Introduction
Who is a prophet? The word 'prophet' today evokes for some people names such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, Oscar Romero, John Paul II, and etc. A prophet, like those mentioned above, is understood as a charismatic personage who critiques and judges his/her society. Driven by a religious experience, the prophet -nābi’- speaks in the name of God by interpreting the signs of times to his/her contemporaries. Since revelation is not restricted to a particular moment in history but happens within the course of history, prophecy cannot be held as finished with the death of John the Baptist. God continues to reveal Godself in the total historical process through events or signs of times and peoples who incarnate and speak God’s word.
Prophets therefore do not foretell the future; but as they interpret events and present situations, they present the future as consequence of an action or another. While prophecy is evaluated through its interpretation of the signs of times, these signs of times and the audience differentiate a prophet from another. A prophet interprets events or sign of times in a particular time history, in a particular place in the world, and addresses a particular people. This is true especially if we look at the history of prophecy in ancient Israel. From Moses to Malachi, everyone of the prophets differs from the other according to the moment of history where they appear and to the situations that they address. The 8th century BCE prophecy is typical as it laid the foundations of the classical period of prophecy that started with Amos.
In this paper, hence, we intend to look first at the socio-economic, religious and political context of 8th century BCE prophecy. We will, secondly, discuss the book of Amos within that context. This analysis will lead us to understand the importance of prophecy today and particularly the significance of the book of Amos in our contemporary world.
Prophets therefore do not foretell the future; but as they interpret events and present situations, they present the future as consequence of an action or another. While prophecy is evaluated through its interpretation of the signs of times, these signs of times and the audience differentiate a prophet from another. A prophet interprets events or sign of times in a particular time history, in a particular place in the world, and addresses a particular people. This is true especially if we look at the history of prophecy in ancient Israel. From Moses to Malachi, everyone of the prophets differs from the other according to the moment of history where they appear and to the situations that they address. The 8th century BCE prophecy is typical as it laid the foundations of the classical period of prophecy that started with Amos.
In this paper, hence, we intend to look first at the socio-economic, religious and political context of 8th century BCE prophecy. We will, secondly, discuss the book of Amos within that context. This analysis will lead us to understand the importance of prophecy today and particularly the significance of the book of Amos in our contemporary world.
The Eighth Century B.C.E Prophecy
The 8th century BCE is a foundational time for understanding the history of Israel and the changes in the prophetic tradition within that history. It is characterized by the revival of the imperial desires of Assyria in the Fertile Crescent. Assyrian Empire existed between the tenth and the seventh centuries (900 - 600 BCE). This period may be comprised, in Assyria, from few decades before Tiglath-pileser III to the death of Sennacherib. In Israel, this period extends from the last kings of the dynasty of Jehu in the northern kingdom to the religious reforms of Josiah in the southern kingdom. And concerning prophecy, this period marked the passage from the primitive prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha, to the first classical or writing prophets, namely Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah.
In fact, the latter are called classical because their prophecies had been written and conserved under their names by themselves or by their disciples. Instead, from the former prophets, we only have stories about their deeds, about them. Various socioeconomic, religious and political aspects contributed to this change. These events, not only affected the Israelites, but also, constituted the concerns of the prophets. What, then, may be those situations?
In fact, the latter are called classical because their prophecies had been written and conserved under their names by themselves or by their disciples. Instead, from the former prophets, we only have stories about their deeds, about them. Various socioeconomic, religious and political aspects contributed to this change. These events, not only affected the Israelites, but also, constituted the concerns of the prophets. What, then, may be those situations?
The Political Context of 8th Century BCE.
Since the 9th century BCE, Assyria had changed its policy about the treaties with vassal or conquered nations. Instead of dealing only with the king, the treaties were signed with the whole nation. The people were responsible for keeping the treaties. Therefore, a rebellion brought punishment on the king and the nation; a punishment that consisted of mass deportation. The prophetic oracles were no longer addressed to the king alone, but to the whole people. Later on, Tiglath-pileser introduced the “policy of two-way relocation”[1](Hershel Shanks, Ancient Israel. p.174). The deported nation was replaced by another from a different place. This is what was applied to Samaria in 722 BCE. (2 kings 17:6.24)
Also, while the domination of Damascus over the Aramean states – Syria, Phoenicia, Israel, Judah, and Philistia- was declining, Assyria rose and inaugurated the era of powerful empires. First, Adad-nirari III (811-783 BCE) opened the way to the Assyrian imperialistic domination through his two western military campaigns (805-802 BCE). These campaigns not only ended Damascus’ claims over the other Aramean states, but they gave Adad-nirari III a tribute of gratitude from these states that viewed him as savior (2 kings 13:5).
Since the 9th century BCE, Assyria had changed its policy about the treaties with vassal or conquered nations. Instead of dealing only with the king, the treaties were signed with the whole nation. The people were responsible for keeping the treaties. Therefore, a rebellion brought punishment on the king and the nation; a punishment that consisted of mass deportation. The prophetic oracles were no longer addressed to the king alone, but to the whole people. Later on, Tiglath-pileser introduced the “policy of two-way relocation”[1](Hershel Shanks, Ancient Israel. p.174). The deported nation was replaced by another from a different place. This is what was applied to Samaria in 722 BCE. (2 kings 17:6.24)
Also, while the domination of Damascus over the Aramean states – Syria, Phoenicia, Israel, Judah, and Philistia- was declining, Assyria rose and inaugurated the era of powerful empires. First, Adad-nirari III (811-783 BCE) opened the way to the Assyrian imperialistic domination through his two western military campaigns (805-802 BCE). These campaigns not only ended Damascus’ claims over the other Aramean states, but they gave Adad-nirari III a tribute of gratitude from these states that viewed him as savior (2 kings 13:5).
This situation offered Israel and Judah to stand against Damascus. Joash (801-786 BCE) of Israel had the opportunity of defeating Ben-Hadad of Damascus three times (2 kings 13:25). In the Judah, Amaziah (800-783 BCE) was trying to control the trade route in the Edomite territory (2 kings 14:7). It was, however, in this period that Joash attacked Amaziah. After breaking the northern wall of Jerusalem, looting the temple and the royal court, Joash brought some hostages in Samaria; Judah became a vassal of Israel (2 kings 14:8-14).
Thereafter, Judah under Uzziah (783-742 BCE) and Israel under Jeroboam II (786-746 BCE) enjoyed a long period of peace and prosperity, since Damascus had been weakened and Assyria was busy trying to control the Urartu (a region around lake Van, north of Assyria). It is during this time that Amos, Hosea and Micah prophesied.
The second rise of Assyrian empire and its apogee came with the accession of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE). He cultivated military power and administrative skills. He bound vassal states with treaties; and he used mass deportations and resettlement to punish rebellions. During his first western military campaign (743-738 BCE), he conquered Arpad in Syria (740 BCE), while the nations from Damascus to Arabia paid him tribute. In Israel, the moral decline under Jeroboam would result in Zechariah, his son, being assassinated and ending the Jehu dynasty. Menahem (747-738 BCE) thus king would continue with Jehu policy toward Assyria, namely of paying tribute. It was during this period that Isaiah started his ministry in Judah, followed by Micah.
Also, during this period, assassinations would continue in Israel and they resulted in the accession of Pekah (737-732 BCE) who would team up with Razin of Damascus to attack Ahaz (735-715 BCE) of Judah in order to convince him to join their anti-Assyrian coalition. Against Isaiah’s advice, Ahaz would call upon Assyria and introduced Judah under Assyrian vassalage. Called upon for help, Tiglath-pileser would undertake his second western military campaign (734-732 BCE). Damascus fell in 732 BCE; the other Syro-Palestinian states, including Judah and Israel paid tribute to Assyria which extends it borders until the Wadi-el-‘Arish. A part of Israel’s population would be deported; and the king, Hoshea (732-724 BCE) became an Assyrian vassal.
However, supported by Egypt, Hoshea gave in to anti-Assyrian sentiments around him. Angered, the Assyrian king Shalmanaser V (727-722 BCE) would undertake a military campaign that ended in the vassalage of Egypt, and the destruction of Samaria in summer of 722 BCE by Sargon II (722-705 BCE). Israel’s populations were deported (Isaiah 7:8b) and resettled in Halath (northeast of Nineveh), on the Harbor (the Khabour River), and in the highlands of Medes (northwest Iran). The kingdom was divided into various provinces like Dor, Megiddo, Gilead, and Samaria was repopulated and rebuilt as capital province.
In Judah meanwhile, Hezekiah (727-697 BCE) resisted to join the Ashdod revolt that Sargon II defeated in 712 BCE (Isaiah 19-20). With the Egyptian backing, Hezekiah rebelled against Sennacherib (705-681 BCE) who, weakened by his victory over Egypt and Judean cities could not sustain the siege of Jerusalem (Isaiah 36-37). Though the city was miraculously spared, Judah paid a heavy tribute to Assyria until the fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE.
The second rise of Assyrian empire and its apogee came with the accession of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE). He cultivated military power and administrative skills. He bound vassal states with treaties; and he used mass deportations and resettlement to punish rebellions. During his first western military campaign (743-738 BCE), he conquered Arpad in Syria (740 BCE), while the nations from Damascus to Arabia paid him tribute. In Israel, the moral decline under Jeroboam would result in Zechariah, his son, being assassinated and ending the Jehu dynasty. Menahem (747-738 BCE) thus king would continue with Jehu policy toward Assyria, namely of paying tribute. It was during this period that Isaiah started his ministry in Judah, followed by Micah.
Also, during this period, assassinations would continue in Israel and they resulted in the accession of Pekah (737-732 BCE) who would team up with Razin of Damascus to attack Ahaz (735-715 BCE) of Judah in order to convince him to join their anti-Assyrian coalition. Against Isaiah’s advice, Ahaz would call upon Assyria and introduced Judah under Assyrian vassalage. Called upon for help, Tiglath-pileser would undertake his second western military campaign (734-732 BCE). Damascus fell in 732 BCE; the other Syro-Palestinian states, including Judah and Israel paid tribute to Assyria which extends it borders until the Wadi-el-‘Arish. A part of Israel’s population would be deported; and the king, Hoshea (732-724 BCE) became an Assyrian vassal.
However, supported by Egypt, Hoshea gave in to anti-Assyrian sentiments around him. Angered, the Assyrian king Shalmanaser V (727-722 BCE) would undertake a military campaign that ended in the vassalage of Egypt, and the destruction of Samaria in summer of 722 BCE by Sargon II (722-705 BCE). Israel’s populations were deported (Isaiah 7:8b) and resettled in Halath (northeast of Nineveh), on the Harbor (the Khabour River), and in the highlands of Medes (northwest Iran). The kingdom was divided into various provinces like Dor, Megiddo, Gilead, and Samaria was repopulated and rebuilt as capital province.
In Judah meanwhile, Hezekiah (727-697 BCE) resisted to join the Ashdod revolt that Sargon II defeated in 712 BCE (Isaiah 19-20). With the Egyptian backing, Hezekiah rebelled against Sennacherib (705-681 BCE) who, weakened by his victory over Egypt and Judean cities could not sustain the siege of Jerusalem (Isaiah 36-37). Though the city was miraculously spared, Judah paid a heavy tribute to Assyria until the fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE.
The Socioeconomic Context.
The Syro-Palestinian states were among various trade routes from Egypt to the Persian Gulf through Damascus and Nineveh and further east. Most of the trade was about luxury goods such as precious metals, ivory, exotic woods and animals. This market controlled by Damascus might have been the cause of the expansion of Assyria, which since Tiglath-pileser III controlled the Syrian trade routes, the costal highway, including the Via Maris. Also, the vassal nations, after being looted, were bound through treaties to pay tribute to Assyria. These tributes were used to finance military campaigns and to sustain the Assyrian administrative structures.
Besides, the Assyrian policy of mass deportation in order to punish rebellions emptied various territories of their populations and then repopulated by other exiles. This practice discouraged any ideas of returning to one’s original land. In 722 BCE, Samaria was filled with a new exile population that was mixed with the Israelite remnants that constituted the ancestors of the Samaritans; this case would stir controversy upon the return from Babylon and until Jesus’ time about the land and the ancestry. The mass deportation of 722 BCE was not only a social problem, but also a theological challenge.
The first half of the 8th century was a peaceful and prosperous time for both Israel and Judah. Both Jeroboam II and Uzziah enjoyed prosperous and long reign, even though Uzziah got leper and left the regency of Judah to his son Jotham. Both kingdoms were at peace with each other and extended their respective kingdoms.
During this period, the stratification of society started by Solomon attained its summit. The upper class was a minority made of the king, the royal family and the aristocratic nobility –governors and maintainers of royal estates; and the lower class was made of artisans, laborers, herdsmen such as the prophet Amos who formed the majority. While the upper class was accumulating the wealth, the lower class was starving and extorted. The family-based farming was transformed into a production for export that benefited only to the upper class. The culture of olive oil was prominent at this time, and exchanged for luxury goods. Those who could not pay their loans were reduced to slavery. The local justice like the property rights done by the king and his officers was not without abuses (Micah 2:2). Also, the international trade was a source of substantial wealth and of competition between Israel and Phoenicia, on one hand, and Judah and Philistia, on the other, against Damascus. The western costal trade routes and the southeastern trade routes (kings’ highway) were controlled by Jeroboam II. As production increased, consumerism, individualism, greed and overconfidence grew as well. It was this situation, not different from ours today, that Amos (and Micah in Judah) criticized and denounced its moral and religious downfall that would lead to the chaos of 745-722 BCE. Also, the deuteronomistic historian, from the perspective of the fall of Samaria and deportation gives a very negative assessment of Jeroboam II (2 kings 14:23-29).
The Syro-Palestinian states were among various trade routes from Egypt to the Persian Gulf through Damascus and Nineveh and further east. Most of the trade was about luxury goods such as precious metals, ivory, exotic woods and animals. This market controlled by Damascus might have been the cause of the expansion of Assyria, which since Tiglath-pileser III controlled the Syrian trade routes, the costal highway, including the Via Maris. Also, the vassal nations, after being looted, were bound through treaties to pay tribute to Assyria. These tributes were used to finance military campaigns and to sustain the Assyrian administrative structures.
Besides, the Assyrian policy of mass deportation in order to punish rebellions emptied various territories of their populations and then repopulated by other exiles. This practice discouraged any ideas of returning to one’s original land. In 722 BCE, Samaria was filled with a new exile population that was mixed with the Israelite remnants that constituted the ancestors of the Samaritans; this case would stir controversy upon the return from Babylon and until Jesus’ time about the land and the ancestry. The mass deportation of 722 BCE was not only a social problem, but also a theological challenge.
The first half of the 8th century was a peaceful and prosperous time for both Israel and Judah. Both Jeroboam II and Uzziah enjoyed prosperous and long reign, even though Uzziah got leper and left the regency of Judah to his son Jotham. Both kingdoms were at peace with each other and extended their respective kingdoms.
During this period, the stratification of society started by Solomon attained its summit. The upper class was a minority made of the king, the royal family and the aristocratic nobility –governors and maintainers of royal estates; and the lower class was made of artisans, laborers, herdsmen such as the prophet Amos who formed the majority. While the upper class was accumulating the wealth, the lower class was starving and extorted. The family-based farming was transformed into a production for export that benefited only to the upper class. The culture of olive oil was prominent at this time, and exchanged for luxury goods. Those who could not pay their loans were reduced to slavery. The local justice like the property rights done by the king and his officers was not without abuses (Micah 2:2). Also, the international trade was a source of substantial wealth and of competition between Israel and Phoenicia, on one hand, and Judah and Philistia, on the other, against Damascus. The western costal trade routes and the southeastern trade routes (kings’ highway) were controlled by Jeroboam II. As production increased, consumerism, individualism, greed and overconfidence grew as well. It was this situation, not different from ours today, that Amos (and Micah in Judah) criticized and denounced its moral and religious downfall that would lead to the chaos of 745-722 BCE. Also, the deuteronomistic historian, from the perspective of the fall of Samaria and deportation gives a very negative assessment of Jeroboam II (2 kings 14:23-29).
The Religious Context
Under Jeroboam II and Uzziah, the temple of Jerusalem in Judah and the sanctuary of Bethel in Israel were prominent religious centers, places for sacrifices and other offerings. Some of the wealth accumulated, such as gold and ivory, furnished these sanctuaries. For the prophets, nevertheless, justice was more important than cultic sacrifices.
Under Assyrian vassalage, the Assyrian policy toward local religious cults was ambiguous (Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel. p. 83). Sometimes, the Assyrian cult was imposed and supported by vassal annual tribute. Local cults were destroyed and/or restored, like in 2 kings 17:24-28. And the Assyrian military campaigns were conducted in the name of Ashur –Assyrian god; and the treaties of vassalage, called “yoke of Ashur”, were signed in the name of Ashur, the “lord of all lands”.
For Israel, however, the fall of Samaria was not only a human disaster, but also a theological challenge. Since war between human nations involved war between their respective deities, could Yahweh be defeated by Ashur? Also, the loss of the land questioned the relevance of the covenant with Yahweh. For the prophets Amos and Hosea, the fall of Samaria was a logical consequence of the religious and social discrepancies of under Jeroboam II. Hosea, particularly, denounced the religious syncretism that the international trades brought in Israel, advocating for the purity of faith. This syncretism was also observed after 722 BCE as new people were brought in Samaria and mixed with the Israelite remnants. In Jesus’ time, the Jews reproached the Samaritans for the syncretistic religion.
In Judah, the fall of Samaria was not without religious and theological impacts. We should not forget that king Hezekiah initiated series of religious reforms that Josiah would finish after discovering the Book of the Law from the northern kingdom. He fortified the walls of Jerusalem, secured the water supply by building the tunnel of Siloam, and conducted the purification of the Temple (Isaiah 22:9-11). These reforms not only enhanced the importance of the temple, but also became the reason of the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from the siege of Sennacherib (2 kings 19:35-37). This confidence on the temple and the city would be challenged by the Babylonian invasion in 597 and 586 BCE.
The Prophet Amos and his Book
Under Jeroboam II and Uzziah, the temple of Jerusalem in Judah and the sanctuary of Bethel in Israel were prominent religious centers, places for sacrifices and other offerings. Some of the wealth accumulated, such as gold and ivory, furnished these sanctuaries. For the prophets, nevertheless, justice was more important than cultic sacrifices.
Under Assyrian vassalage, the Assyrian policy toward local religious cults was ambiguous (Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel. p. 83). Sometimes, the Assyrian cult was imposed and supported by vassal annual tribute. Local cults were destroyed and/or restored, like in 2 kings 17:24-28. And the Assyrian military campaigns were conducted in the name of Ashur –Assyrian god; and the treaties of vassalage, called “yoke of Ashur”, were signed in the name of Ashur, the “lord of all lands”.
For Israel, however, the fall of Samaria was not only a human disaster, but also a theological challenge. Since war between human nations involved war between their respective deities, could Yahweh be defeated by Ashur? Also, the loss of the land questioned the relevance of the covenant with Yahweh. For the prophets Amos and Hosea, the fall of Samaria was a logical consequence of the religious and social discrepancies of under Jeroboam II. Hosea, particularly, denounced the religious syncretism that the international trades brought in Israel, advocating for the purity of faith. This syncretism was also observed after 722 BCE as new people were brought in Samaria and mixed with the Israelite remnants. In Jesus’ time, the Jews reproached the Samaritans for the syncretistic religion.
In Judah, the fall of Samaria was not without religious and theological impacts. We should not forget that king Hezekiah initiated series of religious reforms that Josiah would finish after discovering the Book of the Law from the northern kingdom. He fortified the walls of Jerusalem, secured the water supply by building the tunnel of Siloam, and conducted the purification of the Temple (Isaiah 22:9-11). These reforms not only enhanced the importance of the temple, but also became the reason of the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from the siege of Sennacherib (2 kings 19:35-37). This confidence on the temple and the city would be challenged by the Babylonian invasion in 597 and 586 BCE.
The Prophet Amos and his Book
The Prophet
Amos is among the twelve Minor Prophets, but the first of the Classical or Writing Prophets. He was a herdsman or a shepherd from Tekoa, in Judah. He ministered at Bethel, in Israel, during the flourishing and long reign of Jeroboam II (1:1; 7:10-17) around 760s BCE. For being a Judean and not from the company of prophets, he exercised his ministry not without opposition and persecution. The priest Amaziah of Bethel accused him of conspiracy and creating an upheaval in the community. Eventually, Amos was expelled from Bethel but not before predicting the death of Amaziah, his family and the whole nation (7:10-17). Nevertheless, Amos spoke in the name of God who he encountered through a religious experience (7:15). For him, a prophet is called and sent by Yahweh (2:11). That Amos predicted the fall of Samaria when the Assyrian threat was not obvious questions about the exact dating of his ministry (John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible with CD Rom. p.287). However, there are aspects that may confirm Amos’ ministry. First, the portrait that Amos gives of Israel corresponds to the prosperous reign of Jeroboam. Secondly, Amos may have foreseen the chaos that followed the death of Jeroboam and culminated in the fall of Samaria (745-722 BCE).
Moreover, Amos has been called the prophet of social justice. He witnessed the injustices against the poor and weak and warned his generation against the destructive consequences of the moral outrage –injustice, consumerism, individualism, idolatry, overconfidence, and indifference- that the socioeconomic and political prosperity was leading to (3:1-2; 4:1; 9:7-8). The ruling class was enriching itself by exploiting the poor. He witnessed, as shepherd, the first hand experience of the simple people in Israel. For him, the just and egalitarian social order in the traditional villages was the way of living the covenant. For Amos, justice means sharing equally the resources; justice means taking care of the weak and treating with compassion the poor. “A society that neglects justice –mishpat- and righteousness –sedeqah- does not deserve to survive.” (Blenkinsopp, p.96).
Finally, Amos sees the silence of God or absence of the Word as one of the worst punishments (8:11-12). Also, Amos understands events as the milieu for encountering the Lord. The signs of times signal the coming of Yahweh, "the day of the Lord", who brings with him not only judgment, but mostly salvation (4:12-13).
Amos is among the twelve Minor Prophets, but the first of the Classical or Writing Prophets. He was a herdsman or a shepherd from Tekoa, in Judah. He ministered at Bethel, in Israel, during the flourishing and long reign of Jeroboam II (1:1; 7:10-17) around 760s BCE. For being a Judean and not from the company of prophets, he exercised his ministry not without opposition and persecution. The priest Amaziah of Bethel accused him of conspiracy and creating an upheaval in the community. Eventually, Amos was expelled from Bethel but not before predicting the death of Amaziah, his family and the whole nation (7:10-17). Nevertheless, Amos spoke in the name of God who he encountered through a religious experience (7:15). For him, a prophet is called and sent by Yahweh (2:11). That Amos predicted the fall of Samaria when the Assyrian threat was not obvious questions about the exact dating of his ministry (John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible with CD Rom. p.287). However, there are aspects that may confirm Amos’ ministry. First, the portrait that Amos gives of Israel corresponds to the prosperous reign of Jeroboam. Secondly, Amos may have foreseen the chaos that followed the death of Jeroboam and culminated in the fall of Samaria (745-722 BCE).
Moreover, Amos has been called the prophet of social justice. He witnessed the injustices against the poor and weak and warned his generation against the destructive consequences of the moral outrage –injustice, consumerism, individualism, idolatry, overconfidence, and indifference- that the socioeconomic and political prosperity was leading to (3:1-2; 4:1; 9:7-8). The ruling class was enriching itself by exploiting the poor. He witnessed, as shepherd, the first hand experience of the simple people in Israel. For him, the just and egalitarian social order in the traditional villages was the way of living the covenant. For Amos, justice means sharing equally the resources; justice means taking care of the weak and treating with compassion the poor. “A society that neglects justice –mishpat- and righteousness –sedeqah- does not deserve to survive.” (Blenkinsopp, p.96).
Finally, Amos sees the silence of God or absence of the Word as one of the worst punishments (8:11-12). Also, Amos understands events as the milieu for encountering the Lord. The signs of times signal the coming of Yahweh, "the day of the Lord", who brings with him not only judgment, but mostly salvation (4:12-13).
The Book of Amos
According to Ceresko (Anthony R. Ceresko, Introduction to the Old Testament, p.198-199), the book of Amos might have been edited in three stages. The main part was collected by Amos or his disciples from Amos' preaching in Israel around 760s BCE. After 722 BCE, a rework expanded the book to meet the context of mid-7th century BCE Judah (2:4-5). The credibility of the prophet was justified by the fall of Samaria. At this stage, we may identify some deutoronomic elements (2:4c). A final editor in the 6th century BCE, late exilic or postexilic, revised the book in order to address the Exiles or the newly returned from exile and introduced a messianic perspective (9:8c-15).
Moreover, the book of Amos may be divided into three parts. After the prologue (1:1), Amos begins by proclaiming the sins and the consequent judgments of each of the Syro-Palestinian nations (1:2-2:16). The second part contains woes against Israel (3:1-6:14). And the third part of the book reports of visions about Israel (7:1-9:8b) and an autobiographic note at the confrontation with the priest Amaziah (7:10-17). The book ends with a messianic epilogue (9:8c-15).
To the gentile nations, Amos reproaches their numerous crimes –“for three crimes of …, and for four”- against humanity. The justice of God is universal, and not limited to Israel only. Concerning Israel, the crimes are not only humanistic, but also touch the covenant with Yahweh that requires justice and righteousness. But scholars discuss if the covenant was already codified like the actual book of Deuteronomy or was still kept as a collection of traditions (Collins, p.290).
Also, Amos criticized the religious cult of Bethel and the way exodus was understood in Israel. For him, the celebration of the experience of exodus should call forth responsibility instead of overconfidence and indifference to justice. Amos does question the real significance of the election of Israel. Yahweh is the savior of Israel as well as of all nations. In that sense, Amos continues in denouncing the social injustice, and particularly the luxury and extravagant consumerism of the ruling class (4:1-3; 6:4-7). To disregard the covenant can bring only disaster, a punishment from God who is the master of history and acts in history. Therefore, according to Collins, Amos may be a “strict monotheist” who cannot resist prophesying when Yahweh speaks (Collins, p.291)
Concerning the religious cult in Bethel, Amos has nothing to say. For Amos the true religion consists in practicing justice. Religion is not about a sophisticated liturgy, nor about expensive offerings. Amos rejects liturgical music as well as animal sacrifices. “The service of God is about justice.” (Collins, p.293) Amos, hence, does not ask for a liturgical renewal, but a moral renewal. The commitment to God has to be practiced not in the sanctuary, but rather in the marketplace, where the rich cheat and exploit the poor.
Therefore, Amos sees the advent of the Lord as a day of judgment. His visions culminate in the total destruction of Israel (9:1-8b). The kingdom will be destroyed, along with its population. While, the visions are pronounced against the rich, the poor also will perish as well. Even the sanctuary of Bethel cannot not stand, since its cult is not worthy. For the postexilic editor, however, the last word of God is hope for his people. Observing the return from the Babylonian exile, the prophet projects a messianic ending and the restoration of Davidic kingship.
Concluding Remarks
According to Ceresko (Anthony R. Ceresko, Introduction to the Old Testament, p.198-199), the book of Amos might have been edited in three stages. The main part was collected by Amos or his disciples from Amos' preaching in Israel around 760s BCE. After 722 BCE, a rework expanded the book to meet the context of mid-7th century BCE Judah (2:4-5). The credibility of the prophet was justified by the fall of Samaria. At this stage, we may identify some deutoronomic elements (2:4c). A final editor in the 6th century BCE, late exilic or postexilic, revised the book in order to address the Exiles or the newly returned from exile and introduced a messianic perspective (9:8c-15).
Moreover, the book of Amos may be divided into three parts. After the prologue (1:1), Amos begins by proclaiming the sins and the consequent judgments of each of the Syro-Palestinian nations (1:2-2:16). The second part contains woes against Israel (3:1-6:14). And the third part of the book reports of visions about Israel (7:1-9:8b) and an autobiographic note at the confrontation with the priest Amaziah (7:10-17). The book ends with a messianic epilogue (9:8c-15).
To the gentile nations, Amos reproaches their numerous crimes –“for three crimes of …, and for four”- against humanity. The justice of God is universal, and not limited to Israel only. Concerning Israel, the crimes are not only humanistic, but also touch the covenant with Yahweh that requires justice and righteousness. But scholars discuss if the covenant was already codified like the actual book of Deuteronomy or was still kept as a collection of traditions (Collins, p.290).
Also, Amos criticized the religious cult of Bethel and the way exodus was understood in Israel. For him, the celebration of the experience of exodus should call forth responsibility instead of overconfidence and indifference to justice. Amos does question the real significance of the election of Israel. Yahweh is the savior of Israel as well as of all nations. In that sense, Amos continues in denouncing the social injustice, and particularly the luxury and extravagant consumerism of the ruling class (4:1-3; 6:4-7). To disregard the covenant can bring only disaster, a punishment from God who is the master of history and acts in history. Therefore, according to Collins, Amos may be a “strict monotheist” who cannot resist prophesying when Yahweh speaks (Collins, p.291)
Concerning the religious cult in Bethel, Amos has nothing to say. For Amos the true religion consists in practicing justice. Religion is not about a sophisticated liturgy, nor about expensive offerings. Amos rejects liturgical music as well as animal sacrifices. “The service of God is about justice.” (Collins, p.293) Amos, hence, does not ask for a liturgical renewal, but a moral renewal. The commitment to God has to be practiced not in the sanctuary, but rather in the marketplace, where the rich cheat and exploit the poor.
Therefore, Amos sees the advent of the Lord as a day of judgment. His visions culminate in the total destruction of Israel (9:1-8b). The kingdom will be destroyed, along with its population. While, the visions are pronounced against the rich, the poor also will perish as well. Even the sanctuary of Bethel cannot not stand, since its cult is not worthy. For the postexilic editor, however, the last word of God is hope for his people. Observing the return from the Babylonian exile, the prophet projects a messianic ending and the restoration of Davidic kingship.
Concluding Remarks
The aim of this paper was to look at the context 8th century BCE prophecy and to discuss the book of Amos within that context. The 8th century BCE was characterized by the rise and apogee of the Assyrian imperialistic power over the Syro-Palestinian nations, including Israel and Judah. This led, along with internal chaos, to the fall of Samaria and the deportation of Israel’s population in 722 BCE. Also, by the end of the century, the surviving kingdom of Judah was reduced to vassalage. Economically, the first half of the century profited to Israel under Jeroboam II and Judah under Uzziah, as both kingdoms prosper from international trades. And religiously, the cult in both Bethel in Israel and Jerusalem in Judah continued, but not without the risk of syncretism from Assyrian religion, and the critiques of prophets. The fall of Samaria was a theological challenge viewed, however, as the realization of prophetic oracles.
It is in this context that prophets like Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, and especially Amos ministered. Amos, after his encounter with God, prophesied in Israel against the ruling and oppressing upper class during the reign of Jeroboam. He criticized religious cultic, luxury, injustice and overconfidence of Israel. For Amos, social justice is the real cult that pleases God. Amos preached the destruction of Israel and neighboring nations as judgment of God. But his book ends on a note of messianic hope added by later editors.
The book of Amos is still relevant today. Consumerism, individualism, injustices, and indifference to the poor are behaviors observed even today. In a globalized world, wealth is in the hands of a few while the majority starve to death. The rich become richer and richer, while the poor become poorer and poorer. Amos reminds us that social justice and the equitable distribution of world’s resources are what we are called to do. The legacy of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Dorothy Day, and John Paul II, in the footsteps of Amos reminds us that religion without justice and righteousness is empty. The message of Amos is a call to praxis, in the sense of liberation theology.
It is in this context that prophets like Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, and especially Amos ministered. Amos, after his encounter with God, prophesied in Israel against the ruling and oppressing upper class during the reign of Jeroboam. He criticized religious cultic, luxury, injustice and overconfidence of Israel. For Amos, social justice is the real cult that pleases God. Amos preached the destruction of Israel and neighboring nations as judgment of God. But his book ends on a note of messianic hope added by later editors.
The book of Amos is still relevant today. Consumerism, individualism, injustices, and indifference to the poor are behaviors observed even today. In a globalized world, wealth is in the hands of a few while the majority starve to death. The rich become richer and richer, while the poor become poorer and poorer. Amos reminds us that social justice and the equitable distribution of world’s resources are what we are called to do. The legacy of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Dorothy Day, and John Paul II, in the footsteps of Amos reminds us that religion without justice and righteousness is empty. The message of Amos is a call to praxis, in the sense of liberation theology.
Bibliography
- The Catholic Study Bible- New American Bible, 1990
- Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic Period. (Philadelphia, PA. The Westminster Press, 1983. pp 80-137)
- Ceresko, Anthony R. Introduction to the Old Testament. A Liberation Perspective. Revised and updated. (New York. Orbis Books, 2002. pp 181-208)
- Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible with CD-ROM. (Minneapolis. Fortress Press, 2004. pp. 283-324)
- Shanks, Hershel. Ed. Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple. revised and expanded. (Washington, DC. The Biblical Archeology Society, 1999. pp.155-188.)
Notes
[1] Shanks, p.174
No comments:
Post a Comment