(2) Tm relation between J" and Israel. — In common with all his countrymen, Amos believed that J" was in a peculiar sense their God, and they His peojile. But they regarded the bond as a natural and indissoluble one, like that which was conceived to exist between other nations ant their deities, so that, provided they paid His dues in the form of sacrifices. He was hound in honour, and for His own sake, to protect and bless them. The prophet, on the contrary, insisted that the relation was a moral one, not merely dissoluble, but certain to be dissolved if they fell below His standard of moral requirements. It is in the insistence on this, and in the statement of these moral requirements, that the splendid originality of Amos is most clearly evinced. Ceremonial wor- ship has no intrinsic value {S'^'^) : the only genuine service of (iod consists in justice and righteousness (5") ; when immorality and oppre.<ision are practised by His worshippers, God shrinks from contact with them as f<^u<n a defilement : inhumanity and
nnbrothcrliness, nay even the failure to respect the eentimeuts of others (l'-2^), are hateful to Hiin wlien heathens are tfuilty of them, and much more so when Israel is (3-). As to the illejj;itimate methods of worshipping the Lord, he lias but little to say ; 3" 4' 8" sliow the scorn with which he regarded them. IJut it is the spirit, not the method, which finds in him so stern an anta- gonist. His main contention is that ritual, as a siibstilute for the social virtues, is an abomination. True religion consists in doing good and abstaining from harm. As in the Epistle of St. James, ethical considerations are paramount. Kigliteousness is the keynote of the proi)hecy. Tlie word Love does not occur. This bent was due primarily to liis apprehension of the di\-ine character. God, to him, was the God of Itighteousness rather than of Love. Not, of course, that the sense of the Divine Love i.s absent ; ch. 7'"' is a picture of the pUicableness which yields to the prophet's intercession, even at the moment when the stroke of punisliment is falling. But in this particular Amos stands far below Hosea. The circumstances of the time helped to fix his view. Jeroboam's victories had brought wealth and power to the upper classes, but hail left the poor worse off than of old. The basest advantage was taken of this ; the wicked meanness of the powerful provoked Amos to con- tenijit (2"). AVitliout being what is now called a socialist — for, indeed, he was in no respect a theorist — he felt deeply the rottenness of the social state ; the dignity of man was being trampled on ; the prevalent luxury was founded on oppression, and was sapping the life of those who j)ractised it. He attacks this luxury unsparingly (()■'"') ; even the custom of reclining at meals, recently introduced from the farther East, is twice rebuKed (3'' «*). The peasant, as well as the prophet, may be felt here.
(3) ITie Coming Judgment. — The Book of Amos is tlie earliest writing in wliicli the term ' Tlie Day of J" ' is used. Most probably it was current on the people's lips. They imagined that when the Lord arose in judgment it would be, not only for the establishment of His rule over the whole world, but also to their great bencht ; all their sufferings would come to a perpetual end ; dominion as large as David's would be restored to Israel. Amos saw that this ' Day ' threatened to be one of judgment on Israel itself (5"*'-"), and its coming aiijieared so inevitable that he speaks of it as already present. Unlike his predecessors, he looks on the result as totally destructive of the common- wealth (2"'« 3"" 42- s- '^ 5-'' 6 nassim, 7" y'"^'). Kepentance would have averted this (4), but the opi)ortunity has passed. The great world-power which will serve as God's instrument is doubtless Assyria, but the prophet stops short of the mention of its name (5" C *). Perhajis he was aware of the weakness under which the Eastern colossus then laboured, but believed that it would stand firmly on its feet a^ain.
(4) The Messianic picture in Q"-". — One of the weightiest reasons for regarding this as a later addition is it« incongruousness with the Visions of Judgment which have preceded. It shows us the land entirely puri'ed of the sinners, the ricli otticials wlio had abused their power. The Davidic kingdom is restored, no stress, however, being laid on the person or character of the prince at its head. The ancient bounds of the emjure are re-established, foreigners, especially the hated Edomites, being reduced anew to subjection. The Israelite exiles have been brought home, and have rebuilt the waste cities. Agricultute and vine-grow- ing tlourish to a miraculous degree on a soil of immensely increased fertility. Israel lia.s reached an earthly paradise, and will never be dispossessed.
This is a picture which would have commended itself to the men who heard Amos, as his genuine predictions did not. One point there is in common : everything is human and earthly, there is no tract of expectation of a future life.
In so early a writer as Amos it is surprising to meet with so few signs of sympathy with the modes of thought and expression which were afterwards abandoned by the higher religion of the UT. At 7" he appears to share in the common idea that other lands are unclean to an Israelite. At 9^ he adopts the widespread myth of a dan- gerous serpent inhabiting the sea, the creature, perhaps, which the dwellers on the Mediterranean coast-lands conceived of as swallowing, each evening, the setting sun. At 5'* (a disputed passage) there is probably a mythical idea involved in the mention of the constellation of 'The Fool.' (See art. OluoN.) At (i'" (another disputed passage) the superstitious dread of pronouncing the divine name amidst inauspicious surroundings is referred to without reproof.