Excursus: The Vocation of
Amos
This is the only statement in the book wherein the prophet himself
sheds light on his vocation. Let us first of all note what can be taken as
assured.
1. Amos had been engaged in an occupation by which he could fully
support himself, one that had nothing to do with prophetic activity (7:14).
2. The commission to prophesy marked a change in the course of his
life, attributable neither to a decision of his own nor to other human
influences, but which he could only trace to Yahweh’s intervention (7:15).
3. The declaration in 7:14 is primarily meant to be understood as an
answer to the advice of Amaziah, who did not want to deny Amos life possibility
of earning his living (“eat bread” [אכל לחם])
and functioning as a prophet (“prophesy” [תנבא]),
but who rather intended to assure the prophet’s future by relocating his
activity across the border (7:12b: “there … there” [שׁם … שׁם]).
4. The broader context in 7:14–15 indicates no interest at all in
drawing a contrast between a then and a now in the life of Amos. However, the
unmistakably emphasized juxtaposition of the threefold “I” in 7:14 with the
likewise threefold “Yahweh” used as subject in 7:15–16 shows that the interest
here is in a correction of Amaziah’s assessment of the case at hand.
5. According to the extant wording, Amaziah called Amos a “visionary”
(7:12a) rather than a “prophet,” yet he refers more than once to the function
of prophetic proclamation (“to prophesy” [הִנָּבֵא] 7:12b, 13a; cf. v. 16b).
These observations on the text can initially serve as the basis for
answering those disputed questions relevant to the problem of whether the
nominal clauses are to be rendered in the present or past tense. Scholarly
opinion has remained almost equally divided between these options.
This problem of tense depends upon the following open questions:
a) Can a decision on the point of temporal reference here be made on
the basis of syntactical rules?
b) What is the significance of Amos’ separation from the flock (7:15a),
and especially of his present execution of the commission “prophesy!” (הִנָּבֵא 7:15b) for the interpretation of the
nominal clauses in 7:14?
c) Are the words “visionary” (חזה
7:12) and “prophet” (נביא
7:14) identical or different in meaning?
In response to question a): Ordinarily the rule holds that a nominal
clause describes a state of affairs contemporary with the time span defined by
the verbal clause with which it is associated. Since the verbal clause in
question, 7:15, reports events in the past, many have thus decided in favor of
a preterite translation of 7:14 as well. Yet reasons to the contrary compel me
to assume here an exception to the general rule. 1) As the opening of Amos’
answer, 7:14a has to be understood primarily on the basis of the immediately
preceding address by Amaziah. In this particular context, the nominal clauses
are of necessity heard as statements concerning the present status of the
prophet. 2) In 7:14 we have not merely a simple introductory clause to the
verbal sentence of 7:15, but a threefold nominal declaration which is
significant in its own right and whose present subject is the thrice repeated
“I” of Amos. 3) Resuming our line of argument begun in point 4 above, we must
recognize that in 7:15 an event of the past is referred to solely because it
determines the present. Were the purpose of 7:14 nevertheless is describe a
state of affairs antecedent to the event, then one would expect the finite verb
הָיִיתִי (“I was”) in 7:14 (comparable to the use
of הָֽיְתָה in Gen 1:2 preceding וַיֹּאמֶר in Gen 1:3). Thus a more comprehensive
assessment of the syntax favors a present-tense understanding of 7:14.
In response to question b): Can Amos deny that he is at present a
“prophet” (נביא) if he has accepted and is carrying out
Yahweh’s command to “prophesy” (הנבא)?
Many interpreters apparently assume that this question, based on 7:15b,
promptly resolves our problem in favor of a preterite interpretation of 7:14.
Reference is then also made to 3:7 and 2:11 where there are positive statements
about the “prophets.” But these passages are secondary. In the only other case
where Amos himself says something about the subject, 3:8, he likewise employs
only a verbal form (נבא nip˓al) to
characterize his activity. And it is precisely this oracle which informs that
(prophetic) proclamation, as Amos understood it, was not dependent on the
office of the prophet. The rhetorical question “If Yahweh has spoken, who will
(then) not prophesy?” surely means that no Israelite, whoever he might be,
could refrain from prophesying under such circumstances. In 7:14 as well, Amos
apparently intends to distinguish between the office and the act. “The contrast
between the ‘not a prophet’ of v. 14 and the ‘prophesy’ of v. 15” has been
“intensified almost to the point of paradox by the use of the same word stem.”
Thus Amos’ use of the verb “to prophesy” (נבא nip˓al)
cannot stand in the way of a present tense understanding of 7:14; it can only
confirm Such an interpretation.
In response to question c): Amaziah likewise employs the verb “to
prophesy” (נבא nip˓al) but not the noun “prophet” (נביא), yet he still addresses Amos as
“visionary.” Does he thereby deny to Amos the rights of a “prophetic” office?
Does he treat him as a mercenary opportunist (cf. Mi 3:5–7), an accusation
against which Amos would then have to stress that only in the past was he no
“prophet” (נביא)? We have already demonstrated, however,
that “visionary” (חֹזֶה)
and “prophet” (נביא) were not always interchangeable concepts,
and that “visionary” here is rather to be considered a less customary term of
dignity (Is 30:10; 2 Sam 24:11).39 Amos, who can tell of his
visions, does not reject this form of address. But he takes pains to indicate
that he does no thereby also claim either the professional title “prophet” or
membership in a prophetic group. Thus Amaziah’s choice of words also makes the
present-tense translation of 7:14 more meaningful than the preterite rendering.
From all this we conclude that Amos establishes a sharp contrast, as
far as he himself is concerned, between a prophet by virtue of office (נביא) and one called by Yahweh, between a
“prophet’s disciple” (בן־נביא)
trained by prophets and one sent by Yahweh, between a salaried cult official
and his own independent activity sanctioned by Yahweh alone. As a vocationally
independent man, one who neither was nor is a prophet, he must temporarily be
Yahweh’s messenger in Israel. He must thus perform for a time a function
similar to that of an Ahijah of Shiloh, Micaiah ben Imlah, Elijah, or Elisha,
but without occupying a continuing office or even being associated with a
prophetic school, as was at least in part the case with these others. He had to
affirm the directive “prophesy!” (הנבא),
but he did not thereby become a “prophet” (נביא),
even though one can appropriately call him a “visionary” (חזה). (Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on
the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical
Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 312-13)
