[7:14–15] Amos’ response in vv. 14f. begins with a
double counter. The twice-repeated “not … I” (v. 14a) is countered by the
positive statement “but rather … I” (v. 14b) on the one hand, and by the “(but)
Yahweh …” (v. 15) on the other, which acquires even more weight through its
change of subject. This conceptual sequence must be kept in mind when we
consider the old point of contention, namely, whether the nominal clauses
without verbs in v. 14 are to be translated in the present (“I am no prophet”)
or past (“I was no prophet”); this question extends back to the very beginning
of biblical exegesis and still has not been resolved. Syntactically, the
understanding in past time seems more likely, and was thus chosen by the LXX
and Peshitta (the Vulgate takes a different view); this derives from the fact
that the continuation (“[but] Yahweh took me …”) is formulated in past
narrative time, albeit in distinction to the preceding v. 13. The substantive
difference is that in an understanding of v. 14 as present time, Amos rejects
the title of prophet while by contrast claiming prophetic activity in v. 15; in
an understanding as past time, Amos is usually considered to be rejecting the
title of prophet only for the past, not for the present. The wording, however,
by no means definitively allows this determination. The two explicative
possibilities do come considerably closer if one recognizes that the second
sentence member in v. 14 (“no member of a prophetic guild”) is not intended to
offer any additional statement, but rather a more precise delineation of the
extremely comprehensive first one. This also allows a more precise
understanding of the firm exegetical point of departure mentioned at the
beginning, namely, the opposition between v. 14a and vv. 14b, 15. Amos points
out over against Amaziah that he has not undergone any training as a prophet of
the sort attested for us with the same terminology (“pupils of prophets,”
“member of a prophetic company”) in the Elisha-narratives (2 Kings 2:3, 5; 4:1;
6:1; 9:1, et passim) and in 1 Kings 20:35; rather, he owes his prophetic
activity to God’s unexpected intervention in his daily life as a farmer. This
is what obliged him to step forward as a prophet in the Northern Kingdom
(concerning the coercive nature of this commission, cf. 3:8). This
clarification implies two things. First, by drawing attention to his agricultural
existence, Amos is emphasizing his economic independence. Prophetic activity
offers him no economic support such that the priest, by prohibiting him from
prophesying in Bethel, might cause him financial distress. He has at his
disposal both larger livestock (the singular bôqēr is denominated from the common word bāqār, “oxen”) as well as small livestock, unless the expression,
“take from following the sheep” (used similarly in reference to David, 2 Sam.
7:8), is merely proverbial. He also dresses sycamore figs, which prosper in the
warm climate of the Jordan depression, toward which his hometown Tekoa is
oriented; the fruit is ripened and brought to a higher degree of sweetness by
means of regular scratching or slitting, as is still done today in some
locales. For this purpose, the Targum understands Amos as owning property in
the Shephelah. In any case, he did have access to different sources of income.
A much more essential element than this clarification of Amos’
economic independence, however, is the emphasis on the authority of his
prophetic activity: “Not I …” (v. 14), “but rather Yahweh …” (v. 15). This
elevates the narrated conflict to the level at which it belongs. It is not
Amaziah and Amos who are involved in this conflict, but rather Jeroboam II (or
the state) and Yahweh. As little as Amos desired this prophetic activity, or
even prepared himself for it professionally, just as little can he determine
where he will step forward with it. In the name of the state, the priest
forbids Amos from speaking at the state sanctuary, and thus in actuality tries
to forbid God from speaking and acting with regard to his own people. The
priest’s order, “go, flee away …” (v. 12) is countered by God’s commission,
“go, prophesy to my people Israel …” (v. 15). (Jörg Jeremias,
The Book of Amos: A Commentary [trans.
Douglas W. Stott; The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1998], 139-40)
