3:7. The utterance in v. 7 is commonly, and probably
correctly, regarded as a secondary insertion into the rhetorical unit
encompassing 3:3–8. There are several reasons for this scholarly supposition
(see Auld 1986: 30–31). First, v. 7 is written in prose, whereas the remainder
of 3:3–8 consists of poetic utterances. Second, and more specifically, this
prosaic saying abruptly interrupts the chain of rhetorical questions. Third, v.
7 discontinues the otherwise consistent focus on matters relating to cause and
effect, or observation and implication. Finally, and perhaps most important,
there is a strong tension between the message conveyed by this utterance and
the implicit statements made by the immediately surrounding verses. Auld
describes the rather awkward position of v. 7 within 3:3–8 thus: “Far from
offering a rhetorical enhancement, it actually appears to do violence to the
argument of the whole section” (1986: 31). Nonetheless, this utterance is part
of the text as we now have it; hence, it is necessary to determine its function
within its immediate literary context.
I find it likely that v. 7 was inserted for theological
reasons, in order to correct or modify certain views expressed in (or, implied
by) vv. 6 and 8. According to v. 6, calamities sent by YHWH may occur in a
city, apparently without any previous notice. In v. 7, on the other hand, we
learn that the deity “does nothing without disclosing his plan (sôdô) to his servants the prophets (ˁăbādāyw hannĕbîˀîm).” Having been
informed in advance, the prophets would, in their turn, be able to inform the
people, thus giving them a chance to repent. Arguably, v. 7 was inserted in
order to make the portrayal of YHWH less harsh and capricious. Emphasizing that
YHWH would never send disasters without warning his people through prophetic
messages, this utterance manages to exonerate the deity. Joseph Blenkinsopp has
suggested that “the stricken city is Jerusalem” and that v. 7 “places the blame
[for that disaster] where it belongs: with the people and their rulers” (2014:
131).
In addition, v. 7 apparently seeks to prevent a possible
interpretation of v. 8: that (given the right circumstances) anyone could act
as a prophet (with Auld 1991: 3). According to v. 8 (see below), a person is
compelled to prophesy when YHWH speaks to him or her. This stands in sharp
contrast to v. 7, which speaks of “the prophets” as a confined and elevated
group endowed with an honorary title (“servants” of YHWH) and enjoying
privileged access to YHWH’s council (sôd,
cf. Jer 23:18, 22). Here, the ancient idea that prophets may overhear the
deliberations in the heavenly council (1 Kgs 22:19–23; Isa 6:1–8) has been
fused with terminology linked to the ideal that true prophets ought to be like
Moses. Since the prophetic designation “servant(s)” is unique within the book
of Amos, but common in the book of Jeremiah (7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15;
44:4) and in 2 Kings (17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2), it is reasonable to assume that
3:7 was added by an editor who was inspired by Deuteronomistic theology (W. H.
Schmidt 1965: 183–85; Jeremias 1998: 54).(Göran Eidevall, Amos: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 24G; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2017], 127–128)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com