Chapter Seven

1–3. A vision of locusts. 4–6. A vision of fire. 7–9. A vision of the Lord with a plumb line in his hand. 10–13. Opposition to the prophet’s preaching by the Bethel priest Amaziah. 14–15. The prophet’s response. 16–17. Announcement of punishment upon Amaziah.

From Chapter VII the third section of the book of Amos begins, containing descriptions of visions that the prophet received. In these visions are revealed the thoughts expressed also in the prophet’s speeches. A series of visions is interrupted in Chapter VII by a historical narrative about the opposition to the prophet’s preaching by the Bethel priest Amaziah and concludes in Chapter IX with a messianic promise about the restoration of the fallen tabernacle of David.

Amos 7:1. Thus the Lord God showed me a vision: behold, he formed locusts at the beginning of the sprouting of the late vegetation, and this was grass after the king’s harvest. Verses 1–3 speak of the vision of locusts. «Behold, he formed locusts (govaj) at the beginning of the sprouting of late vegetation» (hallakesch). The word lekesch (Russ. “late vegetation”) is an hapax legomenon; in the Chaldean language the verb lakisch means to be late and applies to late rains, to the late autumnal season, to plantings and grain harvest (Levy, Meuhebr. Lex. 415); therefore the Russian translators gave the word lekesch in Amos 7:1 the meaning of late grass or, as with Nowack, aftermath (Nachurichs). But apparently it is more correct to compare lekesch with mikosch, spring rain, and understand it as the name of early vegetation sprouting at the beginning of spring under the influence of spring rains. Wishing to indicate more clearly what is meant by lekesch, the prophet then adds: «and this was grass after the king’s harvest» (achar gizzej hammeleeh). The king’s harvest is the collection of grass for the king’s benefit, for the maintenance of his horses (1 Sam 18:5). Apparently this collection was not made annually, for with his remark the prophet wishes to point to an exceptional concurrence of circumstances, not to note something that occurs annually. The exceptional concurrence apparently consisted in the fact that in the preceding year grass had gone to the king’s benefit, and in the new year, after the king’s harvest that had occurred, locusts ate the grass. Thus the people were deprived of grass for two consecutive years. Moreover, locusts appearing in spring, at the beginning of vegetation growth, threatened to destroy it altogether. Therefore the prophet turns to the Lord in prayer. The Greek and Slavonic texts depart considerably from the original at the beginning of verse 1: «and behold, the offspring of locusts coming in the morning, and behold, a grasshopper, one Gog the king.» The LXX apparently read the Heb. jozer («formed») as jezer and translated it epitogone—offspring, brood; the Heb. bithchillath aloth («at the beginning of sprouting») the LXX read differently and translated erchomene eothine; the words lekesch achar gizzej hammelech (and the grass was after the king’s harvest) the LXX read as jelek echad gog hammelech, Brouchos eis Gog o basileus, in Slavonic: “a grasshopper one Gog the king.”

Amos 7:2. And it came to pass, when it finished eating the grass of the land, that I said: Lord God! have pity; how will Jacob stand? he is very small. When seeing the calamity threatening the people, the prophet turns to the Lord in prayer for mercy: «And it came to pass, when it finished (Vehajah im killah) eating the grass of the land, I said»: it is unclear why the prophet appeals to God after the calamity had occurred and the locusts had finished eating the grass of the land. In view of this, commentators propose an emendation of the text of the expression given—namely, instead of vehajah imkilah they read, as in Gen 24:15 Vojehi terem killah, before it ate the grass (Wellhausen), or Vajehi hu mekalleh (Torrey). In the LXX and Slavonic text the expression is rendered in the sense of a question: «and it will be (i.e., there appeared a question or fear), if the one eating finishes the grass of the land,» which corresponds well to the context. «How will Jacob stand (mijakum).» The LXX read mijakim jaakov, tis anasthessei Iak., in Slavonic: «who will raise Jacob»; the Vulgate also has: quis suscitabit. Some commentators (Yungerov) prefer this reading to the Masoretic, in which the word mi (who, not how) raises doubt. «He is very small,» that is, has few means to rise after the calamity.

Amos 7:3. And the Lord repented of it; “this shall not happen,” said the Lord. After the prophet’s prayer the Lord spared Israel. The vision of locusts described in verses 1–3 is understood by most commentators in the literal sense as a threat of a locust invasion. The Church Fathers Ephrem the Syrian, the blessed Theodoret and Jerome, as well as some later exegetes (Grotius, Yungerov), not limiting themselves to the literal understanding of the prophet’s words, explain the vision as a prophecy of the devastation of the Israeli land by Assyrians, Babylonians, and other peoples.

Amos 7:4. Thus the Lord God showed me a vision: behold, the Lord God called forth fire for judgment—and it devoured the great deep, and devoured a part of the land. Amos 7:5. And I said: Lord God! stop; how will Jacob stand? he is very small. Amos 7:6. And the Lord repented of it; “and this also will not be,” said the Lord God. A description of the second vision of the prophet—the vision of fire. The general meaning of the description and individual expressions are not entirely clear. «Behold, the Lord God called (kore) for judgment (lariv) fire» (baesch): the Hebrew text of the expression given is rendered differently, namely—“called for judgment fire” (LXX and Slavonic: “behold he called a contention in fire”), “proclaimed that he comes to punish with fire” (Ewald), “summoned to dispute fire” (Harper), and others. «And it devoured the great deep (eth-thechom rabbah), and devoured a part of the land» (ethehachelek): thechom rabbu—the abyss, the ocean, that chaos from which the world was formed (Gen 1:2); or those subterranean waters which, in the view of ancient Hebrews, nourished the springs and rivers. In the latter case, by the fire that devoured the deep we naturally understand intense solar heat, a terrible drought, under whose influence the subterranean waters dried up. The word cheiek (part, portion) commentators usually understand as part of the land, as clarified in our translation, and specifically as part of the Israeli land. That the fire devoured both the deep and part of the Israeli land is what prompted the prophet to intercede before the Lord for an end to the calamity. It should also be noted that some commentators (the blessed Theodoret, Ephrem the Syrian, Keil) understand the second vision in an allegorical sense as a foretelling of an invasion of enemies or in general God’s wrath; fire is the wrath of God, the great deep is the pagan world, part of the land is the people of Israel.

Amos 7:7. Thus the Lord showed me a vision: behold, the Lord stood upon a plumb line wall, and in his hand was a plumb line of lead. Amos 7:8. And the Lord said to me: What do you see, Amos? I answered: a plumb line. And the Lord said: behold, I will place a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel; I will no more spare them. The description of the prophet’s vision in verses 7–9 is understood differently because the meaning of the word anach, translated in our text as “plumb line of lead,” is disputed, as anach is an hapax legomenon. The LXX translated it with the word adamantadamant—hard stone having the appearance of iron (Slavonic: “and behold a man standing upon a wall of adamant, and in his hand an adamant”), Aquila—ganoosis, a bright object, Theodotion—tekoomenon. Some modern commentators agree with the LXX translation, understanding anach in the sense of iron, whose image denotes in the vision the impending resolution (Condamin, Revue bibl. 1900, 586). The blessed Jerome accepted anach in the meaning of “polished lead,” with which walls were evened and coated to give them strength and beauty. According to the explanation of the blessed Jerome, the prophet saw the Lord standing upon a wall coated with lead (Heb. al-chomath anach), and with lead in his hands. The wall coated with lead is an image of the people of God; the Lord’s standing on the wall—with lead in his hands—is an image of the fact that the Lord guarded his people and as if adorned them with his blessings. The words of the Lord: “behold, I will place a plumb line in the midst of my people” mean that henceforth the Lord ceases to strengthen and adorn the wall, i.e., the people of Israel, and the lead he transfers to the people themselves, who must now take care of themselves. The interpretation of the blessed Jerome is accepted also by Catholic theologians (Knabenbauer, Hoonacker). In the Russian text the word anach is understood in the sense of a plumb line used for leveling and correcting curvature, and the expression al-chomath anach is translated as: “on a plumb vertical wall.” According to this translation the meaning of the vision is that Jehovah applies a plumb line to the life of the people (“I will place a plumb line in the midst of my people”) of Israel, to determine how straight its ways are; and behold, everywhere there are deviations and crookedness, which the Lord had forgiven until now, but which he will now punish. Many commentators hold such an understanding of verses 7–8 (Harper, Wellhausen, Nowack, Yungerov). But scarcely can this understanding be preferred to the interpretation of the blessed Jerome. If we accept anach in the meaning of a plumb line, it is unclear what meaning the image of chomathi anach, a plumb vertical wall, has, and then the prophet notes that the wall was perpendicular, when other walls are not [perpendicular]. Equally, it is not quite clear how the expression “I will place a plumb line in the midst of my people” can indicate impending destruction, when a plumb line is an instrument used in construction, in building. As instruments used in destruction, the Bible (Isa 34:11; cf. 2 Sam 21:13) names “a line of destruction” (ka-thohu) and “a plumb line of annihilation” (avnej-vohu).

Amos 7:9. And the sacrificial high places of Isaac shall be desolated, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be destroyed, and I will rise with a sword against the house of Jeroboam. The coming destruction will first touch the high places and sanctuaries, because they primarily turned the people away from the path of righteousness and were the center of lawlessness. Instead of the proper name Isaac, the LXX put a common noun (bomoi) gelots, in Slavonic: “places of laughter,” expressing by this the idea of the significance of the high places (sanctuaries worthy of ridicule). “And I will rise with a sword against the house of Jeroboam”: in these words lies a threat not to the house of Jeroboam I, as Ephrem the Syrian supposes, because that house had long since been destroyed (1 Sam 15:27-30), but to the reigning house of Jeroboam II. The Bethel priest Amaziah understood the prophet’s words precisely in this sense, as is evident from what follows. God’s determination concerning the house of Jeroboam II was soon fulfilled: under Shallum, king of Israel, the son of Jeroboam Zechariah was killed, and his entire family perished (2 Sam 15:10).

Amos 7:10. And Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, sent to Jeroboam, king of Israel, saying: Amos has stirred up rebellion against you among the house of Israel; the land is not able to bear all his words. The prophet’s speeches, pronounced in Bethel, perhaps before the people gathered in large numbers for some great festival, provoked opposition from the Bethel priest Amaziah. In reporting the prophet to the king, Amaziah wishes to present himself as a defender of the king’s interests. But at the same time he defends also his own interests, as well as those of the entire priestly class, since they were connected with the prerogatives of the sanctuaries, concerning the destruction of which the prophet had spoken.

Amos 7:11. For thus says Amos: “Jeroboam will die by the sword, and Israel shall surely be taken into captivity from their land. Amos did not actually say that Jeroboam himself would die by the sword (verse 9): Amaziah, apparently intentionally, presents the accusation in such a form as to provoke the king’s intervention.

Amos 7:12. And Amaziah said to Amos: O seer! go and flee to the land of Judah; there eat bread, and there prophesy, It is unknown how Jeroboam responded to the report of the Bethel priest. Theodore of Mopsuestia supposes that the king undertook nothing after the priest’s report because of his respect for the prophet and from fear of the power of prophets, as manifested in the days of Elijah and Elisha; it is also possible that Jeroboam attached no importance to the prophet’s preaching and therefore was too confident in his own power and prosperity. Then Amaziah decided to act on his own and expelled the prophet from Bethel. Seer (Heb. chozeh, Slavonic: “seeing”); prophets were called seers, indicating thereby the special gift of vision possessed only by them; but Amaziah, as one can conclude from the tone of his entire speech, calls Amos a seer in an ironic sense. “Go and flee (lech berach lecha) to the land of Judah”: more precisely—go quickly, save yourself in the land of Judah; possibly with these words Amaziah was alluding to the report sent to the king, the consequences of which may be dangerous for the prophet (Hoonacker). “There eat bread and there prophesy”: Amaziah insults the prophet by suspecting that he prophesies out of greed, for the sake of bread.

Amos 7:13. but in Bethel prophesy no more, for it is a sanctuary of the king and a royal house. Stating the reason for his demand for the prophet’s removal from Bethel, Amaziah says: “for it (Bethel) is a sanctuary of the king and a royal house.” Amaziah thus calls attention to the fact that the sanctuary of Bethel was established by the king (1 Sam 12:28-29), is a state sanctuary (royal house, beth mamlachah), and consequently only with the king’s permission can priests and prophets appear here.

Amos 7:14. And Amos answered and said to Amaziah: I am not a prophet nor a son of a prophet; I was a shepherd and I picked sycamores. In response to the words of the Bethel priest, Amos points out that he came forward to preach not arbitrarily and not for material gain, but was called to his service by God himself, whom he cannot help but obey. “I am not a prophet (navi) nor a son of a prophet” (ben navi): sons of prophets or prophetic schools were special societies of disciples of prophets, having their own organization and guided by prophets (1 Sam 10:5; 1 Sam 22; 2 Sam 4:1). By the time of Amos, apparently not all members of prophetic societies stood at the proper level, and unworthy people penetrated into their midst, assuming the title of prophets merely to earn bread. Amaziah apparently counted Amos among such prophets. When Amos rejects the designation “prophet” or “son of a prophet,” he is in no way rejecting any connection with prophets, but only wishes to say that he is not a prophet in the sense that Amaziah meant. “I was a shepherd (boker) and I picked (voles) sycamores,” Slavonic: “a shepherd I was and gathering fruit”: the verb voles is an hapax legomenon, and its meaning is not precisely known; it is understood in the meaning of gathering as in the Russian text, cleaning (Theodotion), having (Symmachus), caring for (Hoonacker), or slitting, as in the LXX (knizion); slitting of sycamores was necessary for the fruit to ripen (Pliny, Hist nat. 13, 14).

Amos 7:15. But the Lord took me from following the flocks and the Lord said to me: “go, prophesy to my people Israel. In his direct calling by God himself, Amos points out the foundation for coming forward to preach. “But the Lord took me from following the flocks” (meacharej hazzon): in verse 15 the prophet calls himself a shepherd of small livestock, flocks (hazzon), while in verse 14 he applies to himself the term boker, which means a shepherd of large livestock. This difference in names prompts some commentators to suspect the word boker and consider it a correction (Nowack). But scarcely can one say that a shepherd of large livestock (boker) could not also pasture small livestock.

Amos 7:16. Now hear the word of the Lord. You say: “do not prophesy against Israel and do not speak words against the house of Jacob. Amos 7:17. For this, thus says the Lord: your wife shall be dishonored in the city, your sons and daughters shall fall by the sword, your land shall be divided by a measuring line, and you shall die in an unclean land, and Israel shall surely be carried away from its land. Resistance to the prophet was at the same time resistance to God’s command. Therefore Amos announces from the name of the Lord punishment upon Amaziah. This punishment will strike the entire house of Amaziah. To Amaziah himself—that he will die in an unclean land, that is, in a pagan land. The fulfillment of this prophecy could have taken place as early as 734 BC when Tiglath-Pileser deported to Assyria part of the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom.