x.x.xii. 9 (8): "And the camp which has been left is for [Pg 344] the escaped." There does not thus remain a single pa.s.sage in which the signification "deliverance" is even the probable one. The pa.s.sages in Jeremiah, where ???? ????? occur together (xlii. 17, xliv. 14; Lam. ii.
2), show that ????? here is not different from ?????? in the subsequent clause of the verse.--The expression ??? ??? ???? never is used of a merely outward invocation, but always of such as is the external expression of the faith of the heart; compare the remarks on Zech. xiv.
9. Even on account of this stated condition, it is not possible to think of the deliverance of the promiscuous mult.i.tude of Israel, in contrast with that of the Gentiles; for the condition is one which is purely internal, and it affords an important hint for the right understanding of what follows. The ?? by which it is connected remains inexplicable, if Mount Zion and Jerusalem be considered as a place of safety and deliverance for all who are there externally. The same thing is evident from ?????. The sense is not by any means that all the inhabitants of Zion and Jerusalem shall be delivered; but that there shall be some who have escaped--viz., those who call on the name of the Lord; while those who do not, shall be consumed by the divine judgment.
The second condition stated by the prophet--that of being called by the Lord--is in like manner internal. The words ?????? ??????? ????? have so evident a reference to ?????????????? ??????? ??????, that we cannot at all suppose, as _Credner_ does, that they refer to other subjects. On the contrary, they who _call on_ the Lord, are also they whom _He calls_ from the general calamity into His protecting presence; and the prophet has endeavoured, by the choice of the words, to bring out into view the close connection of these two parties. They who call on the Lord, and they whom the Lord calls (_Maurer"s_ explanation: "And among those who have escaped is every one who calls on the Lord" [compare Ps. xiv. 4], gives a very feeble tautology), are the very same upon whom, according to vers, 1 and 2, the fulness of the Spirit has been poured out.--The words, "As the Lord has said," indicate, that the faithful ones may safely take comfort from this promise; inasmuch as it is not the word of men, but of G.o.d. We may see, from such parallel pa.s.sages as Is. i.
20, xiv. 5, lviii. 14, how little reason we have for thinking that the prophet here refers to some other prophecy. That the prophet, and not the Lord Himself, is speaking in this verse, [Pg 345] is evident from the words: "Who calls on the name _of the Lord_." It was, therefore, very suitable to show, that it was by Immediate, divine commission that the prophet had given utterance to the consolatory promise, that the people of G.o.d would escape in these great and heavy judgments which were to come upon the world. That it is very natural for believers to fear that the punishments which threaten the world should fall upon them also who are living _in_ the world, is shown by Rev. vii., the aim of which is, throughout, to allay the anxious fear which might arise in believers when considering the judgments which threaten the world. The relation of the whole verse to what precedes and follows is this:--In vers. 3 and 4, the prophet had stated the signs and forerunners of the great and fearful day of the Lord. Now he points to the only, and the absolutely sure means of standing on that day. Then, in chap. iv., which is connected by ??, he describes the judgment itself.
If, now, we endeavour to discover the historical reference of vers.
3-5, we are met by a great variety of opinions. It is referred to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, by _Grotius_, _Cramer_, _Turrettine_ (_de Scrip, s. interpret._ p. 331); among the Socinians, in the _Raccovian Catechism_, p. 22, and by _Oeder_; and among the Arminians, by _Episcopius_ in the _Inst.i.t. Theol._ p. 198. Others (as _Jerome_) think of the resurrection of the Lord; others (as _Luther_) of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; others (as _Munster_, _Capell_, _Lightfoot_, _Dresde_, l.c. p. 22) of the destruction by the Romans. It is referred to the judgment upon the enemies of the Covenant-people soon after the return from the Babylonish captivity, by _Ephraem Syrus_; to the impending overthrow of Gog, at the time of the Messiah, by the Jewish interpreters; to the general judgment, by _Tertullian_, _Theodoret_, and _Crusius_, In _Theol. Prophet._ i. p. 621; and to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the general judgment at the same time, by _Chrysostom_ and others.
The great variety of these references has arisen solely from the circ.u.mstance, that the prophecy has not been reduced to its fundamental idea. This fundamental idea is:--The manifestation of G.o.d"s punitive justice upon all which is hostile to His kingdom, which runs parallel with the manifestation of His grace towards the subjects of His kingdom. This idea appears here, in all its generality, without any temporal limitation [Pg 346] whatsoever. Not one of these interpretations, therefore, can be absolutely right. They differ only in this, that some of them are altogether false, inasmuch as they a.s.sume a reference to events which do not at all fall under the fundamental idea; while others are only limited and partial views of the truth.
To the first of these cla.s.ses belong evidently the references to the resurrection, and to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. It is only by detaching these verses from the following chapter that such a view could arise. These events stand in no relation whatsoever to the animating thought of the pa.s.sage. There is a certain relation to that thought in the reference to the destruction by the Chaldeans, in so far as this was really a manifestation of divine punitive justice. But the reference to this event would be admissible here, only if the prophet were describing the manifestation of divine punitive justice _in general_. But such is not the case. The comparison of chap. i. and ii.
shows that the subject of the prophecy is rather the manifestation of divine justice in reference to those who are enemies to the kingdom of G.o.d. The defenders of such a view have altogether misunderstood the structure of the prophecy of Joel; for, otherwise, they would have seen that that event belongs to the threatening of judgment in chap. i. and ii., where the judgment upon the house of G.o.d is described; while, here, there is a description of the judgment upon those who are without.
The same argument seems, at first sight, to apply also to the destruction by the Romans. But on a closer examination, there appears to be a difference betwixt these two events, and one which brings the latter far more within the scope of the prophecy. The destruction by the Romans was much more intimately connected with a total apostasy and rejection, than was that by the Chaldeans. Even before the former destruction, and immediately after the death of Christ, the former Covenant-people had sunk down to the rank of the Gentiles. They were no more apostate children, who were, by means of punishment, to be brought to reformation, but enemies, who were judged on account of their hostile disposition towards the kingdom of G.o.d. Malachi, in chap. iii.
23 (iv. 5), shows that such a time would come when that, which they imagined to be intended only for the heathen by descent, should be realized upon Israel after the flesh. The verbal repet.i.tion of the words, "Before there [Pg 347] cometh the great and dreadful day of the Lord," and their application to the judgment upon Israel, can be accounted for only by his intention to oppose the prevailing carnal interpretation of the prophecy under consideration.
It will now be seen also, what the relation is which the phenomena at the death of Christ, the darkening of the sun, the quaking of the earth, the rending of the rocks (compare Matt. xxvii. 45, 51; Luke xxiii. 44), occupy to the pa.s.sage before us. They were like the ??????
here, actual declarations of the divine wrath, and forerunners of the approaching judgment; and they were recognised as such by the guilty, to whom this symbolical language was interpreted by their consciences; compare Luke xxiii. 48: ?a? p??te? ?? s?pa?a?e??e??? ?????; ?p? t??
?e???a? ta?t??, ?e?????te? t? ?e??e?a, t?pt??te? ?a?t?? t? st???, ?p?st?ef??.
But we must not limit ourselves to the obduracy of the Covenant-people.
This we are taught, not only by the relation of chap. i. and ii. to iv.
2, but, with especial distinctness, by the renewal of this threatening in Rev. xiv. 14-20, where the image of the vintage and winepress, in particular, is borrowed from Joel; see iv. 12, 13. The objects of judgment are there the heathen nations on account of their hostility to the people of G.o.d, who, by Christ, and by the outpouring of the Spirit procured by Him, have fully attained to that dignity. Nor is the judgment there an isolated one. On the contrary, all which, in history, is realized in an entire series of judicial acts, to be at last consummated in the final judgment, is there comprehended in one great harvest--in one great vintage.
We have still to make a few remarks upon the quotation in Acts ii. 16 ff. Nothing but narrow-mindedness and prejudice could deny that Peter found, in the miracle of Pentecost, an actual fulfilment of the promise in vers. 1 and 2. This becomes probable, not only from the circ.u.mstance, that the reference of this prophecy to the Messianic time was the prevailing one among the Jews (compare the pa.s.sages in _Schottgen_, S. 413), but also from the translation of ??????? by ??
ta?? ?s??ta?? ???a??, by which, in the New Testament, the Messianic time is always designated. To this must also be added the express declaration in ver. 39, that the promise was unto the generation then present. How could Peter have uttered such a declaration, [Pg 348] if his view had been that the promise had found its fulfilment in a time long gone past? At the same time, it is equally certain, that Peter was so far from considering all the riches of the promise to be completely exhausted by that Pentecostal miracle, that he rather considered it to be only a beginning of the fulfilment,--a beginning, indeed, which implies the consummation, as the germ contains the tree. This is quite obvious from ver. 38: eta???sate ?a? apt?s??t? ??ast?s ???.... ?a?
???es?e t?? d??e?? t?? ????? p?e?at??. How could Peter, referring to the prophecy, promise the gift of the Holy Spirit, promised in the prophecy to those who should be converted, if the prophecy was already completely fulfilled? But it is still more apparent from ver. 39: ???
??? ?st?? ? ?pa??e??a ?a? t??? t?????? ???, ?a? p?s? t??? e?? a????, ?s??? ?? p??s?a??s?ta? ?????? ? Te?? ???. The question is, who are to be understood by those e?? a????? No one could have doubted that the Gentiles are thereby to be understood, unless two things altogether heterogeneous had been confounded, viz., the uncertainty of Peter concerning the _fact_ of the reception of the Gentiles into the kingdom of G.o.d, and his uncertainty concerning the _mode_ of their reception.
Considering the condition of the Old Testament prophecy, the latter is easily accounted for; but the former cannot. To state only one from among the ma.s.s of arguments which prove that Peter could not be ignorant of the _fact_, we observe that the very manner in which, in Acts iii. 25, he quotes the promise given to Abraham, that by his seed the nations should be blessed, proves that he regarded the Gentiles as partakers of the kingdom of Christ. This is rendered still more incontrovertible by the p??t?? in ver. 26. To understand, by e??
a????, foreign Jews, is inadmissible, for the single reason that these were present in great numbers, and hence, were included in the term ???. Now Peter, throughout, addresses all those who were present. How then could he have here confined himself, all at once, to a portion of these I There is, moreover, a plain allusion to the close of Joel iii.
5, which the LXX. translate ??? ?????? p??s?????ta?. This allusion contains, at the same time, a proof of the concurrent reference to the Gentiles, which is not in express words contained in the prophecy, provided we do not put an arbitrary interpretation upon ???. Attention is thereby directed [Pg 349] to the fact, that, In that pa.s.sage, salvation, which requires, as its condition, a partic.i.p.ation in the outpouring of the Spirit, does not depend upon any human cause, but solely upon the call of G.o.d--upon His free grace. In a manner entirely similar, does St Paul, in Rom. x. 12, 13, prove, from the beginning of Joel iii. 5, the partic.i.p.ation of the Gentiles in the Messianic kingdom: ?? ??? ?st? d?ast??? ???da??? te ?a? ???????? ? ??? a?t??
?????? p??t??, p???t?? e?? p??ta? t??? ?p??a???????? a?t??. ??? ??? ??
?? ?p??a??s?ta? t? ???a ??????, s???seta?. If the calling on G.o.d were the condition of salvation, access to it was as free to the Gentiles as to the Jews. But if the prophecy has a distinct reference to the still unconverted Jews, their children and the Gentiles, it is then evident, that, according to the view of the Apostle, it did not terminate in that one instance of Its fulfilment, but that, on the contrary, it extends just as far as the thing promised--as the outpouring itself of the Holy Spirit. This clearly appears, also, from the allusions to the pa.s.sage under consideration. In the accounts of later outpourings of the Spirit; compare, _e.g._, Acts x. 45, xi. 15, xv. 8. How, then, was it even possible that Peter should have limited to the few who had already, at that time, received the Spirit, a prophecy, in which the idea of generality is, intentionally, made so prominent? But, even if the universal character of the prophecy had been less distinct, Peter would certainly not have thought of confining it in such a manner. Such a gross and superficial view of the prophecies was far from Peter, as well as from the other Apostles.
Another question remains to be answered. For what purpose does the Apostle quote verses 3-5 also, inasmuch as, apparently, verses 1 and 2 alone properly served his purpose; and what sense did he put upon them?
The answer Is given In ver. 40: ?t????? te ?????? p?e??s? d?ea?t??et?, ?a? pa?e???e?, ?????? S???te ?p? t?? ?e?e?? t?? s?????? ta?t??. Even in the few words In which Luke communicates to us the brief summary of what Peter spoke In this respect, a reference to the pa.s.sage under consideration has been preserved to us. Peter made use of the threatening which was, in the first Instance, to be fulfilled upon the dark refuse of the Covenant-people, In order to Induce them, by terror, to seek a partic.i.p.ation in the promise which alone could deliver them [Pg 350] from the threatened judgment. That he succeeded in this, is shown by the words, ????et? d? p?s? f???, in ver. 43. Several interpreters have, by ver. 22, been led into a total misconception of the sense in which Peter quotes vers. 3-5. It is true, certainly, that the words t??as? ?a? s?e???? are not used without reference to the pa.s.sage in Joel. Peter directs attention to the circ.u.mstance, that they who, from their hardness of heart, do not acknowledge the t??ata and s?e?a with which G.o.d accompanied the manifestation of His grace, shall be visited by t??ata and s?e?a of a totally different nature, from the fearful impression of which they shall not be able to escape.
But let us now in addition consider some of the particulars. In substance, the quotation by Peter agrees with the LXX.; but deviations occur on particular points. At the very beginning, the LXX., adhering more closely to the Hebrew text, have: ?a? ?sta? et? ta?ta; whereas Peter says: ?a? ?sta? ?? ta?? ?s??ta?? ???a??. The reason of this deviation is, that the Apostle intends to determine, by this deviation, the expression, which in itself is wider and more indefinite, in such a manner that the period to which the prophecy specially refers, and hence also its application to the case in question, should be rendered more obvious. In a case entirely similar, Jeremiah, in chap. xlix. 6, employs the wider term ???????, while in xlviii. 47 he makes use of the more definite ?????? ?????. By the latter term, _Kimchi_ also explains the ??????? in the pa.s.sage before us; while _Jarchi_ (compare _Schottgen_, S. 210) explains it by the equivalent term ????? ???. The words ???e? ? Te?? are wanting in the LXX., as well as in the original Hebrew text. They have been taken from ver. 5, and, contrasted with t?
e??????? d?? t?? p??f?t?? ????, they direct attention to the divine source of prophecy, and hence to the necessity of its fulfilment. The two members, ?a? ?? p?es?te??? ??? ???p??a ???p??as??s??ta?, ?a? ??
?ea??s??? ??? ???se?? ????ta?, Peter has reversed; probably in order to place the young men together with the sons and daughters, and to a.s.sign the place of honour to the old men. In the d?????? ?? and d???a? ??, Peter follows the LXX., and that in a sense which only expressly makes prominent a point really contained in the prophecy, whether such was intended by the translators, or not; for the circ.u.mstance that the servants of men were, at the same [Pg 351]time, servants of G.o.d, formed the ground of their partic.i.p.ation in the promise. The same contrast is found, _e.g._, in 1 Cor. vii. 22, 23: ?
??? ?? ????? ????e?? d????? ?pe?e??e??? ?????? ?st??? ????? ?a? ?
??e??e??? ????e??, d????? ?st? ???st??. ???? ?????s??te? ? ???es?e d????? ?????p??; compare Gal. iii. 28; Philem. 10. Hence it is equivalent to: Upon servants and handmaids of men who are, at the same time, my servants and handmaids, and, therefore, in spiritual things of equal rank with those who are free. To give prominence to this perfect equality, is also the design of the additional clause: ?a?
p??f?te?s??s?, subjoined after ???e? ?p? t?? p?e?at?? ??. The circ.u.mstance that Peter thought it necessary to add this clause, which, as we have proved, quite harmonizes with the design of the prophet, seems to prove that, even at his time, interpretations were current, in which an attempt was made to diminish, or altogether to take away, in the case of servants and handmaids, their partic.i.p.ation in those blessings;--interpretations similar to those of _Abarbanel_, and even of _Grotius_, who thus paraphrases the verse: "Even to those who seem to be lowest, I will certainly impart, although not prophesying and dreaming dreams, yet certain extraordinary and heavenly motions." The antiquity of this false interpretation is attested by _Jerome_ also, who probably was, in this respect, altogether dependent upon his Jewish teachers. He interprets, indeed, the servants and handmaids spiritually, and of such as have not the spirit of freedom he says: "They shall neither have prophecies, nor dreams nor visions, but, satisfied with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, they shall possess only the grace of faith and salvation."--In ver. 3, Peter adds ??? to ?? t? ???a??, and ??t? to ?p? t?? ???, in order to make the contrast more obvious and striking. All the deviations from the LXX., and the original text, are thus of the same kind, and intended to bring out more distinctly what is implied in the pa.s.sage itself. Not one of them need to be accounted for by the circ.u.mstance, that the Apostle quoted from memory.
Footnote 1: He says: "The sense in which the universality must be understood is clearly indicated by what follows. For, it is first said, in general, "All flesh," and afterwards, a specification is added, by which the prophet intimates, that age or s.e.x will not const.i.tute any difference, but that G.o.d will bring them all, without any distinction, into the communion of His grace."
Footnote 2: The two parallel members prove, in opposition to _Redslob_ and others, that the verb ??? here, as everywhere else, has reference to an ecstatic condition, to the speaking in the Spirit, although this is by no means limited to a revelation of the future. The closeness of the connection between prophesying, dreaming dreams, and seeing visions, is evident from Num. xii. 6, where visions and dreams appear as the two princ.i.p.al forms of revelation to the ????.
[Pg 352]
THE PROPHET AMOS.
GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
It will not be necessary to extend our preliminary remarks on the prophet Amos, since on the main point--viz., the circ.u.mstances under which he appeared as a prophet--the introduction to the prophecies of Hosea may be regarded as having been written for those of Amos also.
For, according to the inscription, they belong to the same period at which Hosea"s prophetic ministry began, viz., the latter part of the reign of Jeroboam II., and after Uzziah had ascended the throne in Judah.
The circ.u.mstances of the prophet we learn, generally, from the words in chap. i. 1: "Who was among the herdmen of Tekoah." If there existed no other statement than this, there might be truth in the remark made by many interpreters, that we cannot, from his having been a herdman, infer that he was poor and low. It is shown, however, by a statement in chap. vii. 14, that, by the "herdman," we are not to understand one who was also possessed of flocks, or, like David, the son of such, but a poor servant herdman. For, in that pa.s.sage, the prophet replies to the command of the priest Amaziah to get himself out of the country, to which he did not belong, and to return to his native land: "I am no prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I am a herdman; and _such an one as plucketh sycamores_. And the Lord took me from behind the flock, and the Lord said unto me. Go prophesy unto My people Israel." The fruit of the sycamores, called ?t??f?? and ?a??st?a??? by _Dioscorides_, served as food for only the poorest and meanest. _Bochart_ (_Hieroz._ t. i. p.
407 [385] _Rosenmuller_) remarks: "It is the same as if he had said, that he was a man of the humblest condition, and born in poor circ.u.mstances, so that he scarcely maintained his life by scanty and frugal fare; that he had never thought of obtaining the prophetical office in Israel, until a higher power, viz., divine inspiration, impelled him to undertake it."[1] But this pa.s.sage merits our attention in another [Pg 353] point of view. In what sense is it that Amos here denies that he is a prophet? It is evidently in a very special sense that he does so. He obviously does not mean thereby to deny that he possessed the gift of prophecy, or held the prophetical office; for, otherwise, he would himself have furnished weapons to his enemy, to whom he wishes to prove his right. The following remarks will be found to contain the true answer.
It cannot be proved in any way, that the schools of the prophets, established by Samuel at a time when the circ.u.mstances of Judah and Israel were altogether similar, were continued in the kingdom of Judah.
Every prophet there stands in an isolated position. The entire prophetic order and inst.i.tute bears rather a sporadic character. But in the kingdom of Israel, where the prophetic order occupied a position altogether different from that which it held in the kingdom of Judah, inasmuch as, after the expulsion of the tribe of Levi, they had to watch over all the interests of religion, the schools of the prophets had a very important mission a.s.signed to them. We must not by any means imagine that their const.i.tution was such, that after a few years"
training, the sons of the prophets attained to perfect independence.
The greater number of them remained during all their lifetime in the position of sons. The schools of the prophets were a kind of monasteries. Even those who, in consequence of their peculiar circ.u.mstances, no longer remained there, but were scattered throughout the country, continued always under their authority. One needs only to read attentively the histories of Elijah and of Elisha, which afford us the fullest information regarding these inst.i.tutions, to be speedily convinced of the soundness of the view which we have here presented. On the subject of the organization of the schools of the prophets in the kingdom of Israel, compare _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, i. p. 185. f.
[Pg 354]
But how can Amos adduce it as a proof of his divine mission, that he is neither a prophet, nor, in the sense explained, a prophet"s son, _i.e._, that he was neither a superior nor an inferior member of the prophetic order? The answer is,--It was the result of that organization of the prophetic order, that the relation to the Lord was one which was more or less mediate. To those who would not acknowledge the immediate divine influence, some ground was thereby afforded for doing so. Their training, their principles, the form of their prophecies, all admitted of a natural explanation. It is true that the _spirit_ which animated them baffled any such attempt; but that spirit was not so easily perceived. In the case of any one, then, who appeared as a prophet, without standing in that connection, and yet in the full possession of all prophetic gifts,--in demonstration of the spirit and of power, a natural explanation was far more difficult; especially if, like Amos, he was, by his outward situation, cut off from all human resources for education. But was Amos, for that reason, an uneducated man? This is a question which one may answer either in the affirmative or negative, according to what he understands by education. So much is certain, that he was in possession of the essential part of a true Israelitish education--viz., the knowledge of the law. The most intimate acquaintance with the Pentateuch everywhere manifests itself; compare in proof of this the _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, i. p. 136 ff. There are too many instances, down to most recent times, of living piety breaking, in this respect, through almost impenetrable barriers, to allow us to consider this as a strange thing, and to make it necessary for us to excogitate the various ways and means by which Amos may have received this education. It is only on the lower ground of the mere forms of language, that the rank of Amos not unfrequently appears. In all the higher relations he shows himself a type of the Apostles, who, although they were uneducated fishermen of Galilee, exhibit the most distinguishing proofs of true education.
Amos belonged to that circle of prophets who received a commission to prophesy the ruin which was impending over the Covenant-people, before any human probability existed for it. _Baur_, on Amos, S. 60, is of opinion that "the definiteness with which he prophesies the destruction of the kingdom of [Pg 355] Jeroboam, although its power was at that time still flourishing, leads us to expect that he must have had distinct indications of its speedy decay." In a certain sense we may a.s.sent to this opinion. The prophet himself continually points to such indications. These indications are the sins of the people. But if _Baur_ endeavours to put political indications in the stead of these moral ones; if he be of opinion that the a.s.syrians must, at that time, have stood in a threatening att.i.tude in the background, we must give to his opinion a decided opposition. We can, in such an a.s.sertion, see only an effect of that naturalistic mode of viewing things, which would limit the horizon of the prophets to that of their own times.[2] Not the slightest allusion to the a.s.syrians occurs. The supposition that Calneh or Ktesiphon, in chap. vi. 2, appears as having already fallen (through the a.s.syrians), rests upon an incorrect interpretation, just as does the a.s.sertion that Hamath, in the same pa.s.sage, is supposed to be conquered; concerning the latter point, compare _Thenius_ on 2 Kings xiv. 28. In the announcement of the carrying away into captivity beyond Damascus, made in chap. v. 27, there appears nothing more than the knowledge, that the catastrophe will not be brought about by that heathen power which had hitherto brought ruin upon the kingdom of Israel But, everywhere, we may see that the prophet--whom we have no reason to think an especially ingenious politician--appeared at a time when no one expected any danger. Amos prophesied at a time when the morning-dawn had risen upon Israel, iv. 13, v. 8; "in the beginning of the shooting up of the gra.s.s, and behold the gra.s.s was standing, after the King (Jehovah) had caused to be mown," vii. 1; at a time when the prosperity of the kingdom of the ten tribes was again budding forth. In chap. viii. 9, the Lord threatens that He will cause the sun to go down at noon, and bring darkness over the land in the day of _light_. In chap. vi. 4-6, the prevailing careless luxury and [Pg 356] joy are graphically described. Chap. v. 18 implies that the people mocked at the threatening of the coming of the day of the Lord, the coming of which could, therefore, not have been indicated by any human probability. In chap. vi. 1, the prophet gives utterance to an exclamation of woe over them that are secure in Zion, and that trust in the mountain of Samaria. In chap. vi. 13, he opposes the delusion of those "who rejoice in a thing of nought, who say, Have we not taken to us horns by our own strength?" The people in the kingdom of the ten tribes must accordingly have imagined that they were living in the golden age of the fulfilment of Deut. x.x.x. 17, and must not have thought for a moment that the axe was already laid to the root of the tree.
But we are not at liberty to seek the fulfilment of the prophecy of Amos, only in the visitation by the a.s.syrians. That which happens to the people of the ten tribes is, to the prophet, only a part of a general visitation, which comes, not only upon all the neighbouring nations, but upon Judah also, and which brings utter ruin upon the latter, chap. ii. 4, 5, destroying the temple at Jerusalem, and driving the house of David from the throne, ix. 1, 11. According to prophecy and history, however, this catastrophe came upon Judah, not by a.s.shur, but, in the first instance, by Babylon.
The prophecy possesses a comprehensive character, such as we should be led to expect from the close connection of Amos with Joel. It comprehends everything which Judah and Israel, along with the neighbouring people, had to suffer from the rising heathen powers; compare vi. 14, v. 24, according to which, judgment shall roll down as waters, and righteousness as a _continual_ stream.[3]
In the case of Amos, also, interpreters have been at considerable pains in fixing the time and the occasion of the single portions, but with as little success as in the cases of Hosea and Micah. The very inscription proves that we have before us a whole, composed at one time, and containing the substance of [Pg 357] what the prophet had uttered previously, and in a detached form. According to this inscription, the book was composed only two years after the prophet"s personal ministry in the kingdom of Israel. But if there were such an interval betwixt the oral preaching of the prophet and its having been committed to writing, it is, _a priori_, not likely that the latter should have followed the former, step by step.
The words, "Two years before the earthquake," cannot be regarded as a chronological date, intended to fix more definitely the exact time within the more extended period previously stated, viz., "the days of Uzziah and Jeroboam." For such a purpose they are ill suited, inasmuch as the time of the earthquake is not fixed; and, moreover, any such more definite determination would have been without either significance or interest. This only was of importance, that the word of the Lord should have been uttered in the days of Jeroboam, and that the prophecy of the destruction should have been delivered at a time when the Israelites enjoyed an amount of prosperity, such as they had not known for a long time. It can scarcely be doubted that the earthquake under Uzziah, the fearfulness of which is testified by Zech. xiv. 5, comes under consideration only as the reason for the composition of the book,--for committing to writing what had formerly been delivered orally. The earthquake denotes, in the symbolical language of Scripture, great revolutions, by which the form of the earth is changed, and that which is uppermost, overturned; compare my remarks on Rev. vi. 12. To point to such an earthquake had been the fundamental thought of Amos" oral predictions. By the natural earthquake, he was induced to commit them to writing, that they might go side by side with the symbol, and serve as its interpreter.
There is a plan in the arrangement of the book, which indicates that the book is not a collection of separate discourses, but that it bears an independent character. It is distinctly divided into two parts,--the first, made up of naked prophecies, from chap. i. to chap. vi.; the second, of such prophecies as are connected with a symbol, which is always very simple, and very briefly described,--from chap. vii. to chap. ix.
In the first part, the prophet begins with the announcement of the wrath of the Lord, ver. 2. He then reviews, in their [Pg 358] order, those kingdoms upon which it shall be poured out, viz., Damascus, Philistia, Tyrus, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Judah: until at last the storm reaches to Israel, and, according to _Ruckert"s_ striking remarks, remains suspended over it.
In addition to Israel, there are seven nations, and the seven are divided into three, and four; three not related to the people of the ten tribes, and four related to them; the brotherly people of Judah being introduced after three nations have been mentioned which are more distantly related to Israel.
According to _Ruckert_, it is only in chap. ii. 6-16 that the storm which remained suspended over Israel is described; then in chap.
iii.-vi. there follow four threatening discourses, which are not connected either with the preceding ones, or with each other. But the correct view rather is, that this stationary suspension is described in the whole of the first half,--in the main, indeed, even to the end of the book.
This is evident from the consideration that, if such were not the case, the treatment of the main subject would be, as regards the extent of the description, greatly disproportioned to the introduction; for chap.
i. to ii. 5 must be considered to be, throughout, merely introductory.
But as the ground on which we advance this a.s.sertion is made in opposition to an unsound view, it requires a more particular determination. It is a.s.sumed by many interpreters, that in the nations besides Israel, the prophet reproves "some haughty excesses, but, evidently, only as instances of the immorality prevailing" (_Jahn_, _Einl._ 2, p. 404). But this view, according to which the prophet might, instead of the various crimes mentioned, have noticed any other crime, _e.g._, fornication, idolatry, etc., is certainly erroneous. It is rather a _theocratic_ judgment of which he speaks throughout; they are crimes against the theocracy, the punishment of which he announces.
These he considers as being more heinous than all others; for the guilt of the latter is diminished by the circ.u.mstance of their having been committed against the hidden G.o.d only, while the former have been committed against the G.o.d who has manifested Himself, and who is living among His people. For so much is evident, that the main cause of the hatred of all the neighbouring nations against Israel was, that Israel was the people of G.o.d. For where can an instance be found of a hatred betwixt any [Pg 359] two of them, so inextinguishable, and continuing through centuries? How entirely different is, _e.g._, the position of Edom against Moab, from that of Edom against Israel? Three reasons confirm the correctness of our a.s.sertion as to the purely theocratic nature of the judgment. 1. The general announcement of the judgment.
"Jehovah roareth from Zion, and from Jerusalem He giveth His voice."
The very use of the name Jehovah here deserves attention. A judgment of a general kind upon the heathen would belong to G.o.d as Elohim. It is Elohim who is the G.o.d of the heathen,--the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the world, from whom blessings, as well as judgments upon it, proceed. Now it might be said that Jehovah is used in the case of the heathen also, for the sake of uniformity, because to Him belongeth the judgment upon Judah and Israel. But that this is not the case, is seen from the addition: "From Zion,--from Jerusalem." Every general judgment proceeds from heaven; it is only as a theocratic G.o.d, that G.o.d reigns in Zion and Jerusalem. This argument admits of no exception; all that G.o.d does from Zion is theocratic deliverance, or theocratic judgment.--2. The nature of the crimes themselves, which are cited by way of example. It can certainly not be merely accidental, that they are all such as were committed against the Covenant-people. There is one only which forms an apparent exception, viz., that of the Moabites, who are, in chap. ii. 1, charged with having burned into lime the bones of the king of Edom. But, with the consent of the greater number of interpreters, _Jerome_ remarks on this: "In order that G.o.d might show that He is the Lord of all, and that every soul is subject to Him who formed it. He punishes the iniquity committed against the king of Edom." But in this remark of Jerome, the relation in which Idumea stood to the Covenant-people is altogether lost sight of. It is only as a va.s.sal of their kings that the king of Edom here comes into view. This is sufficiently manifest from 2 Kings iii., although the event narrated there is different from that which is here alluded to, of which no record has been preserved in history.[4] The hatred against the Covenant-people, which the [Pg 360] Moabites were too weak openly to exhibit, impelled them to this wicked deed against the king tributary to them.--3. It must be carefully observed how the prophet, when coming to Judah, introduces us, at once, into the centre of _theocratic_ transgression, the forsaking of the living G.o.d, and the serving of vain, dead idols.
It will now be easily seen in what way the portion, chap. i.-ii. 5, serves as an introduction to what follows. The prophecies against foreign nations do not, as elsewhere, serve as a consolation, or as a proof of the love of G.o.d towards His people, and of His omnipotence, or as a means for destroying confidence in man"s power, in man"s help; they are, on the contrary, intended, from the very outset, to give rise in Israel to the question: If such be done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry? That question the prophet answers at large.