AMOS ā’ məs (עָמֹ֔וס amos, LXX ̓Αμώς, G322, burden-bearer). An 8th-cent. b.c. literary prophet of Judah who uttered denunciations against Israel and other nations as contained in the canonical book attributed to him.

1. Background

2. Authorship and unity

3. Date

4. Place of origin and destination

5. Occasion and purpose

6. Canonicity and text

7. Content

8. Theology

1. Background. The concurrent reigns of Uzziah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel were marked by a period of peace and prosperity in the N and S which approached in character the “golden age” of David and Solomon. This situation resulted from a number of factors, one of the most important being the removal of Benhadad III of Syria (c. 796-776 b.c.) as a military threat to the northern kingdom. This ruler, son of Hazael (2 Kings 13:3), had brought pressure to bear on Jehoash and, according to the Zakir stele, had led a powerful coalition against Zakir of Hamath, a usurper from Lu’ash who had seized control of the entire kingdom of Hamath-Lu’ash. The stele narrated the way in which Zakir and his allies defeated the coalition of Benhadad, thus ending the Aramean dominance of Syria.

Shortly afterward, Damascus came under the sovereignty of Jeroboam II (14:28), and the territory of the northern kingdom was ultimately extended to Hamath. The extent of Israel and Judah to the S and E approximated the limits of the kingdom in the days of David and Solomon. While Assyria was becoming an increasing political threat, its military might under Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 b.c.) was still a distant prospect when Jeroboam II succeeded to sole rule in Israel.

Once the menace of war had been removed, a remarkable cultural, social, and economic revival took place in Israel and was reflected to a lesser extent in Judah. The northern kingdom was now free to control the trading caravan routes of the E which passed through its newly acquired territory. One consequence of this was the rise of a rich mercantile class which shared with the nobility the wealth of the nation and created new demands for an increasingly wide variety of luxury items. The expansion of trade and commerce fostered a steady drift of the populace from the country to the city, and for the first time in their history the small towns in the northern kingdom gradually became overcrowded.

Prosperity was accompanied by an almost unprecedented degree of social corruption (Amos 2:6-8; 5:11, 12), caused mainly by the demoralizing influence of Canaanite Baal-worship which had been taken over from the Phoenicians and developed at the local shrines from the time when the northern kingdom had assumed a separate existence under Jeroboam I (931/30-910/09). Archeological discoveries have provided a dramatic picture of the nature of contemporary Canaanite religion, showing without question that it was the most corrupt of any in the ancient Near E in its descent to the lowest depths of moral depravity.

Ritual prostitution was a perennial feature of Canaanite religion, and characterizations of Anat, an eminent female member of the pantheon, depicted her as a divine courtesan. One cuneiform text from Ugarit portrayed her as a butcher, brutally slaying both young and old in a fiendish orgy. The lily and the serpent, commonly found in association with this fertility goddess, were venerated as symbols of fecundity. Canaanite religion recognized four principal annual feasts, and for the most part the worship was carried on at outdoor altars or near the tops of hills. Certain types of sacrifice were indulged in, and from cuneiform sources appear to have been more diversified than Israelite sacrifices. Drunkenness, violence, idolatrous worship, and gross sensuality were inevitable concomitants of Canaanite festal observances, and were extremely common in Israelite religion also. On every side in the northern kingdom there was an avowed interest in cultic worship at the shrines (4:4, 5; 5:5), but the perverted character of the observances had nothing in common with the traditions of the Mosaic Torah.

The effect of this degenerating influence upon Heb. society began to be felt in the corruption of justice, in willful and luxurious living of the upper classes, and in the general decay of social unity. The rich manifested no sense of responsibility toward the poor, and instead of relieving their economic distress, they seemed bent upon depriving them of all their property. Small farmers were dispossessed by the rapacious wealthy class in order to make possible the accumulation of vast estates, and where this could not be done legally, it was achieved by means of bribing the judiciary to render judgment in favor of the rich contestant. In a very short time the nation, whose strength had subsisted in the mass of its independent citizens, was divided into the dissolute rich and the oppressed poor. Within a few short years the latter had been reduced to the level of serfs, and when circumstances made it necessary, they were sold into bondage by their masters, frequently for trivial considerations (2:6). The virtual disappearance of the middle class marked a turning point in the stability of Israelite life and portended an ominous future for the nation.

This situation has been amply illustrated archeologically by the famous Samaritan ostraca, which have been assigned to the reign of Jeroboam II. Some sixty-three potsherds inscribed in ink were recovered in 1910 by the Harvard expedition to Samaria in some ruins just W of the site of the royal palace. When the fragments were deciphered, they were found to comprise administrative documents recording shipments of wine and oil to Samaria. One potsherd contained the name of the treasury official in receipt of the wine, the district from which it had been sent, and the names of the peasants who had paid their taxes in this manner. Of the twenty or more place names in the ostraca, six appear as clan-designations in the OT. The references in the sherds to “pure clarified wine” and “refined oil” typified the exaggerated demands of the luxury loving Samaritan elite, and demonstrated the extent to which the northern kingdom had moved away from the ancient Heb. ideal of the small independent landowner.

Some idea of the way in which cultural interests were coming to the forefront can be obtained from the jasper seal of “Shema, servant of Jeroboam,” discovered by Schumacher at Megiddo in 1904. On epigraphic grounds it prob. should be assigned to the period of Jeroboam II, and the magnificently executed lion which it depicted is a striking testimony to the artistic standards of the 8th cent. b.c. A great many ivory inlays, the earliest of which belonged to the time of Ahab (874/3-853 b.c.), have been recovered from the hill of Samaria (modern Sebastiyeh), mostly in the form of small panels in relief depicting such things as palmettos, lilies, lions, deer, sphinxes, and winged human figures. The remains of a bed decorated with ivory inlays were also recovered (cf. Amos 6:4). The workmanship of the ivories is distinctly Phoen., although by contrast many of the subjects executed are Egyp. in nature. In any event they amply justify the prophetic censures (3:15; 1 Kings 22:39, et al.) of wanton luxury on the part of the Israelite upper classes.

2. Authorship and unity. Questions relating to the authorship and composition of the prophecy have been widely discussed in recent years. While the Heb. text furnishes no indication as to whether or not Amos actually put his oracles into written form during his lifetime, or at his death left behind written sources containing some or all of his utterances, the freshness and vitality of much of the material would suggest the direct authorship of Amos himself. Adherents of the Scandinavian tradition historical theories have maintained that the oracles of Amos, like those of all other prophets, were transmitted orally over a long period of time before being put into their extant form. However, the remarkably sound condition of the Heb. text seems to favor the view that either Amos or an amanuensis set down the utterances in writing within a short time of their promulgation.

Certain scholars have suggested that the visions (7:1-9; 8:1-3; 9:1-4) belonged to a period preceding the mission to Israel and that they were compiled as a separate document at the time of the earthquake (which served coincidentally to stress their message of doom), to which Amos 8:4-14 was added later. By contrast, the oracles in chs. 1-6 were collected at the end of the ministry in Israel and may have concluded originally with the biographical section. According to this theory, both documents were subsequently united in exilic or postexilic days to form the extant work along with a few editorial additions. This theory was based in part upon the supposed presence in the superscription (1:1) of parallel vv. held to imply the presence of two collections of material, namely, “The words of Amos” and “The visions of Amos which he saw.” According to certain scholars, these two had been combined in the extant title by a redactor in order to furnish a proper sense of unity for the final composition.

A modification of this view suggested that apart from certain minor additions, the prophecy was in fact the accredited work of Amos, but entertained the idea of a twofold division, the first part of which comprised Amos 1:2-7:9, recording the speeches and events occurring prior to the summary ejection of Amos from Bethel, while the second section (8:1-9:15) contained the speeches and visions of the prophet which had taken place subsequent to that time. Amos 7:10-17 was thought to have been added to the first of these divisions just prior to the unification of the prophecy.

Great caution must be urged in advancing any theory which would make for a hard and fast division between oracles and visions in the extant prophecy. When the Book of Amos is compared with other clearly attestable prophecies compiled in bipartite form, such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, it is evident that the grouping of the Amos material into oracles and visions is incidental to the process of compilation and was never meant to depict a true bipartite structure. That the visions ought to be integrated with the oracular utterances in the ministry of the prophet is apparent in the first vision (7:1-3). Amos was already functioning in a characteristic intercessory capacity, begging God to be merciful toward delinquent Israel. To insist on anything approaching a rigid distinction between the visions and the oracles, as some critics have done, is an extremely precarious procedure, for when the contents of both sections are compared, it is readily apparent that there is no fundamental difference between them either in content or nature. Again, it seems improbable that the visions themselves can be dated in a period occurring much before the oracular utterances, since there is a close connection between them in certain significant areas. This can be illustrated by the relationship of the vision in Amos 7:7-9, in which the prophet foresaw the overthrow of the Israelite royal house, and the consecutive narrative passage which recounted his summary dismissal from the northern kingdom for treasonable utterances against the regime of Jeroboam II.

A careful reading of the text leaves little doubt that the visions comprise a literary as well as a spiritual homogeneous unit. This is apparent from the construction of the material as a whole, which rises rhetorically to a climax, and also by the general consonance of the form and subject matter. There seems little reason for doubting that they comprised a unified group from the time of oral proclamation, and the fact that the first person sing. was used for the visions suggests that Amos himself was the author. While it is possible that the material in Amos 8:4-14 may have been placed in its present position in order to supplement the account of the visions, it obviously belongs in nature to earlier oracular utterances of the prophet.

The collection of oracles in chs. 1-6 exhibits certain stereotyped features including the climactic use of numbers in the phrase “for three transgressions...and for four.” Quite possibly the way in which the denunciation of the nations was arranged, beginning with pagan peoples, then the blood relatives of Israel, followed by oracles against the southern and northern kingdoms is a device original with Amos, though somewhat similar examples have been noted in Egyp. lit. Against the view that this section of material was concluded with the biographical statement, one need only observe that its presence in the visionary passages was necessary in order to demonstrate that they constituted an essential part of the northern ministry of Amos.

Some scholars have detected what are thought to have been annotations to the original prophecy, i.e., the fact that in the superscription the king of Judah was placed before the king of Israel. While this could have been the work of a Judaean scribe, the juxtaposition of the two names need imply nothing more than that, in the mind of Amos, only the Davidic line, represented by Uzziah, was legitimate, a situation which may also be in evidence in Hosea 1:1. Some questions have been directed at the originality of Amos 2:4, 5, which involved a pronouncement of doom upon Judah. It has been argued accordingly that whereas other oracles condemned the inhumanity of the nations concerned, this particular utterance related only to moral and spiritual transgressions in Judah and was thus out of character with previous statements. On the other hand, it would have been strange had Amos mentioned all the neighbors of Israel except Judah, since she too was apostate, and as such equally deserving of decisive punishment. In any event, acts of inhumanity were by no means as common a feature of life in the southern kingdom as was the case in the N.

The authenticity of the doxologies in Amos 4:13; 5:8, 9; 9:5, 6 has been questioned by some scholars, on the assumption that they were inserted at a much later date in connection with the public reading of the prophecy. However, it should be noted that there is no single element in these ascriptions which is in any way inconsistent with the thought of Amos or of any other 8th cent. b.c. prophet, dealing as they did with the functions of the all-powerful Creator, and, therefore, there can be no valid reason for not allowing them to Amos. Similarly, the hopeful conclusion of the book (9:8-15) has been denied to the prophet because of its fundamental contrast to all preceding material. Furthermore, it has been argued, the references to ruined Palestinian cities (9:11, 14), the dispersion of the nation (9:9, 15), the end of the Davidic dynasty (9:11), and the anticipation of its restoration could hardly be dated earlier than the exilic period. This hypothesis overlooks the fact that, from early times, there was a consistent pattern evident in Israelite prophecy which combined promises of blessing conditional upon repentance and spiritual fidelity with oracles of doom if the nation persisted in apostasy. While Amos did not elaborate upon a glorious future for the covenant people, he did at least extend the prospect of hope for the faithful remnant in Israel, as did other 8th cent. b.c. prophets.

In general the great majority of liberal scholars are prepared to accept the prophecy as being the authentic product of Amos, although the work of editorial hands is frequently posited. Attempts to distinguish between individual editors seem pointless in view of a complete lack of supporting evidence. Some minor insertions have been argued for, mostly in connection with material relating to Judah, along with the concluding vv. of the prophecy dealing with the future prospects of the nation.

The extent to which the prophet may have attracted disciples depends largely upon whether or not he exercised a later ministry in the southern kingdom, as Amaziah had advised (7:12). There are, however, no indications that anyone other than Isaiah had a following of disciples, and if the ministry of Amos was of short duration, it seems unlikely that anyone would perpetuate his particular message in Israel in view of the prevailing national temper. Quite possibly his prophecy may have undergone slight redactional procedures in Judah, since in antiquity the scribes regularly revised material in different generations. However, it is extremely difficult to pronounce either on the nature or the scope of such activities in the extant work because of the remarkable uniformity of standpoint which it demonstrates. On the basis of the available evidence there is little doubt that Amos, with or without scribal help, was responsible for the written form of the oracles and visions attributed to him in the superscription.

The literary style of the prophecy exhibits freshness, simplicity, and originality, all of which must have made an immediate claim upon the attention of his hearers. His poetic utterances are among the finest in Heb. lit., and the dirge-like rhythms which he utilized are powerful agents in the task of building up an ominous sense of expectation of calamity. Yet his diction is never so compounded with figures of speech that its meaning is not immediately apparent, nor his lyricism so exalted as to obscure his theological teachings.

Some scholars have suggested that Amos included fragments of a cultic hymn in his prophecy, such sections represented by Amos 4:13; 5:8; and 9:5, 6, on the ground that the doctrines contained therein were too advanced for the thought of Amos. It is questionable whether the cultic prophets of the northern kingdom were more than casually interested in true morality and religion, and if so, it would be improbable that the material originated in such circles. That they appear to be genuine words of Amos seems borne out by the fact that their teachings were already firmly rooted in Mosaic law and were merely being recapitulated by the prophet in a way which would meet contemporary needs. The “fragments” in question are so closely integrated into the surrounding material as to make their removal impossible without causing a basic disruption of the text, which would again appear to indicate that they are genuine utterances of Amos.

3. Date. From the superscription to the prophecy (1:1), it is known that Amos lived during the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah (767-740/39 b.c.), and Jeroboam II of Israel (782/81-753 b.c.). Uzziah had been co-regent with Amaziah of Judah from 791/90 b.c., while Jeroboam II was co-regent with Jehoash of Israel from 793/92 b.c. The date at which Amos began his ministry has been a matter of dispute. Some scholars have thought that the confident mood of the nation reflected in the prophecy points to a date c. 760 b.c. or shortly afterward, while others have suggested that Amos was aware of the westward advance of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria and predicted destruction accordingly. It seems evident that the prophetic denunciations were based on the conviction that Israelite apostasy and idolatry could not fail to be punished by God and that political developments in Assyria had no place in the thought of Amos. Significantly enough, he never once mentioned the quarter from which the doom might be expected to come, though he spoke of captivity “beyond Damascus” (5:27).

The mention in the superscription of an earthquake which occurred two years after the appearance of the prophet is unfortunately of no help in dating his ministry, even though the phenomenon was still remembered in the days of Zechariah (Zech 14:5) as having occurred in the reign of Uzziah. Since the leprosy of the latter occasioned a co-regency during the latter years of his reign (2 Kings 16:1-7), the ministry of Amos could perhaps be placed about halfway through the concurrent reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II, possibly about 760 b.c.

It is difficult to say precisely how long the ministry of the prophet continued, and it may have lasted only a few months at the most. It appears to have terminated in Bethel (Amos 7:10-17), where his announcement of the coming invasion of the land and the fall of the house of Jeroboam II was, not unnaturally, taken as treason. There is no need to suppose that Amos did all his preaching at either Samaria or Bethel, and although Amos could be interpreted as speaking to an audience in Samaria itself (2:9; 4:1; 6:1), it may well be that his hearers were the people of Samaria worshiping at Bethel, the site of the Israelite royal sanctuary from the days of Jeroboam I. From the discussion of the authorship above it will be evident that his prophecy was almost certainly complete during his lifetime.

4. Place of origin and destination. Although Amos was one of the more colorful personalities in an era of several towering prophetic figures, comparatively little is known about his origin. He was a native of Tekoa (1:1), a town in the southern kingdom about ten m. S of Jerusalem, now represented by the ruined five-acre site of Khirbet Taqu’a. The extensive upland countryside of Judah provided pasture for the flocks which he tended in addition to his work as a dresser of sycamore trees. The latter involved incising of the fruit of the sycamore fig some four days before it was due to be harvested, so as to hasten the ripening process. The importance of this information about the background of Amos lies in its proof that he was not brought up in the class from which prophets usually came and that he had not been trained for his mission in life in the prophetic schools or guilds (7:14, 15). He was a man of agricultural pursuits, and until his call was a layman with no professional preparation for religious office. The life of the Judaean shepherd was reflected in the imagery of his prophetic oracles, illustrated by the reference to the seven stars and Orion as witnesses to the creative power of God, to the devastating plague of locusts which denuded the pasture lands, and to the nocturnal sounds of the lion roaring over its prey.

Upon receiving his call, Amos proceeded resolutely to the center of pagan worship in the northern kingdom and protested vigorously against the luxurious and careless living so typical of Samaria. He pointed to the unmistakable symptoms of a morally sick society and castigated the perversion of religion which was being allowed at the cultic shrines of Gilgal and Beersheba, stating flatly that ritual could never constitute an acceptable substitute for righteousness. His denunciation of idolatry included the firm assertion that God exercised a moral jurisdiction over all nations (1:3, 6, 9, 11; 2:1, 4, 6) and that Israel would be severely punished if it failed to repent and renew covenantal fellowship with God.

5. Occasion and purpose. Amos had been greatly exercised by the license, apostasy, and corruption of life in the northern kingdom, a situation which furnished the occasion and reason for the prophecy. To these circumstances Amos came with a message of stern denunciation. Although he was not an inhabitant of the northern kingdom, he was well aware of its moral, social, and religious shortcomings. The fact that Amos forsook Judah to deliver his oracles at Bethel and perhaps Samaria has led some scholars to make him a northerner by origin, on the supposition that he moved to Tekoa only when expelled by the authorities of the northern kingdom because of his prophecies of doom. While the absence of sycamores near Tekoa in modern times might seem to support such a view, it is refuted by the fact that Amaziah clearly regarded Amos as a native Judaean and bade him return home with all speed (7:12).

6. Canonicity and text. This prophecy stood third in the list of the canonical twelve Minor Prophets, but Amos was one of the first of the so-called “writing prophets,” and as such initiated a new period in the growth of the prophetic office in Israel. The Heb. text of Amos is in good condition, although some scholars have seen fit to suggest emendations for certain passages such as 2:7; 3:12; 5:6, 26; 7:2; 8:1, to mention the more important vv. The LXX and other ancient VSS appear to have been made from a text related to that of the Massoretes; as for the Qumran fragments of Amos, they too present no important variations from the traditional text.

7. Content. 1:1-2:16. Superscription and the announcing of judgment upon neighboring peoples (1:3-2:3), upon Judah and Samaria (2:4-16) for their repeated transgression of the moral law.

3:1-6:14. A series of addresses introduced by a formula (3:1; 4:1; 5:1; 6:1) in which the moral responsibility of Samaria was enunciated and the “day of the Lord” proclaimed.

7:1-9:10. Five visions of judgment, depicted by the symbols of locusts (7:1-3), fire (7:4-6), a plumb line (7:7-9), summer fruit (8:1-14), and a devastated sanctuary (9:1-7). Amos 7:10-17 comprises an extended autobiographical note.

9:8-15. An epilogue describing the restoration of the Davidic kingdom.

8. Theology. Any interpretation of the prophetic message which sees the Judaean shepherd as the harbinger of unrelieved doom is incorrect, particularly since it requires the rejection of Amos 9:8-15 as authentic prophetic material. In proclaiming blessing, Amos was in fact demonstrating the fidelity of God to His covenant, a faithfulness which would be exhibited in the return from captivity of a faithful remnant (9:14). Not unnaturally, an understanding of his concept of God is a prerequisite to a proper interpretation of his teachings. In common with other prophets of his cent. such as Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah, Amos believed that the Lord was the creator and sustainer of the world (4:13) and as such could dictate the occurrence of plenty (9:13) or famine and pestilence (4:6-10). This kind of sovereignty was also extended to created humanity, where God exercised control over the fortunes of nations, exalting one and deposing another (6:14; 2:9). This restraining influence was supplemented by the functions of a judge (1:3-2:3) when various peoples offended against the moral precepts of God as expressed in the law.

In this latter connection it is important to notice the number of references in the prophecy to material occurring in the Torah. As far as the ritual and moral aspects of Mosaic law were concerned, the allusions of Amos to ritual (5:21), to the new moon and sabbaths (8:5), and to the statutory sacrifices and tithes (4:4, 5; 5:22) indicated that he was familiar with those areas of the Torah where such religious institutions were regulated. As was the case with the other prophets, Amos based his teachings firmly upon the ancient Mosaic law, and there was no single element in his utterances which had not found prior enunciation in the Torah. Indications of his knowledge of ancient Heb. historical traditions preserved in the Pentateuch can be seen in the references to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (4:11), the deliverance of the Exodus (3:1), the wilderness wanderings (5:25), and the ultimate conquest of Canaan (2:9, 10). These were supplemented by the mention of patriarchal figures (3:13; 5:6; 7:16) and an allusion to the traditional enmity with Edom (1:11), all of which would be familiar to the hearers of the prophetic message.

While Amos did not mention the covenant directly, it was clearly fundamental to his estimate of the relationship between God and Israel. The creator of the cosmos had entered into a special association with Israel (3:2), which, although privileged in nature, involved high moral and spiritual responsibilities. Failure to recognize the latter factor, and to be governed accordingly, could only bring judgment upon the nation. In adopting this position, Amos rejected the popular idea that the covenant relationship automatically placed Israel in a privileged position which could not be violated or repudiated even by God Himself. In Amos 9:7 the nation was told bluntly that it had no more claim upon God than the Ethiopians, the Philistines, or the Syrians, a statement which showed how greatly Amos was concerned to rescue the covenant concept from a perverted interpretation. The fact that God had entered into such an association with Israel demanded that the nation should reciprocate by exhibiting in her national character those high moral and ethical qualities typical of the God of Sinai. That such attributes were patently lacking in the life of the people was proof that the bond with God had been repudiated, and for this apostasy the nation could expect only to incur due retribution from Him who was the Lord of history. The animosity which Amos manifested toward the cultic religion of the northern kingdom was directed at the abuses of traditional Heb. morality which the rituals enshrined, rather than at the fact of a ritualistic kind of worship. Canaanite religion, with which the cultic procedures of the Israelites was heavily overlaid, was of the most depraved moral character, degrading and debasing its enthusiastic participants rather than uplifting and enriching them. The prophecy shows that, rather than exemplifying the stern morality of the Sinai covenant, the Israelite priests had been condoning the most flagrant vi olations of the ethical principles revealed in the Torah. By encouraging the nation in the belief that proper payment of dues at the sanctuaries and an appropriate degree of participation in the rituals of the cultus was all that was required by God, the priests had contributed materially to that state of apostasy which had overtaken the nation.

Like other Heb. prophets, Amos made it a matter of prime importance to stress that no form of rite, ceremony, liturgical procedure, or festal celebration could form an acceptable substitute for sustained and deliberate violation of the revealed moral law. The elaborate rituals which had been devised were an abomination to a Deity who demanded first and foremost that His people should manifest holiness of life. If the nation persisted in showing that it had no serious intentions of measuring up to the ethical standards laid down in the law, its implicit divorce of religion from morality could only result in drastic punishment (5:27). God was already standing beside the altar (9:1), poised and prepared to shatter it into pieces as an expression of His anger against a false and apostate religion. This general attitude should be sufficient to refute the view held by some scholars that, since Amos nowhere directly condemned calf worship in Israel, he was favorable to the cultus to some extent. In addition, it should be noted that the mention of cultic procedures at Gilgal, Carmel, and elsewhere was invariably in terms of condemnation, since Amos was well aware of the abuses which characterized worship at these locations.

The primary call of the prophet was for national repentance and a return to God, but this was not just a matter of reforming cultic practices and observing traditional forms of Heb. worship. The corruptions of Canaanite religion had spread to all levels of society, and the appalling violations of justice and equity in Israel demanded immediate redress in the spirit of the Torah, which exhibited an advanced doctrine of social responsibility among the covenant people. Judgment and righteousness (5:24) must henceforward replace the oppression of the poor (5:11), bribery, injustice (5:15), apostasy, and immorality if the nation was to have any relief from the threat of destruction. For Amos, a people in covenant relationship with God were under an obligation to pursue equitable social as well as spiritual behavior, and if Israel persisted in divorcing herself from God by failing to remove the many serious blemishes upon national life, she would quickly go into oblivion.

So convinced was Amos of impending doom that he never wavered in his pronouncements of future destruction. While God naturally desired the nation to choose repentance and life rather than continued sin and consequent destruction, it was clear to Amos that the covenant of grace existing between Israel and God demanded that Deity should be more severe in His dealings with delinquent Israel than with any of the pagan nations. While Amos did not present the doctrine of the remnant in as developed a form as did his younger contemporary, Isaiah, there is no doubt that it was present in essence in his prophecy (5:4, 15).

The message of judgment for the nation, based upon the concept of a divine righteousness, involved a repudiation of the widely-held notion of the “day of the Lord” as an occasion of prosperity and material blessing for Israel (5:18-20). Precisely how this eschatology gained currency is difficult to say, but it may have resulted in part from the contemporary prosperity of the nation and perhaps also from a form of cultic celebration at the shrines, though the latter is by no means certain. Without question it was radically different from comparable notions enshrined in the Torah, where future blessings for the nation were always contingent upon the honoring of covenant obligations and general obedience to the divine will.

Much scholarly discussion has taken place regarding the possibility that such eschatological ideas were in existence in the 8th cent. b.c. Precisely what form the “day of the Lord” was supposed to have taken has also been debated, with a resultant wide diversity of opinion. The popular expectation appears to have envisioned a time when Israel would triumph gloriously over all her foes and exact tribute from them while living in luxury herself. Abetting this view was the fact that the contemporary state of material prosperity was taken as a sign of divine blessing and a token of the greater riches to follow when the successes of the nation occurred.

The prophetic belief, however, was of a different order, involving disaster and judgment for Israel, in which the symbol of fire as a cleansing and purifying agent (Amos 1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2; 5:6, 18-20) was prominent. The “day of the Lord” would indeed come, but it would serve to vindicate the moral character of God against those who had denied it while at the same time claiming the privileges of the covenant relationship. From the nature of the rival systems depicted in the prophecy, it seems evident that both were distinct realities in the 8th cent. b.c., coexisting and employing the same title, but being different in essence. In this regard the task of Amos was to demonstrate which of the two was valid.

Bibliography W. R. Harper, Amos and Hosea in ICC (1910); E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (1953), 250-252; R. S. Cripps, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos (1955); J. D. W. Watts, Vision and Prophecy in Amos (1958); R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (1969).