The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hosea, Amos, Micah by M. Daniel Carroll R. & Thomas McComiskey

Author:M. Daniel Carroll R. & Thomas McComiskey [Carroll R., M. Daniel & McComiskey, Thomas]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: REL006060 Religion / Biblical Commentary / Old Testament
Publisher: HarperCollins Christian Publishing

I. SUPERSCRIPTION (1:1)

1The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa—what he saw concerning Israel two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash was king of Israel.

COMMENTARY

1 Most prophetic books (Isa 1:1; Jer 1:1; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Na 1:1) as well as some wisdom books (Pr 1:1; Ecc 1:1; SS 1:1) begin with a superscription that serves a similar function to a title page on a modern book. The superscription was likely added by an editor or later tradent; in Amos, it identifies the genre, the author, his occupation, and the time period in which he ministered.

The prophecy is introduced by the formula “the words of Amos.” Frequently this expression is used for collections of sayings, as in the case of the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer 1:1), various collections of proverbs (Pr 30:1; 31:1), and Ecclesiastes (Ecc 1:1). Here it connotes the collection of prophetic oracles spoken by Amos during his northern ministry.

Nōqēd, used here, is not the usual word for “shepherd.” In 2 Kings 3:4, its use of Mesha, king of Moab, implies that he was a breeder and supplier of sheep. In Amos 7:14 the word bôqēr describes Amos’s occupation. This word occurs only once in the OT, so that its precise meaning is difficult to determine. While bôqēr may have been a general term that denoted a herdsman of any type, its linguistic connection with bāqār (“cattle”) suggests the possibility that Amos kept cattle as well as sheep. The word ṣō ʾn (7:15) connotes smaller animals, such as sheep and goats; thus it is likely that Amos was a breeder of various types of animals besides sheep.

That Amos describes himself in 7:15 as “tending the flock” (mē ʾaḥarê haṣṣō ʾn) shows that he personally cared for the herds rather than being a wealthy animal breeder who left the care of the flocks to others. The use of nōqēd for the king of Moab does not demand the conclusion that Amos was a wealthy and powerful person. It may simply show that Amos was a supplier of small animals. In conclusion, Amos was probably neither a wealthy cattleman nor a poor shepherd, but a mid-level manager (P. C. Craigie, “Amos the nōqēd in Light of Ugaritic,” SR 2 [1982]: 29–32).

Amos’s character and ideals have been shaped by the wilderness. There is no evidence that he was part of a prophetic movement in Judah; he denied that possibility by affirming that he was “neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son” (7:14). Undoubtedly his simple life in the Judean wilderness lead him to see more clearly the evils of city life that are less apparent to the affluent who live within the city walls, confined by their heartless greed.

The word “saw” (ḥāzâ) is in a relative clause logically dependent on “the words of Amos.” Ḥāzâ is not the common word for “see.” Although it is used in poetic literature as a synonym for “see,” ḥāzâ has a more distinctive meaning and includes the idea of mental apprehension as well as visual observation.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.