“619. THE PLEASANT PROPHET—AMOS 1:1; 7:14-15”

The Pleasant Prophet—Amo_1:1; Amo_7:14-15

Amos was the earliest of the prophets, next to Jonah. He lived in the bitter portion of the reign of Jeroboam II, king of Israel, in the early part of which Jonah seems to have flourished. He was not, however, like Jonah, a subject of that kingdom; for he was a native of Tekoah, in Judah—a place about six miles south of Bethlehem. His prophetic mission chiefly bore reference to the northern kingdom; and in fulfillment of it, he went thither, and, in the presence of the golden-calf altar at Bethel, denounced the iniquities of Israel, and declared its impending doom. This gave much annoyance to Amaziah the priest at Bethel, who complained to the king, declaring that “the land is not able to bear all his words.” Whether Jeroboam acted on thus complaint, we are not told; but we learn that Amaziah himself advised the prophet to go back to his own country, and prophesy there. The answer of Amos is interesting, from the information which it affords respecting his condition of life—“I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore-fruit; and the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.” What resulted from this does not appear; but the prophet who gave this answer, declaring that he acted under the Lord’s command, and one who had with such unflinching boldness, discharged his mission, was not likely to withdraw, if he felt that any work remained for him to do. The tradition concerning him, indeed, is, that he remained, and was as subjected to much ill-treatment from Amaziah, whose son at length forced a nail into his temple; whereupon his friends came and removed him, still alive, to his native place, where he soon died, and was buried in the sepulcher of his fathers.

It appears, from his own account, that Amos was in fact a peasant; and the information is interesting, from the light it throws upon his frequent allusions to rural affairs, his strong sympathy with the sufferings and oppression of the poor, and his keen sense of the luxurious habits of the great, as contrasted with that condition of life with which he was most familiar. The principal of the former set of texts may receive our particular attention.

His regular employment was that of a shepherd; but as he had skill in the delicate operation required at one time of the year by the sycamore fig-tree, this became his occasional employment. In strictness he was not a “gatherer,” but a “dresser of sycamore-fruit.” The sycamore fig-tree is abundant in Palestine, and is the “sycamore,” so often mentioned in Scripture. It is a large tree, with a leaf like that of a mulberry-tree, and a fruit like that of a fig-tree; and it is from this combination that it takes its name. The fruit has the figure and smell of real figs, but is scarcely equal to them in taste, having a sort of sweetness which does not recommend it to European palates, through relished by the natives of the countries in which it grows, and to whom it forms an important article of subsistence. Naturally, it has a bitterness which would render it uneatable even to an Oriental; and it is to deprive it of this quality, by enabling the fruit to ripen sufficiently to subdue it, that the operation became necessary, which formed one of the employments of Amos. It was believed that the tree would not bear fruit at all, unless the bark were wounded at the time of budding, to allow the exudation of a milky fluid; and that the fruit produced would retain its bitterness, unless slightly scarified with an iron comb as it approached to ripeness. These two operations, or one of there doubtless, formed the “dressing of the sycamore-fruit.”

In one place Amos has an emphatic allusion to the frail booth-like structures which formed “the habitations of the shepherds;” Note: Amo_1:2. and immediately after he speaks of “threshing instruments of iron,” Note: Amo_1:3.—the mention of which by him, and with more particularity some time after by Isaiah, Note: Isa_28:27; Isa_41:15. may suggest that threshing instruments had been then but lately introduced, and naturally attracted much attention, in a country in which threshing by the treading of cattle only had been previously in use.

In another place occurs the unique and singularly agricultural comparison, “I am pressed under you as a cart is pressed that is full of sheaves.” Note: Amo_2:13. This shows that carts were used by the Israelites for the removal of agricultural produce; and it is a curious circumstance, that this is the only purpose for which carts are to this day employed in Western Asia, and that very sparingly. The carts now in use are probably just such as the Israelites had—rudely constructed, with lumbering solid wheels, and invariably drawn by oxen.

Ancient Agricultural Wain

Some explanation is needed of the passage (Amo_3:12) in which a shepherd, who has had a sheep taken from his flock by a lion, and does not hope to rescue it alive, or even the carcass entire, is represented as still anxious, even at the risk of his life, to obtain some fragment—even if it be but the feet or a piece of the ear—from the ravenous beast. The reason for this may be found by comparing Gen_31:39 with Exo_22:13, by which it appears, that when a flock was entrusted to the care of a shepherd, or other person, he was expected to make good to the owner the loss of any sheep or goat “torn of beasts,” unless he could produce the carcass, or some portion of it, in evidence of the fact, and to assure the master that his servant had not improperly disposed of it for his own benefit. The same custom subsists throughout Asia, varied by slight modifications in different countries. It is even extended to camels and horses. In Persia, for instance, many of the king’s horses are given out into the keeping and custody of certain persons. If one of them dies, the man who has charge of it cuts out the piece of skin that bears the royal mark, with a portion of the flesh adhering thereto, and takes it to the proper officer, who thereupon erases the horse from the royal register. The man, moreover, is sworn as to the fact that the animal died a natural death, and not from any want of care. And it is said that the experienced officers of the king’s stable can tell from the state of the piece of flesh, after it has been steeped some time in water, whether the horse died of hunger, hard work or violence.

Syrian long-eared Goat

The mention of “the ear” may direct our thoughts to the very long pendulous ears of one species of Syrian goat, which is in fact still the domestic species in that country. Even a piece of one of these remarkable ears might very well serve as evidence of what had befallen the animal—and, indeed, all the more proper from being so portable, and more easily preserved from corruption than more fleshy parts.

In one place Amos refers to the diseases and disasters of plants; Note: Amo_4:9. in another, to peculiar danger from lions and the bites of serpents; Note: Amo_5:19. in another, he marks, with true agricultural precision, the time of a visitation of locusts—“at the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth;” and as if this were not precise enough, he adds—“It was the latter growth after the king’s mowings.” Note: Amo_7:1.

In the last chapter, Note: Amo_9:13. there is a string of allusions to field-labor—many more may be found; and taken together, there is quite enough of this in the book of Amos to suggest to the experienced reader this prophet’s state of life, even had we not his own intimation that he was “a herdman and a gatherer of sycamore-fruit.”

Autor: JOHN KITTO