10)

Amos made known that YHWH had declared that days would come when he would send a famine into the land. This famine would not be one for lack of “bread” or food and it would not result in a thirst for water. It would be a famine for hearing the “words of YHWH.” The Israelites were fully aware of the ruin to harvests and the precarious water shortages that resulted from droughts and military sieges. (Compare 1 Kings 17:1, 6, 7; 18:1-5; 2 Kings 6:24, 25.) In the distressing days or time to come, they would experience a famine for hearing the “words [word (LXX)] of YHWH.” They would long for some message of hope or a revelation about what they needed to do to escape calamity. Repeatedly they had disregarded YHWH’s words through his prophets. During the time of distress, they would keenly feel the effect of not receiving any message that could have helped or comforted them. The situation would prove to be comparable to what happened to King Saul when facing a formidable Philistine military force and receiving no divine message to guide him. (1 Samuel 28:5, 6) (8:11)

The yearning of the people for the word of YHWH is portrayed like a desperate search for food in a time of famine. They are depicted as “shaking” (nu‘), staggering or wandering from “sea to sea” (from the Mediterranean Sea on the west coast to the Dead Sea in the east), and from the northern boundary of the land to the southern boundary. Although searching everywhere, anxiously running to and fro, they would not find the word of YHWH. In the Septuagint, the people are referred to as running from north to east, and two words for “not,” which may be rendered “by no means,” emphatically express that they would not find the “word of the Lord.” (8:12; see the Notes section for additional comments about the Septuagint rendering.)

During the time of calamity, beautiful virgins and young men, though in possession of greater stamina than the aged, would become faint from thirst. They would be weak and helpless. With even young persons having lost all hope, the plight of the rest of the people would indeed be dire. (8:13)

The next prophetic words reveal the outcome of YHWH’s judgment against those who continue engaging in idolatrous practices. According to the Hebrew text, the noun ’ashmáh is associated with their swearing and is linked to the city of Samaria. This noun means “guiltiness,” and the corresponding designation in the Septuagint denotes “atonement” or “propitiation” (hilasmós’ashám). (8:14)

At the site of idolatrous calf worship in the city of Dan, the Israelites, when swearing, said, “Your god [is] alive (or “your gods [are] alive”) and, according to the Septuagint rendering, “Your god lives.” In this manner, they appear to have taken oaths by the life of the god or gods. They used the same words in relation to the “way of Beer-sheba.” The Septuagint, however, does not include a word for “way” but reads, “Your god lives, O Beersabee.” As the idolaters of the kingdom of Israel are being addressed, it appears unusual that Beer-sheba in the southern part of the kingdom of Judah would be mentioned. Beer-sheba appears to have been a major cultic site, and so the people may have sworn by the sacred way that led to the city. Another possibility is to understand the mention of Dan and Beer-sheba to embrace the entire territory of Israel and thus swearing by the “way of Beer-sheba” could refer to swearing by the life of the deities revered at any of the many sites devoted to idolatrous worship located throughout the land. (8:14)

Israelite idolaters everywhere would experience a fall or crash from which they would not be able to rise again. Their punitive judgment would be final, with no hope of recovery. In the Septuagint, the thought about their not rising is expressed emphatically with two words for “not” and may be rendered, “will by no means rise again.” (8:14)

Notes

In verse 10 of the Septuagint, the phrase that includes the expression for “beloved one” is obscure. This phrase may be translated, “and I will set him like the mourning for a beloved one.” It is unclear to whom or to what the pronoun “him” has reference. The Greek word thrénos (“lamentation”) found in this verse is masculine gender. Therefore, the meaning of the phrase possibly is that God would cause the lamentation of the people to be like the mourning for a beloved one.

In the Septuagint, the opening words of verse 12 are, “And the waters will be agitated [form of saleúo] as far as the sea.” This rendering does not depart as significantly from the Hebrew text as might appear. The Hebrew verb nú‘a, like the Greek verb saleúo, can mean “shake” or “tremble.” In Hebrew, the consonants for the expression “from sea” are identical to those for “water.”

Amos 9:1-15

Amos saw the “Lord” standing in relation to the altar. Likely the designation “Lord” here applies to the “angel of YHWH.” (Compare Exodus 3:2, 4; Judges 6:12-16.) The Hebrew preposition ‘al, like the corresponding Greek preposition epí, often means “on.” In this context, however, it appears that the “Lord” was in a position above, by, or at the altar. The definite article precedes the word for “altar,” suggesting that a specific altar is meant. In view of the earlier mention of the prophesying of Amos at Bethel (7:13), the reference probably is to the altar there. As the divine judgment would affect all the people of the kingdom of Israel, the altar at Bethel may also be representative of the sites for idolatrous worship that existed in the entire realm. (9:1)

The one whom the Lord told to “strike the capital” (“strike the atonement place” [LXX]) is not identified. It could prophetically apply to the specific agency that would be used to accomplish this act. Striking the “capital” probably applies to striking the top of the major supporting columns, which would result in a violent shaking of the “thresholds” or, according to the rendering of the Septuagint, the “gateways” or “entrances” of the sanctuary. (9:1)

The command to “cut them off” or “break them off” on the “heads of all of them” could mean to cause the capitals and the pillars to break in pieces and to fall on the heads of the people at the sanctuary. A number of translations make this basic significance explicit in their interpretive renderings. “Strike the tops of the Temple columns so hard that the foundation will shake. Smash the columns so the roof will crash down on the people below.”(NLT) “Strike the tops of the Temple columns so hard that the foundation will shake. Break them off and let them fall on the heads of the people.” (GNT, Second Edition) “Smash the top of the pillars so that even the bottom of the doors will shake. Make the pillars fall on the people’s heads.” (NCV) “Strike the tops of the temple pillars. Then the heavy stones at the base of the entrance will shake. Bring everything down on the heads of everyone there.” (NIRV) “Then make the pieces fall on the people below.” (CEV) The Septuagint reads, “Cut through into the heads of all,” which could mean that the falling pieces were to crash down on the heads of the people, smashing their skulls. (9:1)

The divinely decreed judgment on any who might escape was that they would be slain with the sword, perishing during an enemy invasion. No one would succeed in fleeing to safety; no one would survive. (9:1)

If anyone were to dig down into the lowest part of the earth, into “Sheol” (“Hades” [LXX]) or the realm of the dead, YHWH is represented as taking them with his hand, not permitting them to escape. He would bring them down if they went up to the “heavens.” Their going up to the heavens refers to ascending high mountains. When low-lying clouds cover their tops, the mountains appear as though they are reaching into the sky. Accordingly, those who climb to the highest elevations could be referred to as going up to the “heavens.” (9:2)

Israelites might escape to the mountain range of Carmel and try to hide in one of the caves at the top of the range, but there would be no concealment from YHWH. He would search for them and, upon finding them, take them out from there. If it were possible for them to hide from his sight at the bottom of the sea, they would not succeed. He would command the “serpent” (“dragon” [LXX]), and it would bite them. (9:3; for pictures of and comments about Carmel, see Carmel.)

In the case of the surviving Israelites whom their enemies would take into exile, YHWH would command the sword to be wielded against them, and they would be killed. The people had seriously transgressed against him and, therefore, his eyes would be directed against them, resulting in “bad” or harm for them and not in “good.” His attention would not lead to their enjoying a state of peace and well-being. (9:4)

The Lord YHWH, the God of hosts (“Lord, Lord God, the Almighty” [LXX]) or the God with hosts of angels in his service, is represented as “touching the earth” or the land of the Israelites, doing so in expression of his punitive judgment against his wayward people. This would result in “melting” the land, probably alluding to the cumulative effect of severe storms. The heavy downpours can saturate the soil, resulting in mudslides. These mudslides make it appear as if hillsides and mountain slopes are melting. Apparently in view of the devastation, the inhabitants of the land would mourn. The unstable situation coming to exist in the land through enemy conquest is likened to the rising of the “Nile, all of it,” when flooding, and then sinking again as the “Nile of Egypt” (Nile of Mizraim) returns to its usual water level. The sinking could also include the drop in the water level during times of drought. (9:5)

Amos appears to represent YHWH as building his sanctuary in the heavens. After the Hebrew word for “heavens,” the expression that follows is the plural of ma‘aláh, meaning “ascent,” “step,” or “stair,” and the corresponding noun in the Septuagint is anabasis (“ascent”). The mention of “stairs” or an “ascent” seems to suggest that the edifice is being portrayed as a stepped structure consisting of progressively smaller platforms that terminate in the highest heaven, God’s lofty dwelling place. (9:6)

There is a measure of uncertainty about the significance of the Hebrew word ‘aguddáh that is found in the next phrase. In other contexts, ‘aguddáh denotes “bunch” (Exodus 12:22), “bond” (Isaiah 58:6), “band,” “troop,” or “company” (2 Samuel 2:25). None of these basic meanings fit the context of the phrase in the book of Amos. Numerous translators have here rendered ‘aguddáh as “vault.” God “arches the vault of the sky over the earth” (REB), “founds his vault upon the earth” (NRSV), “builds his mansions in the heavens, supporting his vault on the earth.” (NJB) In their interpretive renderings, other translations have linked the phrase more directly to the entire edifice that God builds. “He built his palace in the heavens and let its foundations rest on the earth.” (CEV) “The upper stories of the LORD’s home are in the heavens, while its foundation is on the earth.” (NLT) “The LORD builds his upper rooms above the skies; he sets their foundations on the earth.” (NCV) “The Lord builds his palace high in the heavens. He lays its foundation on the earth.” (NIRV) In the Septuagint, the reference is to God’s “founding his promise on the earth.” This could be understood to indicate that he firmly establishes his promise on the earth by making it known and then fulfilling it. (9:6)

God is next referred to as the one who summons the “waters of the sea” and then pours them out in the form of rain “upon the face [or surface] of the earth.” He is identified by his unique name YHWH, revealing that he is the God who has made his name known. The Septuagint reads, “the Lord God, the Almighty.” (9:6)

Because the Israelites proved to be unfaithful to him, YHWH came to view them as being no different than the “sons of the Cushites” or the “Ethiopians” (LXX), a people from an entirely different line of descent (through Noah’s son Ham, not through his son Shem as were the Israelites). The fact that the Israelites had at one time been in Egypt before becoming permanent residents in the land of Canaan did not in itself make them his people. Philistines (“allophyles” [LXX], those of another tribe) resided along the Mediterranean coast in the same land and had come from “Caphtor,” which is commonly understood to have been Crete. Archaeological discoveries of attractively painted Mycenaean-style pottery appears to confirm this. The Septuagint reads “Cappadocia,” which is the name of a region in the eastern part of Asia Minor. Aramaeans or “Syrians” (LXX) who lived in Damascus and the surrounding region had come from Kir (a place that has not been identified with any known location). Because YHWH permitted the Philistines and the Aramaeans to transfer their residence to other locations, he is represented as having brought them there, just as he led the Israelites out of Egypt to Canaan. (9:7; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

The Lord YHWH was fully aware of the waywardness of the Israelites. As expressed through Amos, his eyes were upon the “sinful kingdom” (“kingdom of sinners” [LXX]), the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel whose first monarch, Jeroboam, instituted idolatrous calf worship. Therefore, by means of a conquering enemy power, YHWH determined to “destroy it [the sinful kingdom] from the face [surface] of the ground.” Nevertheless, he promised “not utterly to destroy the house of Jacob.” He would let a remnant of the people of Israel (the descendants of Jacob) survive. (9:8; see the Notes section.)

YHWH would give the command “and shake the house of Israel among the nations as one shakes with a sieve.” Shaking a sieve with its contents of winnowed grain serves to separate the valuable grain from everything that needs to be discarded. According to the Hebrew text, the result of the sifting is that not a “pebble” (tseróhr) would “fall to the earth” or to the ground. In other contexts, the Hebrew word tseróhr refers to a “bundle” but is here commonly understood to mean “pebble.” Translators have interpretively represented the “pebble” either as a “true kernel” (NLT) or as a “tiny stone” (NCV). Whereas the thought of separation is retained, the difference lies in what remains in the sieve after the sifting is completed, either trash or valuable grain. (9:9)

In the Septuagint, there is no mention of a sieve. The reference is to God’s winnowing the “house of Israel among all the nations in the manner [threshed grain] is winnowed with a winnowing shovel.” The result would be that “by no means” would a “crushed thing [sýntrimma] fall on the earth” or on the ground. In this case, the Greek word sýntrimma could refer to a small piece like a crumb or to a crushed kernel. (9:9; see the Notes section.)

The sifting or winnowing of the Israelites among the nations would include their being submitted to oppression and suffering. Nevertheless, a refined remnant would come through the hard experiences, and this remnant would be like the barley, wheat, or other grain that remains after the sifting or winnowing process has been completed. (9:9)

YHWH decreed, “All the sinners of my people will die by the sword,” indicating that those who had conducted themselves contrary to his commands could expect to perish in war. They, however, thought themselves secure, apparently believing that as God’s people this could not possibly happen to them. They were basically saying that “evil” or “calamity” would not “draw near” and “meet” them like an unrestrained robber. (9:10; see the Notes section.)

At a future time after the devastation of the land of Israel and the exile of survivors, YHWH promised to “raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its [literally ‘their’] breaches.” A “booth” or “tent” can serve as a shelter and, therefore, like the designation “house” may apply to the royal house of David and could also include the realm over which the dynasty ruled. Upon sinking into obscurity, the royal house of David, and thus also the entire realm, would resemble a dilapidated booth. Restoration of the Davidic dynasty to its former glory would require the repair of all the “breaches” that resulted from its fall and existed in the whole realm under its previous dominion. The word of YHWH revealed that this would be the case. He promised to raise up the ruins of the “booth” and to rebuild it as it had been a long time ago. (9:11)

After the “booth of David” is restored, God’s people Israel would be in a position of ascendancy in relation to other nations. The Edomites were the most closely related people to the Israelites, for they had descended from Esau or Edom, the twin brother of Jacob, the forefather of the Israelites. Nevertheless, the Edomites repeatedly warred against them, and King David succeeded in making them tributary to him. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) In keeping with the divine promise, the restoration of the “booth of David” is also linked to the restoration of royal authority over Edom, which restoration is prophetically described as Israel’s taking possession of the “remnant of Edom,” or of those who would remain of the Edomites as survivors of divine judgment. (9:12)

Additionally, according to his doing or the outworking of his purpose, YHWH would have his people possess “all the nations” who have his name called upon them. For people of the nations to have God’s name called upon them would mean that he recognized them as belonging to him. Accordingly, they would come to be part of the true Israel, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob whom YHWH acknowledged as his devoted people. Members of this genuine Israel would come to possess the people of non-Israelite nations because these non-Israelites would become their fellow citizens. (9:12; compare Romans 11:17-24, where the reference is to non-Jews who, as branches of a wild olive tree, are grafted into the cultivated olive tree that represents the genuine Israel.)

In the Septuagint, no mention is made of Edom but the reference is to “seeking” on the part of “those remaining of the men,” or of the people, “and all the nations” who have God’s name called upon them. Although the extant text of the Septuagint does not say whom or what they “might seek,” the quotation from Amos found in verses 16 and 17 of Acts 15 identifies the “Lord” as the one whom they may seek out. This seeking would be with the desire to have his approval. Those “remaining of the men” may refer to those of Israel whom God recognizes as his own. (9:12; see the Notes section.)

According to the application of the prophetic words found in the book of Acts (15:16, 17), the end of the fallen state of the “booth of David” began to be fulfilled when Jesus appeared on the earthly scene as the promised Anointed One, Messiah, or Christ. The prophetic message about restoration is framed in language relating to literal rebuilding. It is conveyed in a manner that would have been understandable to those who first heard it and to those who came to know about it in the centuries that passed prior to its fulfillment. The reality, however, is far grander, for Jesus, the heir of King David by reason of his earthly descent in that royal line, is far greater than David ever was. He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings with full divinely granted authority in heaven and on earth. (Matthew 28:18; Revelation 19:16) His reign will bring an end to the ruin that human sinfulness has brought about, and all who become his loyal subjects will be completely liberated from sin and come to enjoy the never-ending standing of God’s approved children. (9:12)

The flourishing state of God’s people is represented in terms of extraordinarily plentiful harvests. “Days,” or a time, would come when the “man plowing” would overtake (literally, “draw near” or “approach”) the “one reaping” and the “one treading grapes” the “one sowing the seed.” (9:13)

After the the early rain had softened the ground in the month of Tishri or Ethanim (corresponding to mid-September to mid-October), plowing would begin. The barley harvest started in the month of Nisan or Abib (mid-March to mid-April). This harvest continued in the following month, and the wheat harvest occurred during the month of Sivan (mid-May to mid-June). The Hebrew text indicates that the harvest would be so abundant that it would take much longer than usual, not having been completed when the time for plowing arrived. According to the Septuagint rendering, the “threshing” of the grain would overtake the “vintage.” (9:13)

During the late summer, men would trample the grapes in the press to extract the juice for making wine, and the wheat would be sown in the month of Heshvan or Bul (mid-October to mid-November). According to the Hebrew text, men would still be treading the grapes when the time for sowing arrived. The Septuagint rendering refers to the “grape” as “becoming dark” or ripening “in the sowing” or in the season when sowing is done. This rendering points to an unusually long grape-growing season. (9:13)

“Mountains,” or the vineyards planted on the mountain slopes, would yield grapes in such plenty that the mountains are portrayed as dripping with new wine, and the liquid from the grapes is depicted as being so abundant that it would melt the hills, the flowing of the grape juice being comparable to the heavy rains that can cause mudslides and make the hills appear as though they are melting. The Septuagint does not mention the melting of hills, but refers to them as being “thickly planted” (sýmphytos, an adjective that describes something that is planted together or that grows together). (9:13)

The Israelites who found themselves in captivity or exile would be restored to their land. They would rebuild the desolated cities and resume agricultural operations, planting vineyards and partaking of the wine made from the grape juice, and cultivating gardens and eating the fruit or produce. After the fall of Babylon, the Persian conqueror Cyrus granted permission to the Israelites to return to their land. The “booth of David,” however, remained in a neglected state. Men of the royal line of David did not begin ruling as kings over the repopulated land. Therefore, when regarded from the standpoint of the rebuilding of that “booth of David” as it related to Jesus, the Anointed One, Messiah, or Christ in the line of David, there proved to be a far more remarkable return from captivity. Those who responded in faith to him were liberated from enslavement to sin and the condemnation to which it leads. (John 8:31-36) As God’s approved children and loyal servants of their King, Jesus Christ, they came to be richly blessed, benefiting from their loving care, concern, and safeguarding. (9:14)

The secure state of those whom YHWH recognizes as his people would not end. He is represented as planting them on their land and assuring them that they would not be uprooted from their land, the land he had given to them. Accordingly, members of the true Israel can be certain of his protective care as citizens of the realm where he is Sovereign and rules by means of his Son, Jesus Christ. The assurance concludes with the solemn words, “says YHWH your God” (the “Lord God, the Almighty” [LXX]). (9:15)

Notes

In verse 7, the Hebrew designation for “Kir” is qir. The middle consonant is yod (Y), which letter can be confused with the very similar consonant waw (W). When the yod is replaced with a waw, the word becomes the root for a verb meaning “to make a hole.” This is the apparent reason for the Septuagint rendering bóthros (“ditch,” “pit,” or “hole”).

The Hebrew text of verse 8 contains two forms of the verb meaning “destroy” to express the thought of an utter or complete destruction. In the Septuagint, the rendering is, “Only I will not remove the house of Jacob to the end” or completely.

In verse 9, the expression “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not.” The same two Greek words are found twice in verse 10, indicating that sinful Israelites were confident that calamity would by no means draw near and would by no means come upon them.

When the waw (W) is omitted from the consonantal spelling of the Hebrew designation for “Edom,” the name is changed to the word for “man.” This may explain the reason for the Septuagint rendering “men” (the plural of ánthropos, which noun is also found in the quotation from Amos 9:12 in Acts 15:17).